| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 20.1 | The Development of a new Human Being | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 17 1994 22:13 | 145 |
| DAY 1
Sperm joins with ovum (egg) to form one cell -- smaller than a grain of salt.
The new life has inherited 23 chromosomes from each parent, 46 in all. This
one cell contains the complex genetic blueprint for every detail of human
development -- the child's sex, hair and eye color, height, skin tone, etc.
DAYS 3-4
The fertilized egg travels down the fallopian tube into the uterus, where the
lining has been prepared for implantation.
DAYS 5-9
During this time, the fertilized egg implants itself in the rich lining of the
uterus and begins to draw nourishment.
DAYS 10-14
The developing embryo signals its presence through placental chemicals and
hormones, preventing the mother from menstruating.
DAY 20
Foundations of the brain, spinal cord and nervous system are already
established.
DAY 21
The heart begins to beat.
DAY 28
The backbone and muscles are forming. Arms, legs, eyes and ears have begun to
show.
DAY 30
At one month old, the embryo is 10,000 times larger than the original
fertilized egg -- and developing rapidly. The heart is pumping increasing
quantities of blood through the circulatory system. The placenta forms a
unique barrier that keeps the mother's blood separate while allowing food
and oxygen to pass through to the embryo.
DAY 35
Five fingers can be discerned in the hand. The eyes darken as pigment is
produced.
DAY 40
Brain waves can be detected and recorded.
WEEK 6
The liver is now taking over the production of blood cells, and the brain
begins to control movement of muscles and organs. The mother is about to
miss her second period and has probably confirmed that she is pregnant.
WEEK 7
The embryo begins to move spontaneously. The jaw forms, including teeth
buds in the gums. Soon the eyelids will seal to protect the embryo's
developing light-sensitive eyes, and will reopen at about the seventh month.
WEEK 8
At a little more than an inch long, the developing life is now called a
fetus -- Latin for "young one" or "offspring." Everything is now present
that will be found in a fully developed adult. The heart has been beating
for more than a month, the stomach produces digestive juices and the kidneys
have begun to function. Forty muscle sets begin to operate in conjunction
with the nervous system. The fetus' body responds to touch, although the
mother will not be able to feel movement until the fourth or fifth month.
WEEK 9
Fingerprints are already evident in the skin. The fetus will curve its
fingers around an object placed in the palm of its hand.
WEEK 10
The uterus has now doubled in size. The fetus can squint, swallow and wrinkle
its forehead.
WEEK 11
At this time, the fetus is about two inches long. Urination occurs. The
face has assumed a baby's profile, and muscle movements are becoming more
coordinated.
WEEK 12
The fetus now sleeps, awakens and exercises its muscles energetically --
turning its head, curling its toes, and opening and closing its mouth. The
palm, when stroked, will make a tight fist. The fetus breathes amniotic
fluid to help develop its respiratory system.
WEEK 13
Fine hair has begun to grow on the head, and sexual differentiation has become
apparent.
MONTH 4
By the end of this month, the fetus is eight to ten inches in length and
weighs a half pound or more. The mother will probably start to "show" now.
The ears are functioning, and there is evidence the fetus hears quite a bit:
the mother's voice and heartbeat as well as external noises. The umbilical
cord has become an engineering marvel, transporting 300 quarts of fluids per
day and completing a round-trip of fluids every 30 seconds.
MONTH 5
Half the pregnancy has now passed, and the fetus is about 12 inches long.
The mother has definitely begun to feel movement by now. If a sound is
especially loud or startling, the fetus may jump in reaction to it.
MONTH 6
Oil and sweat glands are functioning. The delicate skin of the growing baby
is protected from the fetal waters by a special ointment called "vernix."
If the baby were born in this month and given the proper care, he would
survive.
MONTH 7
The baby now uses the four senses of vision, hearing, taste and touch. He can
recognize his mother's voice.
MONTH 8
The skin begins to thicken, with a layer of fat stored underneath for
insulation and nourishment. Antibodies increasingly build up. The baby
absorbs a gallon of amniotic fluid per day; the fluid is completely
replaced every three hours.
MONTH 9
Toward the end of this month, the baby is ready for birth. The average
duration of pregnancy is 280 days from the first day of the mother's last
menstrual period, but this varies. Most babies (85 percent to 95 percent)
are born somewhere between 266 and 294 days. By this time the infant normally
weighs six to nine pounds, and his heart is pumping 300 gallons of blood per
day. He is fully capable of life outside the womb.
|
| 20.2 | Methods of Abortion | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 17 1994 22:14 | 77 |
| Suction Aspiration (1-3 months)
------------------
Suction aspiration abortion (or menstrual extraction if done early in
pregnancy) is used in 95% of induced abortions. A powerful suction tube
is inserted into the womb through the dilated cervix. This dismembers the
body of the developing baby and tears the placenta from the uterus, sucking
them into a container. These body parts are usually recognizable as arms,
legs, head, etc. Great care must be used to prevent the uterus from being
punctured during this procedure. Uterine hemorrhage and infection can
easily result if any fetal or placental tissue is left behind in the uterus.
Dilatation and Curettage (D&C) (1-3 months)
------------------------------
In this technique, the cervix is dilated or stretched to permit insertion of a
loop-shaped steel knife in order to scrape the wall of the uterus. This cuts
the baby's body into pieces and cuts the placenta from the uterine wall.
Bleeding is sometimes considerable. This method is used primarily during
the seventh to twelfth week of pregnancy and should not be confused with
therapeutic D&C done with a blunt curette for reasons other than undesired
pregnancy.
Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E) (4-5 months)
-------------------------------
Used to remove a child from the womb who is as old as 18 weeks, this
method is similar to the D&C. The difference is that a forceps is used to
grasp part of the developing baby who already has calcified bones. The
parts must be twisted and torn away, the placenta sliced away and bleeding
is profuse.
Salt Poisoning or Saline Method (4-7 months)
-------------------------------
Otherwise known as "saline amniocentesis" or "salting out," this technique
is used after 16 weeks of pregnancy, when enough fluid has accumulated in
the amniotic fluid sac surrounding the baby. A needle is inserted through the
mother's abdomen directly into the sac, and a solution of concentrated salt
is injected into it. The baby breathes in, swallowing the salt and is thereby
poisoned. After about an hour, the chiid dies, and the mother usually goes
into labor approximately a day later, delivering a dead, burned and shriveled
baby. This is the second most common method of inducing abortion. It is
outlawed in Japan and other countries because of its inherent risks to the
mother.
Prostaglandin (Chemical) (4-8 months)
------------------------
Prostaglandins are hormones which assist the birth process. Injecting
concentrations of them into the amniotic sac induces violent labor and
premature birth of a child usually too young to survive. Oftentimes salt or
another toxin is first injected to assure that the baby will be delivered dead,
since some babies have survived the trauma of prostaglandin birth at this
stage, and have been delivered alive. This method is usually used during the
second half of the pregnancy. A self-administered prostaglandin suppository
or tampon is also being developed for first trimester abortion. Serious side
effects and complications from prostaglandin use, including cardiac arrest
and rupture of the uterus, can be unpredictable and very severe.
Hysterotomy (6-8 months)
-----------
Similar to the Cesarean Section, this method is generally used if the salt
poisoning or prostaglandin methods fail. Sometimes babies are born alive
during this procedure which raises questions as to how and when the infants
are killed and by whom. Some infants who are attended to after a
hysterotomy have been known to survive and were subsequently accepted
by their natural mothers, or placed in adoptive homes. This method offers
the highest risk to the health of the mother. The risk of mortality from
hysterotomy is two times greater than risk from D&E.
RU 486
------
Beginning to be used in Europe. All reports speak of severe cramping,
nausea, vomiting and bleeding when women take RU486. The pill is an
abortion causing drug -- not a contraceptive -- since it is taken after
fertilization has occurred and the woman knows she is pregnant usually
because she has missed her period. Contrary to what proponents have said,
the use of RU486 is unlikely to lessen the woman's emotional trauma over
her abortion. RU486 may be a "chemical timebomb." It has a chemical
structure similar to that of DES. It will cause severe deformities in
any baby who survives the abortion attempt.
|
| 20.3 | Abortion Does Not Liberate Women | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 17 1994 22:14 | 84 |
| ABORTION DOES NOT LIBERATE WOMEN
Most modern feminists have made easy access to abortion the very symbol
of the liberation of women. The literature of the National Organization
for Women repeatedly refers to abortion as "the most fundamental right of
women" -- more important than even the right to vote and the right to
free speech. NOW has designated the protection of abortion rights as
its top priority.
This is ironic, because abortion does not liberate women. On the contrary,
abortion -- and the perceived need for it -- validate the patriarchal
world view which holds that women, encumbered as they are by their
reproductive capacity, are inferior to men.
Abortion liberates men, not women. There are three reasons for this:
o Efforts to establish abortion as a legitimate solution to the
problems of being a woman in a male-dominated society surrender
women to pregnancy discrimination. Those feminists who demand the
right to abortion concede the notion that a pregnant woman is
inferior to a non-pregnant one. They admit that pregnancy and
motherhood are incompatible to being a fully functioning adult,
and that an unencumbered, unattached male is the model for success.
By settling for abortion instead of working for the social changes
that would make it possible to combine children and career, pro-abortion
feminists have agreed to participate in a man's world under a man's
terms. They have betrayed the majority of working women -- who want
to have their children.
o Abortion allows men to escape responsibility for their own sexual
behavior. A man whose child is aborted is relieved of the requirement
that he support his children. It is not surprising that the Playboy
Foundation is a major supporter of abortion rights, because abortion
is a natural consequence of the Playboy's ideal of uncommitted,
anonymous sex without consequences. Women can be reduced to the status
of a consumer item, which if "broken" by pregnancy can be "fixed" by
abortion.
o Proabortion feminists have corrupted feminism by embracing male
standards, which hold that it is permissible to treat "unequals"
unequally, and for the powerful to oppress the weak. By accepting
this patriarchal world view, these feminists have capitulated to
male dominance. Women who agree to conform to the ideals of a world
made by and for men are not liberated; they have merely altered their
roles within the patriarchy.
``Feminism is part of a larger philosophy that values all life.''
Truly liberated women reject abortion because they reject the male world
view that accepts violence as a legitimate solution to conflict. Rather
than settling for mere equality -- the right to contribute equally to the
evil of the world -- prolife feminists seek to transform society to create
a world that reflects true feminist ideals.
Feminism is, properly, part of a larger philosophy that values all life.
Feminists believe that all human beings have inherent worth and that this
worth cannot be conferred or denied by another. True feminist thinking
recognizes the interdependence of all living things and the responsibility
we all have for one another. This feminism rejects the male view that
sees individuals as functioning separately from their fellows, in mutual
competitition.
Abortion is incompatible with this feminist vision. Abortion atomizes
women. It pits them against their own children as competitors for the
favors of the patriarchy. Abortion is of great benefit to employers
-- who do not have to make concessions to pregnant women and mothers,
to schools -- which do not have to accomodate the needs of parents, and
to irresponsible men -- who do not have to commit themselves to their
mates or their children. Women who accept abortion have agreed to
sacrifice their children for the convenience of a man's world.
Women who have been liberated from male thought patterns refuse to
participate in their own oppression and in the oppression of their
children. They refuse to accept abortion, which denigrates the life-giving
capacity of women. They strive instead to create a world that recognizes
the moral superiority of maternal thinking and is, therefore, gentle,
loving, nurturing, and pro-life. Every abortion frustrates this goal and
perpetuates the patriarchy. Liberated women will not cooperate. They
refuse abortion and all it represents.
Feminists for Life Education Project
811 East 47th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
(816) 753-2130
|
| 20.4 | Abortion Statistics | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 17 1994 22:16 | 92 |
|
The following chart, extracted from the Statistical Abstract
of the United States 1988, shows the number of legal abortion by
selected characteristic from 1973 to 1983. The statistics
covering the gestation period during which the abortions were
performed is at the bottom of the chart.
+-[Percent]--+
+-----[Number of Abortions (x1000)]----+ |Distribution|
Characteristic 1973 1975 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1973 1980 1983
-------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Total Legal Abortions 745 1034 1498 1554 1577 1574 1575 100 100 100
Age of woman:
Less than 15 years 12 15 16 15 15 15 16 1.6 1.0 1.0
15 - 19 years old 232 325 445 445 433 419 411 31.2 28.6 26.1
20 - 24 years old 241 332 526 549 555 552 548 32.3 35.4 34.8
25 - 29 years old 130 189 284 304 316 326 328 17.4 19.6 20.8
30 - 34 years old 73 100 142 153 167 168 172 9.7 9.8 10.9
35 - 39 years old 41 53 65 67 70 73 78 5.5 4.3 5.0
40 years or older 17 21 20 21 21 21 21 2.3 1.3 1.4
Race of woman:
White 549 701 1062 1094 1108 1095 1084 73.7 70.4 68.8
Black 196 333 435 460 470 479 491 26.3 29.6 31.2
Marital status of woman:
Married 216 272 322 320 299 300 295 29.0 20.6 18.7
Unmarried 528 762 1176 1234 1279 1274 1280 71.0 79.4 81.3
Number of prior live births:
None 411 543 868 900 912 903 890 55.2 57.9 56.5
One 115 194 287 305 312 321 329 15.4 19.6 20.9
Two 104 156 207 216 220 222 228 13.9 13.9 14.4
Three 61 78 82 83 85 82 83 8.1 5.3 5.3
Four or more 55 64 53 51 49 46 45 7.4 3.3 2.9
Number of prior induced abortions:
None (NA) 822 1025 1043 1023 994 964 (NA) 67.1 61.2
One (NA) 170 352 373 390 398 406 (NA) 24.0 25.8
Two or more (NA) 42 121 138 165 182 205 (NA) 8.9 13.0
Weeks of gestation:
Less than 9 weeks 284 481 749 800 810 806 792 38.2 51.5 50.3
9 - 10 weeks 222 290 413 417 424 420 424 29.7 26.8 26.9
11 - 12 weeks 131 151 204 202 204 205 210 17.5 13.0 13.2
13 weeks or more 108 112 133 136 139 143 149 14.6 8.7 9.5
+--------Age--------+ +--Marital Status---+
All 15-24 25-34 35-44 | |
Contraceptive status/method Women Years Years Years Single Married Div.
--------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------- ----
All Women (x1000) 54099 20150 19644 14305 19164 28231 6704
(Percent Distribution)
Sterile 27.2 3.2 27.9 60.1 3.2 40.9 38.0
Surgically sterile 25.7 2.6 26.4 57.3 2.6 38.9 36.1
Contraceptively sterile 17.8 2.2 19.6 37.4 1.8 27.8 21.6
Noncontraceptively sterile 7.8 .3 6.8 19.9 .8 11.0 14.5
Nonsurgically sterile 1.5 .6 1.5 2.8 .7 2.0 1.9
Pregnant, postpartum 5.0 6.3 6.5 1.0 2.5 7.2 2.6
Seeking pregnancy 4.2 3.5 6.2 2.5 1.2 6.7 2.1
Other nonusers 26.9 48.6 14.2 13.8 59.7 5.0 25.6
Not sexually active 19.5 39.4 7.8 7.8 49.6 .2 15.1
Sexually active 7.4 9.2 6.5 6.0 10.1 4.8 10.4
Nonsurgical contraceptors 36.7 38.4 45.2 22.6 33.3 40.1 31.8
Pill 15.6 23.5 17.1 2.3 18.7 13.4 15.8
IUD 4.0 1.4 6.5 4.2 1.9 4.8 6.4
Diaphragm 4.5 3.7 6.8 2.4 4.7 4.5 3.7
Condom 6.7 5.5 7.6 7.0 4.1 9.8 .8
Foam 1.3 .8 1.5 1.8 .4 2.0 1.1
Rhythm 2.2 1.2 2.8 2.6 .9 3.2 1.4
Other methods 2.5 2.3 2.9 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.7
Women Ratio
15-44 Rate per
years per 1,000
old Number 1,000 live
Year (x1,000) (x1,000) women births
---- ------ -------- ----- ------
1972 44,588 586.8 13.2 184
1975 47,606 1,034.2 21.7 331
1976 48,721 1,179.3 24.2 361
1977 49,814 1,316.7 26.4 400
1978 50,920 1,409.6 27.7 417
1979 52,016 1,497.7 28.8 422
1980 53,046 1,553.9 29.3 428
1981 53,901 1,577.3 29.3 429
1982 54,679 1,573.9 28.8 428
1983 55,340 1,575.0 28.5 436
1984 56,061 1,577.2 28.1 422
1985 56,754 1,588.6 28.0 425
|
| 20.5 | Real men don't have abortions | ROMEOS::STONE_JE | | Thu Nov 17 1994 23:10 | 9 |
| If men got pregnant, the abortion pill would have been as available as
Tums. Any man who presumes to tell Woman what they will and will not
do with their own bodies is nothing but a control freak. Mind your own
business.
Or are you going to feed, cloth and raise all the unwanted unplanned
babies? Even if you were, get a grip its not your decision to make.
You are out of it. Your opinion doesn't matter. Its the right of
every woman to make up her own mind and chart her own course.
|
| 20.6 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 17 1994 23:28 | 15 |
| This is not an issue that affects only women.
One half of all aborted children are male.
Every aborted child has a father.
This is a human rights issue that affects both genders.
It is not just a woman's control over her own body.
It is control over the life of a child. There is concern
over the pain that child feels while it is being ripped apart.
You are right about the need to help to clothe and feed women
in problem pregnancies and children that result from them. We
all share in that responsibility. I do my part; do you?
/john
|
| 20.7 | Try birth control | SECOP1::CLARK | | Thu Nov 17 1994 23:28 | 15 |
| "If men got pregnant....etc. etc.". Silly argument as men DON'T get
pregnant. Let's see we have IUD'S, diaphragms, condoms, birth control
pills and (the extreme) tubal ligation. With all of those available one
has to wonder why women have to resort to abortion as a means of birth
control. Since a lot of men out there don't care if women get pregnant
or not, I am curious as to why women are so gullible. What lines are
y ou all buying today? "Trust me I'm sterile" "Don't worry I have had a
vasectomy" or what? Can't believe in this day and age with the
availability of birth control measures that anyone has to get pregnant.
|
| 20.8 | planned sex | ROMEOS::STONE_JE | | Fri Nov 18 1994 00:29 | 16 |
| Most birth control takes planning. Most sex happens without planning.
People do it on the spur of the moment, while drunk, In love or just in
heat. People are human, they surrender to their animal instincts. If
the only kids that were born were planned, we wouldn't have very many.
I don't think a married man with children would make a statement about
women being gullible. Sex is sex. Next to food, it is the single
strongest driving force in our lives. We cannot totally control it.
We can control some of the results of sex. namely unplanned children.
it may not be pretty. But as every woman has the right to choose if and
when she has sex, she and only she can choose what will happen to any
fertilized eggs arising from that union.
You say you have the right to represent the unborn males or the father
of an unplanned egg has some say so in the matter. No you don't this
is not your garden, you can't say what grows in it.
|
| 20.9 | | AYOV20::MRENNISON | Modern Life Is Rubbish | Fri Nov 18 1994 09:11 | 3 |
|
Can someone change the topic title so that it includes a little (R)
symbol like they have on the TV listings to show that it's a repeat ?
|
| 20.10 | A new direction | REFINE::KOMAR | Just when you thought it was safe | Fri Nov 18 1994 11:26 | 21 |
| I will attempt to offer a little difference. I posted this just before
the big 'Box change. of it did not get replied to.
Pro-choice people like to compare getting pregnant to slavery. I shall
now make that comparison to see where they are coming from.
Slavery was legal. Abortion is legal. People once considered blacks to
not be completely human (3/5ths). Pro-choice advocates generally say that a
fetus is not human. Slaveowners considered slaves as part of their propety. The
pro-choice crowd says that a fetus is part of a woman's body (hence a piece of
property of the woman). Pro-choice people talk about the pro-life people forcing
their morality on those who disagree. Using this logic, the pro-choice people
should be in favor of allowing people to have slaves since we don't want to force
slaveowners to have our morality.
Now, pro-choicers will probably say that slavery is wrong. I agree.
Slavery was and is an immoral practice. But if they can "enforce morality" on
those who disagree with them, isn't it fair to "enforce morality" on the pro-
choice crowd?
ME
|
| 20.11 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Fri Nov 18 1994 12:17 | 6 |
| Dear ME:
Excellent question. I have posed this question to Terrie Woodford et
al, and nobody seems to understand the concept!!
-Jack
|
| 20.12 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Fri Nov 18 1994 12:21 | 42 |
| ME,
To begin with pregnancy is NOT slavery, FORCED pregnancy is.
given the current political climate on helping women with babies,
(Newt's 60 days and off wishes, which are shared by a number of people)
I unfortunately believe the abortion rate in this country is going to
climb again after starting to drop. these people seem to forget that
for every pregnancy, there is a man who tossed out his sperm,
willy-nilly. We don't have parthenogenisis for woman at this point.
We need better conception control in this country, as well as healthier
attitudes about sex, pregnancy, and babies. Better conception control
would be safer, more reliable and more convenient than most of the
methods we have today, as well as reversible. Sex should be seen as
something to be shared between people, rather than just rutting.
Pregnancies should be supported as well as having a baby freindly
country where breast feeding, real family leave, and new-mom support
is encouraged. We need to encourage young men to realize that they
have real resposibilities to babies they begin, not to run around
creating more that they will contribute nothing but their genetic
heritage to. We need to give women hope of a future for their
offspring, so a pregnancy isn't seen as a social and financial
disaster, but rather the beginning of a creation of new life. We need
to put a stop to doctors who treat women as if they have a disease
during labor and delivery, and end some of the violence done to women
and babies during L&D so women and babies (and fathers)_ get a better
chance to bond and love up front.
Abortions will happen as long as there are unwanted pregnancies. It is
probably one of the oldest surgical procedures in the world. It can be
a low-tech as a sharp stick pushed through the cervix and spun around
in the uterus, to as high tech as a suction abortion in a modern
medical facility where the long term health and death risks are
considerably lower than pregnancy and childbirth.
Let's attack the root cause of abortion, rather than debating its wrong
or rightness. it will happen, legal or not.
meg
|
| 20.13 | | USMVS::DAVIS | | Fri Nov 18 1994 12:23 | 23 |
| <<< Note 20.3 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
-< Abortion Does Not Liberate Women >-
Jeez, John, don't you have anything else to do? Man, you sure stacked this
topic in a hurry!
>for Women repeatedly refers to abortion as "the most fundamental right of
>women" -- more important than even the right to vote and the right to
>free speech. NOW has designated the protection of abortion rights as
>its top priority.
As a matter of fact, it IS the most fundamental right. What NOW is
protecting isn't abortion per se, it's their rights to their own body.
I would say that society and govt reaching down your throat and pulling out
your guts to declare them their province is a scarier and more profound
intrusion of your rights than not letting you say what you want or vote for
whom you want. That's why rape and murder are considered the most evil of
crimes. But you folks want to give yourselves the power to control women's
bodies. Women have climbed and crawled and clawed their way up and out of
that slippery slope for the past 40 years, and I don't blaim them for
making avoiding a return to it their highest priority.
|
| 20.14 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Fri Nov 18 1994 12:34 | 8 |
| Dear Davis:
If your body is an incubator for another body, then you like a million
other people seem to be going through sheer denial. What the hey,
let's start this record over again. What do you think Davis...living
being without constitutional protection or just a blob of cells?
-Jack
|
| 20.15 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Nov 18 1994 12:41 | 33 |
| DAY 1
Eggs form in the ovary of a female fetus.
Months later
Female is born
Years later
Eggs start ovulating, woman makes decision to save or kill unfertilized
babies.
Fertilization day
Unfertilized baby gets saved and begins development as a fetus
Fertilization day + DAY 1
Sperm joins with ovum (egg) to form one cell -- smaller than a grain of salt.
The new life has inherited 23 chromosomes from each parent, 46 in all. This
one cell contains the complex genetic blueprint for every detail of human
development -- the child's sex, hair and eye color, height, skin tone, etc.
:
:
:
Fertilization day + MONTH 9
Child is born. Pro-life loses all interest from this point forward.
George
|
| 20.16 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Memories..... | Fri Nov 18 1994 12:43 | 5 |
|
John has them in his account, I'm sure. Just waiting to spring them on
some poor unsuspecting person.... :-)
|
| 20.17 | Just answer the question, please | REFINE::KOMAR | Just when you thought it was safe | Fri Nov 18 1994 12:56 | 10 |
| I want ot officailly say that pregnancy was like slavery. My original
question remains unanswered. Pro-choice people say we don\t have the right to
force our morality on those who want abortions. I want to know if it was
acceptable to force morality on those that wanted to have slaves.
I stated my comparisons and the analogy in my last note (.10?). I want
to see the question answered by a pro-choice person without twisting the meaning,
as Meg attempted to do.
ME
|
| 20.18 | | MKOTS3::SCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:09 | 11 |
| re: .17
If you insist on robbing a woman of her ability to choose, then
you are supporting slavery. So, people who are pro-life actually
SUPPORT slavery. The forced slavery of women to their reproductive
systems.
Men who don't want women to have abortions shouldn't be having
sex with them.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.19 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:14 | 11 |
| > Men who don't want women to have abortions shouldn't be having
> sex with them.
Again, this misses the point.
Both men and women who are not involved in the abortion industry have
a right to oppose the slaughter of innocent children.
More women than men are pro-life. See the old box for the numbers.
/john
|
| 20.20 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:20 | 77 |
| > To begin with pregnancy is NOT slavery, FORCED pregnancy is.
oh please...
> given the current political climate on helping women with babies,
> (Newt's 60 days and off wishes, which are shared by a number of people)
> I unfortunately believe the abortion rate in this country is going to
> climb again after starting to drop.
Maybe... but instead it might make women and men a little more responsible
and keep them from getting pregnant in the first place... or more likely it'll
be a combination of the two... (however, if abortion were illegal, you'd
see a BIG decrease in women getting pregnant)
> We need better conception control in this country, as well as healthier
> attitudes about sex, pregnancy, and babies.
This really bugs me... I hate all these "we need a heathier..." stuff.
Give me a break. I don't think too many people view sex as bad. Most see
it for what it is and understand it's realities. Sex has consequences and
should not be entered into lightly... there is a time and place. Just
because some people think teens shouldn't be having sex doesn't mean we have
unhealthy attitudes about sex!!!
The same goes for pregnancy and babies, I fail to see where we have unhealthy
attitudes...
BTW, what is a healthy attitudes in your view? Somehow I expect it to be
increased acceptance (i.e. it's never wrong to have sex, or get pregnant,
or have babies)
> Better conception control
> would be safer, more reliable and more convenient than most of the
> methods we have today, as well as reversible.
The best conception control already exists. Self control and abstaning...
It's safe, reliable, and conenient (and free!)
> We need to encourage young men to realize that they
> have real resposibilities to babies they begin, not to run around
> creating more that they will contribute nothing but their genetic
> heritage to.
Um... what about encouraging the women to realize that they have real
resposibilities also?
> We need to give women hope of a future for their
> offspring, so a pregnancy isn't seen as a social and financial
> disaster, but rather the beginning of a creation of new life.
How about telling women it's wrong to have kids when it's sure to lead
to social/financial disaster. Tell them it's a mistake, that they should
wait and PLAN the pregnancy for when they are old enough, mature enough,
financially ready, have the father for support, etc.???
> We need to put a stop to doctors who treat women as if they have a
> disease during labor and delivery,
What are you talking about here??? You sound off the deep end on this one...
> and end some of the violence done to women
> and babies during L&D so women and babies (and fathers)_ get a better
> chance to bond and love up front.
What??? You ARE off the deep end!!!
> Let's attack the root cause of abortion, rather than debating its wrong
> or rightness. it will happen, legal or not.
But a hell of a lot less abortions happen if it's illegal... Also, it'll send
a message to the society that abortion is NOT the answer to unwanted
pregnancies. It will force more people to become responsible. Screw all this
sensitivity crap! It's plain and simple. Sex is abused in our society today,
and it's "sensitivity" crap like you're talking about which only adds to the
problem!
/scott
|
| 20.21 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:26 | 24 |
| > If you insist on robbing a woman of her ability to choose, then
> you are supporting slavery. So, people who are pro-life actually
> SUPPORT slavery. The forced slavery of women to their reproductive
> systems.
Who forced this "slavery" on them? THEMSELVES (and their lover)!!!
Not me!!!
> Men who don't want women to have abortions shouldn't be having
> sex with them.
Men and women should be having sex with eachother unless they are BOTH
ready and willing to bring a life into this world. PERIOD!
My wife and I are expecting out 2nd child. It is sooner then we would have
liked, will make our financial situation very tight, and has just basically
messed up what we were planning for our family. We could have aborted this
baby, it could easily be classified as a unwanted pregnancy to some people.
But we didn't, and won't. Last Wed, we heard his/her's heartbeat. The baby
is only around 14 weeks of age. It's alive. And we love him/her.
Abortion is simply a means to allow people to act irresponsibly...
/scott
|
| 20.22 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:30 | 12 |
| John,
the day that every conception is considered a tax deduction I might
believe you, but given that nature or mother or what ever you want to
call your higher power has stopped four of my conceptions, I fail to see
where she considers it the slaughter of innocents when others make that
decision.
I don't consider a caterpiller a butterfly, nor do I consider a
fertile egg to be a chicken.
meg
|
| 20.23 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:32 | 10 |
| re .22
Just because there are natural miscarriages doesn't mean that an unborn
child should be subject to deliberate destruction.
Children die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and from any number of
other diseases and accidents. That does not mean that the murder of
innocent born children should be allowed.
/john
|
| 20.24 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:39 | 13 |
| Scott congratualations on your unplanned pregnancy. (Only unplanned if
you were practicing BC, if you were using prayer you planned this.)
May I ask, if this is such a pain for you to start this pregnancy, why
you and your wife weren't practicing what you preach that others should
do? Or are the rules different for you? You couldn't abstain for x
years until you were ready for another life?
meg
|
| 20.25 | | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:55 | 6 |
| re Meg.
He is practicing what he preaches. He is taking responsibility
for his actions.
Steve J.
|
| 20.26 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:59 | 8 |
| No Steve he isn't
He has stated that they weren't emotionally or financially ready for
another baby, but they continued to have sex, knowing that they weren't
redy for another baby. This makes him a hypocrit in my book, as he
doesn't want others having sex if they aren't ready for kids.
meg
|
| 20.27 | | MKOTS3::SCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Nov 18 1994 13:59 | 17 |
| re: .21
If you take a previously available choice away from someone,
and replace it with your option, then you are, in fact, making
them a slave to your will.
You say that people who want to avoid pregnancy shouldn't have
sex. You could also say that people who want to avoid injury
shouldn't drive cars. Should we then take away medical care
for people who have accidents?
re: .23
Minor nit: If you believe in "Divine Intervention" then
a "natural miscarriage" is indeed deliberate destruction.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.28 | | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Fri Nov 18 1994 14:08 | 10 |
| Re Meg
Scott said that men and women should not have sex unless they are
ready and willing to bring that life into the world.
If you interpret ready literally then you are right he is a
hypocrite. I interpret ready as meaning that planned or unplanned they
were "ready and willing" to have a baby.
Steve J.
P.S. Congratulations Scott.
|
| 20.29 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Nov 18 1994 14:13 | 30 |
| > Scott congratualations on your unplanned pregnancy.
thanks.
> May I ask, if this is such a pain for you to start this pregnancy, why
> you and your wife weren't practicing what you preach that others should
> do?
Good question.
To answer, I'll just say that we both knew we were about to do something
which could end up with her getting pregnant, and knew if it happened that
it'd make things hard for several years, but we both knew we could deal with
it if it happened so we went ahead and played it "dangerous" a few times.
If we felt that there was aboslutly no way we could've had a 2nd child so
soon, she would never have gotten pregnant.
> Or are the rules different for you? You couldn't abstain for x
> years until you were ready for another life?
No, the rules are not different. Before we played it dangerous those few
times, we understood the risks and felt if it happened then we would be able
to deal with it. I dunno, maybe for some this wouldn't be classified as an
unplanned pregnancy, but in our eyes it wasn't like we "planned" it...
And just so you know what I preach, it's "Don't have sex unless you understand
the risks and are prepared to deal with the possible outcome"... I think we
practiced what we preach.
/scott
|
| 20.30 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Nov 18 1994 14:18 | 20 |
| > He has stated that they weren't emotionally or financially ready for
> another baby, but they continued to have sex, knowing that they weren't
> redy for another baby. This makes him a hypocrit in my book, as he
> doesn't want others having sex if they aren't ready for kids.
Um...that's not what I said...
(from my note, .21)
>My wife and I are expecting out 2nd child. It is sooner then we would have
>liked, will make our financial situation very tight, and has just basically
>messed up what we were planning for our family.
"Sooner then we would have liked" is not being emotionally UNready.
"Financial situation very tight" is not being financially UNready
It's just that it wasn't the IDEAL time for the 2nd baby, but we understood
it might happen and if it did then we would be able to deal with it.
/scott
|
| 20.31 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Nov 18 1994 14:21 | 15 |
| > You say that people who want to avoid pregnancy shouldn't have
> sex. You could also say that people who want to avoid injury
> shouldn't drive cars. Should we then take away medical care
> for people who have accidents?
if 2 people are not ready and willing to have a baby, yes, then they
shouldn't have sex.
If a person is not willing to take the risk of getting injured in a car,
then yes, they should drive!!!
Everyone who drives a car is willing to take the risk on injury. You're
"point" is moot and not valid.
/scott
|
| 20.32 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Fri Nov 18 1994 14:24 | 26 |
| Scott
It sounds to me like you weren't practicing prevention, but, merely
reaction, just like a person who takes responsibility after the fact by
deciding to terminate a pregnancy.
birth to me is such a holy act that it deserves to only be participated
in by the willing. anything else is perpetrating violence on women and
the child born. willing, happy parents make better parents than one
who becomes a parent by force, rather than choice.
Kinsey reported in the 50's and 60's that one of every 5 women had
terminated a pregnancy. (No joe, look it up yourself in the Kinsey
reports) Abortion was neither easy to obtain nor legal in most places
at that time and birth control was notoriously unreliable, more so than
today) both my grandmothers had abortions in the 30's as they could
not support another child on their own. One found a back alley butcher
who did abort her, but also gave her a raging infection that almost
left my dad and uncle orphans. The other used a knitting needle
herself. she wound up having a D&C after nearly bleeding out. both
said, knowing what they know now wouldn't have made a difference in
their choice at the time, but they fought to make abortion legal to
prevent what they went through happening to their daughters, daughters'
daughters, etc.
meg
|
| 20.33 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Nov 18 1994 14:35 | 19 |
| > It sounds to me like you weren't practicing prevention, but, merely
> reaction, just like a person who takes responsibility after the fact by
> deciding to terminate a pregnancy.
Wrong... before we did anything we knew what might happen...
> birth to me is such a holy act that it deserves to only be participated
> in by the willing. anything else is perpetrating violence on women and
> the child born.
You are way way way out there... "perpetrating violence on women and
the child born"??? What planet are you from?
> Kinsey reported in the 50's and 60's that one of every 5 women had
I thought all those Kinsey studies were shown to be pretty much bunk because
of the selection process used for the studies???
/scott
|
| 20.34 | | USMVS::DAVIS | | Fri Nov 18 1994 14:54 | 15 |
| <<< Note 20.14 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
> If your body is an incubator for another body, then you like a million
> other people seem to be going through sheer denial. What the hey,
A *lot* more than a million.
> let's start this record over again. What do you think Davis...living
> being without constitutional protection or just a blob of cells?
Jack, it's a developing being with protections subordinate to the
"incubator"
-Jack
Tom
|
| 20.35 | Who gets to choose | REFINE::KOMAR | Just when you thought it was safe | Fri Nov 18 1994 15:00 | 10 |
| I'll believe that a fetus is part of a woman's body when you think a
slave can be considered property.
Again, my fundemental question remains, why is it that we could "enforce
morailty" on slaveowners? What we did to the slave owners was FORCE them to
give up their slaves. Should this have been done? What is the difference
between "forcing morality" on slaveowners and "forcing morality" on people who
think abortions should be legal?
ME
|
| 20.36 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Fri Nov 18 1994 15:09 | 10 |
| Of course, if we take the "absolutely no sex until you want to pop out
a kid" mentality to its logical conclusion, single women should not
even bother to date because dating might lead to marriage, and then
you'd be compelled as a good spouse to participate in the nasty act.
I think part of the problem is that there are folks out there who can't
imagine that there could be such a thing as women who simply don't want
to bear children.
Lisa
|
| 20.39 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Nov 18 1994 15:41 | 30 |
| Re: .35
>I'll believe that a fetus is part of a woman's body when you think a
>slave can be considered property.
Truth and fact are not chips to bargain with. They simply are.
A fetus shares a circulatory system with the woman's body; it takes
its nourishment from the woman's body; for most of its existence, it
cannot survive outside the woman's body.
>What is the difference between "forcing morality" on slaveowners and
>"forcing morality" on people who think abortions should be legal?
When you limit the question like that, of course forcing morality and
forcing morality are the same. The question is, what is the difference
between owning slaves and being required to carry a pregnancy to term?
The rights involved are different. Slaveholders did not lose any
rights to their own bodies; they lost rights to the bodies of others.
We already have well-established legal precedents that a court cannot
compel an individual to undergo an invasive medical procedure.
Pregnancy would certainly qualify as invasive. So would abortion.
Conservatives claim they want government off our backs and out of our
private lives -- and then they argue to make abortion illegal. Given
their attitudes about welfare, I can't imagine court-ordered
contraceptive procedures (like Norplant, vasectomies, and tubal
ligations) would fail to appeal to them. Yet what is more intrusive
than the government legislating what you _must_ do with your body?
|
| 20.41 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Nov 18 1994 15:43 | 10 |
| Re: .37
Am I the only person who has trouble following how this:
>And how sad that is that a reduction in abortions will disappoint you.
was derived from this:
>I unfortunately believe the abortion rate in this country is going to
>climb again after starting to drop.
|
| 20.42 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Fri Nov 18 1994 15:58 | 11 |
| >> Slaveholders did not lose any
>> rights to their own bodies; they lost rights to the bodies of
>> others.
Doesn't matter. The Constitution upholds the sacredness of property
rights in this country. Slaves were not considered human, therefore
they were owned...just like a car, a house...anything. They could be
bought and traded, they held no social value to whitey in the 18th/19th
centuries!
-Jack
|
| 20.43 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Fri Nov 18 1994 16:00 | 30 |
| chelsea,
It is because Joe seems to believe that I am in favor of people having
abortions. I am not. He forgets that I have already agreed that there
are far too many abortions occuring in the world today. Our only
disagreement is that he seems to think sex is dirty unless you are
planning on making a baby, and I believe that being the animals on this
planet who are given the goddess's blessing of being able to experience
pleasure with sex at other times than fertility, that she doesn't mean
for each sex act to include conception. Else we would be like rabbits
and ovulate after having sex.
if you don't think violence is doen to people in many hospitls during
birth, I would suggest reading "silent knife, and Immaculate deception."
I would also suggest ovserving the difference in treatment by the SAME
dr. of a paying client, and one who is on medicaid. The differences
are appalling.
Joe,
kinsey was referring to non-spontaneous abortions. While he not be the
most reliable source by today's data standards, he is what was
available during that time to get information regarding sex. Since
surgical abortions were largely illegal, the numbers are hard to get
from CDC or other health agency statistics. You might Want to read the
Sunday supplement in the Rocky Mountain News from last week. They had
quite a profile on a criminal abortionist from that era.
meg
|
| 20.44 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Nov 18 1994 16:16 | 16 |
| > I think part of the problem is that there are folks out there who can't
> imagine that there could be such a thing as women who simply don't want
> to bear children.
Fine... but that doesn't mean abortion is the right thing to do in cases
where those women get pregnant...
There are other options...
And to those who wanna make it seem like us "pro-lifers" care about
saving babies but then once they are born, we don't care anymore about
the baby or mother (father) - well, I have one thing to say to you:
That's a bunch of LIES and CRAP!
/scott
|
| 20.46 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Fri Nov 18 1994 16:21 | 5 |
| .44
> That's a bunch of LIES and CRAP!
really convincing argument there.
|
| 20.47 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Nov 18 1994 16:25 | 11 |
| Re: .42
>Slaves were not considered human
They were recognized as human, but of a lower order, like children.
From a legal point of view, they were treated as property. Then the
law was changed, and from a legal point of view, they were treated as
citizens. People still have property rights; the difference is in what
constitutes property.
How is this supposed to disprove or invalidate anything I said?
|
| 20.48 | | MKOTS3::SCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Nov 18 1994 16:41 | 13 |
| re: .38
Whoa, wait a second! Do I have this right?
A baby that is "spontaneously" aborted at 3 months does not
have a soul, while one that is "clinically" aborted at 3 months
does?
This is interesting, can you explain this further? It sounds
like you are saying deformed babies don't get souls right away,
which I doubt is what you really mean.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.49 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Fri Nov 18 1994 17:07 | 41 |
| .43
> It is because Joe seems to believe that I am in favor of people having
> abortions. I am not. He forgets that I have already agreed that there
> are far too many abortions occuring in the world today.
Yes, I believe you favor abortions. Your words to the contrary
are mere lip service. When you espouse squelching debate that
will show abortion to be wrong (as you suggested in .12) and show
pride in an abortion-supporting ancestry, I have little other choice.
> Our only
> disagreement is that he seems to think sex is dirty unless you are
> planning on making a baby,
I disagree with this. One, We have many more than one
disagreement, and two, you DELIBERATELY, DELIBERATELY,
DELIBERATELY, have misrepresented my beliefs. You KNOW
that I do not believe this. I have not stated this, or
anything of the sort, and have, in fact, stated in many
entries my belief to the contrary.
I rarely resort to calling someone else a blatant liar, but
I will not hold back this time. You, Meg, degrade only yourself
by trying to discredit someone with lies as you are doing here.
> if you don't think violence is doen to people in many hospitls during
> birth, I would suggest reading "silent knife, and Immaculate deception."
I don't know if you are addressing me on this point, Meg, but
if you go back a few I was agreeing with you on this.
> kinsey was referring to non-spontaneous abortions. While he not be the
> most reliable source by today's data standards, he is what was
> available during that time to get information regarding sex.
Since Kinsey's sex studies have been generally rejected, you'd
be wise not to place so much hope in those studies. Maybe it
was Kinsey who also said that half of all pregnancies are
unplanned... Maybe he is "all we have", but if his studies
are worthless, I'd rather have nothing.
|
| 20.51 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Nov 18 1994 17:12 | 5 |
| Re: .50
Fetuses are certainly rather comparable to children. Are you going to
argue that children should enjoy the full rights of citizenship? If
not, then where is this line of argument taking us?
|
| 20.52 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Fri Nov 18 1994 17:19 | 35 |
| .48
> Whoa, wait a second! Do I have this right?
>
> A baby that is "spontaneously" aborted at 3 months does not
> have a soul, while one that is "clinically" aborted at 3 months
> does?
First of all, I was expressing how I choose to look at it.
I don't know for sure.
I believe that many of the babies that spontaneously abort
were never viable organisms to start out with. Maybe they
never developed a brain and nervous system. Maybe they
never developed at all, and all that was there was the
"infrastructure" -- the placenta -- and nothing more. Maybe
they *were* viable, and God called them back, just like any
other human being that dies. But that's God's decision, not
man's.
Most of the babies that are clinically aborted *ARE* viable,
and have had a soul from the very beginning.
> It sounds
> like you are saying deformed babies don't get souls right away,
> which I doubt is what you really mean.
You know that this is not what I'm saying. If the "deformed
baby" is in God's plan to live, he will get his soul right
away as any other baby does. If there is nothing there to
give a soul to -- if it isn't really alive but is merely a
mass of developing tissue (as abortion rights proponents would
like to believe for all cases) -- then there is no soul, and
it has nothing to do with DELAYING the bestowal of a soul at
all.
|
| 20.54 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 18 1994 17:24 | 8 |
| Joe, the delayed ensoulment argument will only get you down a path you
won't be able to recover from.
Leave souls and religion out of the argument, and concentrate on the
scientific reality that abortion is a form of physical torture to a
living human being.
/john
|
| 20.55 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Nov 18 1994 17:34 | 2 |
| First Tag teams. Now coaches.
|
| 20.56 | | MKOTS3::SCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Nov 18 1994 17:35 | 13 |
| re: .54
It's not an argument, it's a belief, and it is an interesting
one, even if I don't agree with it.
People's personal viewpoints and the reasons behind them are
far more interesting and insightful than being slowly suffocated
under the increasing weight of excerpts from religious texts....
....at least IMO :-) It'd be a lot more interesting if I knew
what John Covert THOUGHT, rather than what he had in his
library. :-)
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.57 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Fri Nov 18 1994 18:19 | 18 |
| John, I don't see what I've proposed as an argument, but
rather a personal viewpoint -- a way *I* use to help me
make some sense of some things. It started from .27 asking
"if you believe..." or something like that, and that's the
level at which I intend to keep this item.
People are free to disagree, but as long as I don't try
to PROVE this particular belief (which I have no delusions
of being able to do) I don't see it as an unrecoverable
path at all.
I also fully agree with your scientific realities, so don't
think you're being abandoned by my detour into personal
viewpoints.
And finally, my primary intent for posting this particular
reply is to make clear that I'm not going to take this particular
item any farther than my personal viewpoint. TYVM.
|
| 20.58 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Worse!! How could it be worse!?!? | Fri Nov 18 1994 19:15 | 20 |
| So, what am I?
I believe that the govt, in particular the federal govt, has no right
to make laws limiting access to abortion. It also has no right to make
laws "promoting" abortion. Does that put me on the left of this
issue? But wait, there's more...
I believe the govt has no right to use tax dollars to fund abortion for
any reason. I also believe the people who protest abortion clinics have
every right to do so under the First Amendment. I believe also that
this is the issue that Bork originally expressed his opinion about the
constitutional right to privacy... or lack thereof. People on the
"left" of this issue see it as an invasion of a woman's privacy when
they get yelled at by abortion protesters... but there is no
constitutional basis for denying the protester's right to yell at them.
Does this place me on the right of this issue?
Where does this apparent schizophrenia put me on the abortion issue?
-b
|
| 20.59 | My question still has not been answered | REFINE::KOMAR | Just when you thought it was safe | Fri Nov 18 1994 19:54 | 13 |
| I see that either the pro-choice people are not going to answer my question (only
a few have even tried) or they are in a minority.
Those that have tried keep trying to compare pragnancy to slavery. So, I shall
make that comparison. A slave was someone who did not have any free win to be a slave,
nor do anything to himself that made him a slave. Someone made him/her a slave against
their free will AND not as a result of their their actions. There is the difference
between a slave and a pregnant woman. Barring rape or incest (1% of all abortions -
Planned Parenthood), a woman concented in an act that caused her to be pregnant - having
sex with a man. Therefore, she is pregnant as a result of an action taken done of her
free will.
ME
|
| 20.60 | bits-->bites | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Nov 18 1994 19:58 | 3 |
| Try reformatting your notes so that they're readable to those of us looking
at an 80 column formfactor and you might get more bits.
|
| 20.61 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Fri Nov 18 1994 20:21 | 40 |
| Joe,
You keep harping on promiscuous little women who go out and get
themselves pregnant, and what do you think I am going to interpret
your attitudes about sex as being? You appear to me to be degrading a
loving act between two people that way. so foam if you will, but what
is your solution? All I have heard from you is ABSTINENCE to avoid
pregnancies. It won't wash that you consider sex as something special
between you and wyour wife, but something profane or those of us who
enjoy it with our partners.
BTW did you pick up the Rocky Mountain news yesterday, or do you need
my clippings? You know as well as I do that I gave you the Guttmacher
Institue as the source that almost 1/2 of all intended pregnancies
occured while using conception control. You were also given the
pointer to another supplement in the RMN which explains the kinsey
information, as well as an interesting interview with a lay abortionist
from the years before RvW.
I am proud of my grandmothers. They did what they had to in very tight
situations to keep their living children house clothed and fed. did I
mention both of them had kids at the time? did you ask why they chose
to abort? No, you launch into an attack of me and my ancestors, for
fighting for a right to make private decisions regarding fertility
which some day, MIGHT just save one of your kids lives. Or would you
deny they were your kids if a daughter chose to have an abotion after
having been given all the facts and she was in a bad situation.
Joe, I want women to have access to legal abortion to avoid the bad
old days of sepsis, sterility, death etc. I will also work my tail off
to support a woman in her choice, even if it is choosing to risk her
life and kids livelihood from too many babies too quickly for her
health and financial state. I will support the teen who decides to
give birth, as well as the one who decides to abort. I don't judge
women in the harsh black and white reality you seem to.
BTW if you want to get into souls, there are many, including myself who
don't believe in ensoulment until the first breath is taken.
meg
|
| 20.62 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Nov 18 1994 20:33 | 21 |
| >Someone made him/her a slave against their free will AND not as a
>result of their their actions.
Not always. For example, some Native Americans refused to convert to
Catholicism or submit to new rulers; they were enslaved after losing in
battle to the newcomers.
>Therefore, she is pregnant as a result of an action taken done of her
>free will.
So? Lots of people get into situations as a result of actions taken of
their own free wills. They get to find ways out for themselves, too.
The issue is control of one's self -- self-determination. Slaves don't
have it. If you compel pregnant women to carry to term, they no longer
have autonomy over their own persons. In that respect, the situations
are analogous. Not identical -- an analogy never claims that two things
are identical. It claims that they are alike in the aspect the analogy
highlights. I could claim that taxation is like slavery, too, but
there are still a world of differences between being a slave and being
a taxpayer.
|
| 20.63 | | BSS::DEASON | Duck and Cover | Fri Nov 18 1994 20:49 | 8 |
| I for one agree with my wife: If men could get pregnant, abortion would
be legal and unquestioned. As for Komar's comparison between abortion
and slavery: If I remember history correctly, there was no law
outlawing slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation. The South had
seceded long before the EP was issued. The South seceded because of the
threat of outlawing slavery, not the act. In fact, Lincoln signed the
EP to garner the support of abolitionists in the North--a group he
needed the support of during the early days of the war.
|
| 20.64 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Fri Nov 18 1994 20:50 | 69 |
| .61
> You keep harping on promiscuous little women who go out and get
> themselves pregnant, and what do you think I am going to interpret
> your attitudes about sex as being?
Do I keep harping on "promiscuous little women who go out and get
themselves pregnant"? More lies.
Who know WHAT you are going to think if you're going to fabricate
the premises for your thoughts...
> You know as well as I do that I gave you the Guttmacher
> Institue as the source that almost 1/2 of all intended pregnancies
> occured while using conception control.
You know as well as I do that I already said that the statistics
as you presented them were sloppy and incomplete at best. If
you missed it, it was in the last soapbox.
> You were also given the
> pointer to another supplement in the RMN which explains the kinsey
> information,
You were also told (by more than just me) that Kinsey studies
aren't reliable. I'm not going to waste my time with them. I
recommend the same for you.
> No, you launch into an attack of me and my ancestors,
I "launched into an attack" (and will never cease attacking)
the glorification of abortion as a "right" when a human life
gets snuffed out by each one. You may not believe that the
developing baby is a human life any more than slave owners
believed that their slaves were not humans, but that doesn't
make it right. I have no doubt that you have justified your
grandmothers' abortions to yourself (just as they did to
themselves, and you'll propogate the same to your kids), and now
you have no doubts that I fully disagree not only with the
abortions, and with the mindset that justifies them, but with
holding their example up as some great thing.
There is never a justification for taking one innocent life
to make life easier for another.
I'm sorry if you take offense at my attack of your using your
grandparents' examples as examples. You have held them up to
scrutiny, and now you don't like the result.
> fighting for a right to make private decisions regarding fertility
> which some day, MIGHT just save one of your kids lives. Or would you
> deny they were your kids if a daughter chose to have an abotion after
> having been given all the facts and she was in a bad situation.
How terribly low of you to suggest I would disown a daughter
for doing something evil like this! Now you resort to lies
by insinuation. Why do you have to stoop to such trash talk?
You try to make this an emotional issue when faced with the true
evil of the act. There are very few incidents where the life
of the mother is the issue. To wish such a situation upon the
daughter of someone opposed to your view as if it might "teach
him a lesson" or something is really a foul move. How can you
come up with these things?
> I don't judge
> women in the harsh black and white reality you seem to.
The only black-and-white I see is that abortion stops a beating
heart. I can't understand how any mother can do that to her child.
|
| 20.65 | 2 cents for your 0 sense. | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Fri Nov 18 1994 22:23 | 19 |
| What can be said on this subject that hasn't already been said?
Here's my two cents.
Justify it all you want, what if this or that all you want, abortion is
still murder. Why wait until you loose you mind and drive your kids
into a Lake. It's just another form of insanity that plagues our society.
Life begins when the little sperm meets the little egg, many refuse to
reckognize this fact, denying responsibilty and choosing abortion to rid
themselves of the inconvenience of a untimely pregnacy. How would you
like it if someone disected you in little pieces and sucked you through
tube? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I'm pretty sure that abortion techniques have improve. Like any other
money making business you have to improve in order to maintain a profit.
|
| 20.66 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Nov 18 1994 23:38 | 23 |
| Re: .65
>Life begins when the little sperm meets the little egg, many refuse to
>reckognize this fact
Many who claim this as a fact refuse to recognize the implications.
Fer instance:
Should a woman get an abortion, she and the doctor and the nurse are
all guilty of murder, plus whoever financed the abortion if she didn't.
They all go to jail for 25 to life. You're prepared to do that, right?
Since abortion is murder, we must investigate all miscarriages, to make
sure that all of these spontaneous abortions were actually spontaneous,
and not induced in any way by the behavior of the mother or anyone
else. If the mother contributed to the miscarriage in any little way,
she goes to jail.
A pregnant woman who smokes has committed assault against the fetus.
In fact, anyone who smokes near a pregnant woman is committing assault.
Therefore, they should be arrested and go to jail.
Better start building more jails.
|
| 20.67 | | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Sun Nov 20 1994 00:43 | 93 |
| Re .65,
Investigating Misscarriages?
I thought that I was a extremist, until now....:-)
Chelsea, What if the moon was made of cheese? Than we could send all
the little rodents there. Bingo, no more rodent problems.
Seriously
> Should a woman get an abortion, she and the doctor and the nurse are
all guilty of murder.
If abortion was illegal, yes. If your involved with the planning
and/or the follow through, your little tush should fry as well.
As for financer of this wonderful act of disection, I guess they would be
guilty to. Since it is not illegal, people will continue to do what
they have always done, justify thier actions behind a veil of lies
that they choose to believe.
>Many who claim this as a fact refuse to recognize the implications.
Oh, I reckognize the implications......
As far as I'm concerned, the miracle of life begins when that little sperm
meets that little egg, period.
What is there to discuss or debate?
Scientifically, speaking it's not real person until it reaches approx.
________ weeks. Yaaaaaaaaaaaa right!
Many who claim abortion as a right refuse to reckognize and respect the
early stages of life.
Most abortions are not for medical reasons, rape, or incest. If they are
show me the stats and I'll be the first to say I was wrong.
As for the womans right to choose, give me a break.
scenerio:
Sally meets johny at a party. Sally and Johny turn eachother on.
Sally and Johny decide, which apartment. Sally and Johny bounce on
the ceiling. One month later....... Sally is pregnate.
Guess what sally decides to do.
Sally not ready.
Sally doesn't want the responsibility.
Sally may be in school or a professional.
Sally may be too old or too young.
Johny skipped town.
As far as I concerned, there is no excuse for Sally of Johny. When your
pregnant, your body doesn't belong to you alone. You now have a
occupant who's residence is inside you and you are responsible for
doing all that's within your power to bring into the world a healthy
baby.
As for a mother that commits actions that are detrimental to thier
babies health, I have one question.
Should this be a crime as well? I think so.
As for the rude, inconsiderate Knuckle heads that smoke around
pregnant woman. Let's just say this:
If my wife is pregnant, and someone is smoking around her. I'll ask them
very politely, "please put out the cigarette." I hope for thier sake
that they comply, If not, they'll just have to find new pair of lips
as I rip the cig from thier mouth.
Simply put:
Abortion- lies that many believe... :'(
Peace.
|
| 20.68 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | TheTimesTheyAreA'Changin' | Sun Nov 20 1994 22:31 | 15 |
|
Abortion is, was, and always will be. Fact of life, wheather legal or
not.
I have non-religious reasons for not ever having an abortion, but that
does not give me the right to refuse anyone else the right to do what
they feel is right for their own body and their own life. Just as I
don't have the right to, in my opinion, outlaw all forms of fire arms,
or alcohol.
There is a difference between regulation and outlawing.
Terrie
|
| 20.69 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | TheTimesTheyAreA'Changin' | Sun Nov 20 1994 22:31 | 3 |
|
pro-choice snarf
|
| 20.70 | Life and that abundantly. | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 12:24 | 39 |
| Good morning Terrie,
Murder is also a fact of life, so be honest enough to call abortion what
it really is. What would you call putting a baby through a blender,
then sucking him/her through a tube or a pill that does the job.
I guess you would call it womans right to choose. I remember a time
when I wasn't a christian, my view concerning this issue was the same.
Scenerio:
Sally get pregnant, Johnny wants the baby and is willing to be a
father. Sally doesn't want to have the baby.
Forgive my french, please:
Should sally say "Screw you Johny, I'm not have the baby."
Unfortunately, Sally did srcew johny and lacks the moral fiber to be a
decent, responsible individual. It's funny how people can justify,
what they want to, when they they what to and call it a good thing.
I say we make pill that destroys moral cobwebs, than we would need
regulation.
There are other scenerio's that are unfortunate, but if I'm going to rule
in favor of anyone, I choose the babies side. That my friend this is what
you call pro-choice snarf?
(imho)
I think that the driving force behind the pro-choice movement, is the
pride, condemation and/or rebellion that lives inside the hearts many
today. Believe it or not God can even forgive this type of sin, if there
is repentence. It's more than a simple I'm sorry, but it's determination
to change. Unfortunately in my present state of spiritual maturity, I
have same problem that Jonah had.
Peace.
|
| 20.71 | Insert four-or-five letter obscenity | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 21 1994 12:33 | 13 |
| > Should sally say "[IFLO] you Johny, I'm not have the baby."
> Unfortunately, Sally did [IFLO] johny ...
Rathole...
In the English language, the use of four-or-five letter imperative verb forms
for coitus followed by the word "you" are a request that the person addressed
go somewhere and perform an act of solitary gratification. In this particular
English grammatical construction, "you" is reflexive; it means "yourself".
Just in case you didn't know...
/john
|
| 20.72 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Nov 21 1994 12:51 | 4 |
| What if it is determined that the fetus is genetically homosexual?
Does the mom still have the right to choose?
|
| 20.73 | | ANNECY::HUMAN | I came, I saw, I conked out | Mon Nov 21 1994 12:52 | 25 |
| <-.70>
>Peace.
It seems to me potentially smug, condescending and prideful to use this word
when you do not refrain from such inflammatory remarks as:
>Unfortunately, Sally did srcew johny and lacks the moral fiber to be a
> decent, responsible individual.
>the driving force behind the pro-choice movement, is the
> pride, condemation and/or rebellion that lives inside the hearts
>many today.
Can you not see that there are some people who do not share your
beliefs, and see the world differently?
It's only a quantitive step from your view of the world to those of
other of other religious persusasions, now trying to impose the
compulsory wearing of veils for women, the banning of cinemas, the
murders of non-believers etc.
|
| 20.74 | | MKOTS3::SCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Nov 21 1994 13:02 | 48 |
| re: .70
If you would like to say that murder is ANALOGOUS to abortion,
that's fine. Murdur and abortion ARE NOT equal, since murder is
not LEGAL and abortion is. All you are doing is using a simplistic
verbal short-circuit to add emotional weight to a flimsy argument.
Yawn. Be more inventive.
You are not "putting a BABY through a blender then sucking him/her
through a tube." My American Heritage says a baby is "A very young
child; infant." A fetus, however, is "the unborn young of a viviparous
vertebrate". Again we have another attempt at an emotional short-circuit.
A baby is a living breathing, being, a fetus is not. Use the proper term.
If your argument is solid, you don't need emotional catch phrases
to get people to listen to you.
You DO, however, manage to bring up an interesting scenario.
I honestly think final consideration should be with the mother.
You are asking a woman who doesn't want a child to set aside nine
months of her life to have one. These nine months include a lot of
pain and discomfort, which I imagine are heightened by the fact that
they are not of your own choosing. This nine month lag time also
allows the man ample time to get "cold feet". I do think that
if a woman wants a child and the man doesn't, the man should not have
to pay support for it. In that case, having the child is the
woman's choice. If the woman want to have the child and give it up
for adoption, that's fine. But it has to be the womans choice, since
it is the woman's life which will be most altered by the decision.
I also wonder how much of this "bone-jumping" that goes one is
expected behavior. In other words, how many women have sex
because "he expects it," or "he won't stay interested." Even in
this time of relative equality, men still are often seen as
the agressor in a relationship. How many woman say "Yes" because
they are unsure of the response "No." will get. If you want to
teach that women should be the morally stronger, are you then
surprised when we view men as weak and irresponsible, and do not
wish to take the chance on them deserting us later after the
baby comes along? If you want men and women equally responsible
for the child, make them equally responsible for the conception.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.75 | Your Amazing | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 13:25 | 27 |
| John,
Thanks for enlightening me Mr. Covert, I guess the point that was made is
not important. If your trying to say that should not have used that
particular word, your right. I thought it would get the across and I
know your intellegent enough to get it. So what gives?
By the way your arrogance is humorous, I find it especially funny when you
eloquently display your.....hmmmm, Knowledge, and it seems like that you
lust the opportunity. Are you out to prove that your a intellegent
man, by correcting me? Your actions indicate that this is true.
I can take your cheap shots, without blinking. I just find it funny
that when others throw mud, it's okay. If I throw mud, I'm being a
jerk. It's a mystery to me and if you want to enlighten me, this is
good opportunity.
I wonder if this is one the lesson that I have failed to learn, while in
the box.
Feel good about yourself John you deserve, you... ==:O
Peace.
|
| 20.76 | Eleven days? | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Nov 21 1994 13:33 | 147 |
| I'm having difficulty reconciling .-1 against the attached.
<<< ALPHAZ::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]OLD_SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< SOAPBOX: The Golden Days >-
================================================================================
Note 1951.0 A CHRISTIAN'S REFLECTIONS 31 replies
NEMAIL::SCOTTK 138 lines 10-NOV-1994 16:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last night I went to a wednesday night church service, thinking about
my adventures in the soapbox, I was quite content with myself until
Minister Thompson spoke.
Minister Gilbert Thompson Jr. tought a powerful word from God.
It found it's way straight to my heart, piercing it like an arrow.
I sat next to my lovely wife, convicted and wounded with painful
revelations. To say the least she couldn't understand my somber look
throughout the entire service, but when I told her later on that
evening, woooo hooooo.
I took little notes and did alot of listening, so I'll share the message
as best as I can.
The theme was: "The Light of Servanthood."
It was based on (NIV) John 9:4, John 21:15, and 2 Corinthians 4.
It's my hope that someone will benefit from it.
*John 9:4 (NIV)
(Words of Jesus)
"As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me."
According to Matthew 28:19,20 a christian responsibility is to be
about Gods agenda (Like Jesus was) and not thier own.
(I first must be an example, before I can teach anyone)
*John 21:15
..........Jesus said to Simon Peter,
"Simon so of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
At this point, it was as though God was asking me "Did I truly love
him?"
*2 Corinthians 4
I was once hit with a spinning hook kick to head. I saw it just in
time to move enough to avoid it's full contact. (I still felt it)
With God you can't avoid his chastening this next scripture stung me.
*2 Cor 4:2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use
deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by
setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's
conscience in the sight of God.
At this point, I was asking myself "Am I committed?, Am I living in
agreement with my professions of God? Am I a man of conviction or
preference? How much do I really love God?
<Deep breath, long exhale>
After service I was one of the people at the alter, repenting and being
prayed for.
Do you think God was finished with me at this point. He knows that I can
be as stubborn as a mule. He floored me by following through with a good
combination, which ministered directly to my heart. I was led to read
Galations 5:13-26. According to Galations 5:13-16, I violated two major
Laws of the christian walk.
1. Live by the Spirit.
2. Love your neighbor as you Love yourself.
According to Gal 5:19 I'm guilty of the following:
Impurity- This one is obvious.
Debauchary- My lewd innuendoes.
Idolatry- I worshipped every opportunity to cut someone in half.
Witchcraft- The bible calls rebellion a representation of witchcraft.
I played the rebel
Hatred- hatred represents a murder. I have committed murder in the
box.
Fits of Rage- Do the words Decapitation and Ripping of Limbs come to
mind.
Selfish ambitions- I had my own warring agenda.
Drunkenness- Like bum on a bottle, I couldn't resist a down and dirty fight.
My list of offenses are probably longer.
My biggest embarrassment was exposing the things that were in my heart.
Luke 6:45
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,
and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his
heart. For out of the overflow of his heart the mouth speaks (I can
imagine that typing is included).
I managed to greatly suprise and/or dissappoint my God, wife and
co-workers with my stupid remarks, which endangered my testimony.
Pride goes before a haughty fall and I consider this a major wake up call.
Doing what I should have done properly in first place, I believe this is
called a no strings attached apology:
Terrie, Markey, Mike, Hag, Binder, Grandpa (I don't know your name),
Mz. Debra, Doctah and for anyone that I may have offended with my
remarks.
Apology
You have my deepest most sincere apologies, from the heart.
I'm sorry for not showing the common decency, and respect that you
without asking, richly deserve.
Please forgive me for my arrogance and my rude behavior.
Moving on........
I have repented completely before God and man......
I'm forgiven by God and I've done everything that I could do for the sake
of peace.
Some may view this note as an attempt to gain pity and some may view
this note as genuine sincerity. This is not me beating up on myself,
it me being real. I just thought I'd share it anyway, regardles of the
response it gets.
My thanks to the few boxer's that I have communicated with positively
via nemail. They have my deepest respect.
I'm taken a leave of absence, and I'm considering bowing out gracefully.
Who knowns, I may just give things time for attitudes to cool off.
I will not respond to any comments made in reference to this note.
Discuss between yourselves if you like.
May your live be filled with love,
Joys that consume your sorrows,
and peace in a chaotic world.
Respectfully,
Kimball Sean Scott
|
| 20.77 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Mon Nov 21 1994 13:38 | 49 |
| re: .73
> Can you not see that there are some people who do not share your
> beliefs, and see the world differently?
Using this same logic, some folks believe that animal sacrifices should
be allowed in their ceremonies...and of course certain Satanic cults
have human sacrifices. They believe differently than most, but their
world veiws allow them to murder people and to sacrifice animals. Should
this be allowed? Where do you draw the line?
Normally, the line is drawn when human life is threatened...then said
act becomes illegal. The relativism of modern America says that this
only counts in certain cases, the unborn have no such protection- even
though it is human life and should be treated as such. Why? Sadly
enough, we can rationalize it in terms of convenience...even though
there hasn't been a spontaneous pregnancy in 2000 years (and none
before it). [in other words, you have a choice to have sex or not]
> It's only a quantitive step from your view of the world to those of
> other of other religious persusasions, now trying to impose the
> compulsory wearing of veils for women, the banning of cinemas, the
> murders of non-believers etc.
Well, we don't expect such things to be enforced in America, at least
not at this point in time. However, if you look at the slow demoralization
of America, you may see a frightening pattern. From abortion to
euthenasia now, to God knows what in the future (and he does...outlined
in Revelation), we are devaluing life.
If you believe the Revelation of Jesus Christ (last
chapter of the Bible), or read it with an open mind while looking at
what is going on in the world, you may be able see how such things
*could* come about. From our current trend of devaluing life, to the
future systematic destruction of those who fail to worship the world's
religion (those who will not compromise their docrines to fit in with the
world church...which, believe it or not, is in the works now).
It's not that much of a jump, especially when you consider the parallel
between what is happening in America today, and what happened in
Germany a generation ago when 6 million Jews were systematically
murdered. Even though America, on its own, would not inflict such a
horror on the population (at least I hope it wouldn't), what if we were
no longer a sovereign nation? It really wouldn't take that much to push us
over the relativistic edge, IMO. We are too quick to hate and too lazy to
think for ourselves.
-steve
|
| 20.78 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 21 1994 13:43 | 5 |
| Don't take things so personally, Francis Scott Key.
Especially when they are explicitly introduced as being a rathole.
/john
|
| 20.79 | One man's point of view. | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 13:56 | 18 |
| re. 73,
As for my choice of words, I could do much better. You don't know me?
Your assumption that I'm smug is wrong and that my friend is
condescending. Just like every one in the box, I have expressed my point
of views. If you don't like it, let's just that we agree to dissagree.
So what's the problem?
Moving on...
The problem with man (including myself), is that we wrestle with our
carnal mature, pride, and rebellion. At least this is the way that I see
it, period.
Peace.
|
| 20.80 | | ANNECY::HUMAN | I came, I saw, I conked out | Mon Nov 21 1994 13:59 | 3 |
| >We are too quick to hate and too lazy to think for ourselves.
....and so you need to consult a book of rules........???
|
| 20.81 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon Nov 21 1994 14:30 | 14 |
| Re: .67
>Since it is not illegal
You're arguing that it should be. Therefore, you need to plan for the
consequences of that change.
>As far as I'm concerned, the miracle of life begins when that little
>sperm meets that little egg, period.
>
>What is there to discuss or debate?
With you, nothing, since you seem to believe your point of view is the
only one that counts for anything.
|
| 20.82 | | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 15:19 | 37 |
| To all
There is something about a keyboard, it doesn't convey the full range
of expression, especially if your not as comfortable with this type
communication. I find it difficult to understand the personalities of
the box people. I admit, this is what I need to learn.
Anyway, nothing was taking personally. You call my comments ratholes.
Why, because I choose not to debate the technicalities of fetal
development, give.... me.... a break. Why, because I don't agree with the
majority. Yes, murder is illegal and by that definition alone, it wouldn't
be called murder (In man's eye). Since our society has become one rich
with legal compromise, let's just call it justified homicide.
The truth is often ugly, and often tough to face. That must be the reason
why my word-pictures are disturbing. As for my scenerio's, get real.
These situations that I speak of happen every day, and is in large a
contributer to the abortion issue. It's a fact of human nature, and if
that makes my comments a rathole, than so be it.
As for my public apology, I honestly felt that apology was deserved. I
still stand by it and since, I have shown everyone thier due respect.
So when someone dissagrees with me, they pull the only card they can find.
Yet, I'm <haa haa> accused of not learning. I have clearly moved while
others, evidently have not. Oh well you can't win them all.
I find that display of my previous notes a tribution to your own
shortcomings. As far I'm concerned you can display any number of my notes
and while you continue to do so, think yourself better than I.
Peace.
|
| 20.83 | | POWDML::CKELLY | twelve ounces low | Mon Nov 21 1994 16:06 | 5 |
| free clue:
kimball, john was telling you not to get in a huff because HIS
note started the rathole. Has more to do with reading comprehension
than with personalities.
|
| 20.84 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Nov 21 1994 16:11 | 7 |
| Jack:
When alot of people read about Jesus making a whip and chasing the
moneychangers out of the temple, they can't reconcile his methods
either!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.85 | What side of the fence are you on? | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 16:46 | 58 |
| Chelsea,
>with you, nothing, since you seem to believe that your point of view
>is the only one that counts for anything.
Let's be fair about it. I believe, what I believe with a burning passion,
so to that extreme you are absolutely right. Is this true for me only?
I think not and I can imagine that your experiences in box will agree
with this fact. I see things as black or white, right or wrong, period.
Any opinion is word hearing out, but that will never make it right, if
it's wrong. Am I the anwer man, "NO". Do I claim to be. "NO."
I learned this lesson along time ago:
You can not convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced.
Try convincing a crackhead not rob someone for his/her next fix.
Based on what I believe, you can't convice me that the mutilation of a
unborn fetus is not murder. I doubt that alot of the pro-choice advocates
would be convince otherwise as well.
You said that I should plan for the consequences (which I could), but it
requires a major over-haul on the the majority of society's ways.
Something that I doubt many are willing to do. Like any war, there is
a price to pay and we will have some casualties.
For those who like to pull up old notes:
If someone would like to show me, the copy of one of my notes pertaining to
my plan for the War against drugs, I believe that it can serve as a model
with some revision if neccessary.
Moving on......
As we continue to see science progress, we'll see a increased use of
genetic screening.
Doctor:
Boy or Girl
Twins or no twins
Blue eyes or black
Doctor:
I'm sorry to inform you that your son/daughter has a genetics defect
that we can not repair. He or she will be born without a__________.
If you like, we can provide counciling if you should decide to abort.
You may even be contributing to life of another with the contribution
of your fetus, to science.
Peace.
|
| 20.86 | | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 16:52 | 6 |
| re. 83,
Thanks for the clue. I'm glad it was free, Lord knows that I payed for
quite a few.
peace.
|
| 20.87 | | HAAG::HAAG | Rode hard. Put up wet. | Mon Nov 21 1994 17:25 | 6 |
| Note 20.86 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK
>Thanks for the clue. I'm glad it was free, Lord knows that I payed for
>quite a few.
you haven't paid for a damn thing. pitiful self promotion aside.
|
| 20.88 | This is a smiley. example :-) | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 18:28 | 25 |
| Haag,
First you don't smiley.
Second you assume that you know the limits of my experiences.
I'm convinced now. You definitely have a problem, but there's nothing
that this solution can't Fix.
Solution:
Take ten laxatives, eat plenty of broccoli, and drink lots of apple juice.
If this can't help you, nothing will.
Haag you haven't learned how to keep peace, and it's binding up. I'm
trying to make a effort not to be a antagonist, and you just seem to
have an attitude towards me. I can tell you this much, the above
prescription should fix your problem. Maybe you'll learn how to
move on. Let's pray for miracle even, maybe you learn how to smiley.
Give your tired, lame, grumpy attitude a vacation, you need it.
KImball
|
| 20.89 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Mon Nov 21 1994 18:34 | 4 |
|
if you were ever fortunate enough to see mr. haag's _real_
smile, you wouldn't forget it. it's a beauty.
|
| 20.90 | | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 19:02 | 4 |
| re. 89
Give Miss O'brien my regards, I believe she uses the node.
|
| 20.91 | | HAAG::HAAG | Rode hard. Put up wet. | Mon Nov 21 1994 19:17 | 13 |
| Note 20.88 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK
>>Second you assume that you know the limits of my experiences.
you seem to think i give a damn.
>Haag you haven't learned how to keep peace, and it's binding up. I'm
>trying to make a effort not to be a antagonist, and you just seem to
>have an attitude towards me. I can tell you this much, the above
>prescription should fix your problem. Maybe you'll learn how to
>move on. Let's pray for miracle even, maybe you learn how to smiley.
your worse than restroom was.
|
| 20.92 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon Nov 21 1994 19:32 | 11 |
| Re: .85
>You said that I should plan for the consequences (which I could), but
>it requires a major over-haul on the the majority of society's ways
No, it doesn't. All it requires is that abortion be legally defined as
murder. The consequences follow naturally; otherwise, they aren't
consequences. If abortion is murder, then it naturally follows that
anyone who participates in one must be charged with murder. Anyone who
harms a fetus must be charged with assault. There's no overhaul of
anyone's ways, simply an enforcement of the law.
|
| 20.93 | Why don't ya getta along, little doggy. | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 19:48 | 28 |
| Haag,
I guess you didn't take that laxative, oh well.
Does this mean that you wont be my buddy? :'(
Does this mean that you'll continue to be a grump? >:>
Mailman is gone and I think that you should show allittle respect,
he's not here to defend himself. I know you don't care, otherwise you
would stopped acting like a butt a long time ago.
You say I haven't learned, Okay. Why do't you show me way, by an
example. I'm pretty sure you can be good example, your being the expert on
everything.
>find some other flame to throw gasoline on.
Yep, I do believe that you sed somethin like that, pardna.
I don't know haag, maybe you should consider following your
own advice.
Kimball
|
| 20.95 | FYI | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Mon Nov 21 1994 19:53 | 3 |
| re: Note 20.93 by NEMAIL::SCOTTK
Tugging on supermans cape ain't too smart partner.
|
| 20.96 | | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 20:16 | 11 |
| re .95
If superman wants to fly on, than so will I. If not........
Me Hulk will crush puny superman.
I'd rather the happy the "Ho Ho Ho" Happy green giant.
Peace.
|
| 20.97 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Senses Working Overtime | Mon Nov 21 1994 20:19 | 11 |
| Doc, it hurts when I smack myself in the head like this...
Then don't smack yourself in the head...
Oh...
(sometime later)
Doc, it hurts when I smack myself in the head like this...
|
| 20.98 | Topic 16, please... | TROA08::SYSOPER | TROOA::COLLINS | Mon Nov 21 1994 20:25 | 5 |
|
.96:
Okay, Kimball. Take it to `The Ring'!
|
| 20.99 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Mon Nov 21 1994 20:40 | 3 |
| Jpe doesn't see a problem with jailing women for life if they abort.
Joe, how many kids are you planning on taking in when you toss their
mothers in the clink?
|
| 20.100 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Mon Nov 21 1994 21:09 | 24 |
| You just don't understand, Meg, that you are supporting the
idea that, "if they're going to do it anyway, why make it
illegal..."
In drug-war topics this is common. It is countered with, "Should
we do the same thing with murder?"
Guess what? We do.
And even if you don't see abortion as murder, we as a society
are slowly accepting "It's not my fault" for murder defense,
in effect slowly legalizing murder of those we both agree are
human lives.
Slippery slope you're proposing there...
Many people say that abortion is not technically murder because
abortion is legal. If it becomes illegal and legally declared to
be murder, then yes, jail those invloved in the murder. (And
your "jailed for life" ruse is meaningless as most murderers
don't end up with life today anyway...) Of course, you are
making an assumption that if abortion becomes illegal, then
it also means that it becomes murder. You're just trying to
make it seem so extreme and ludicrous. Typical.
|
| 20.101 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Mon Nov 21 1994 21:22 | 12 |
| Joe,
You already said you don't have a problem with prosecuting people
involved in an abortion. You also call it murder, and in fact it is
a premeditated act, except for the collateral damage OR inflicted when
they caused the miscarriage of a clinic escort.
You haven't answered the question. How many children of women in jail
are you planning to adopt if abortion becomes illegal and considered
premeditated murder?
meg
|
| 20.102 | | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Nov 21 1994 21:27 | 25 |
| Chelsea,
>No it doesn't..............
You can't change the laws to define abortion as illegal, unless you
change society's over all attitude on the subject. How can we vote the
laws into enactment without pro-choice being the majority point of view.
>The consequences follow naturally.
Agreed, I did not mention in .67, the specifics of legal actions, but I
did make it clear that anyone involved should be considered an
accomplice.
As far as enforcing the laws, simply look at our legal systems track
record. It needs a overhaul.
I agree with most of what you said, with exception to society not needing
a overhaul.
Peace.
|
| 20.103 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Mon Nov 21 1994 21:44 | 27 |
| .101> You already said you don't have a problem with prosecuting people
> involved in an abortion. You also call it murder, and in fact it is
> a premeditated act, except for the collateral damage OR inflicted when
> they caused the miscarriage of a clinic escort.
I have said that I see it as murder. Who knows what our legal
system will call it if abortion becomes illegal. Are you saying
that I am in charge of making the laws now?
I also believe that it is murder for anything after the moment
of conception. But I personally believe (and would rejoice in
it) that if abortion were to become illegal, it would be for
some limited set of abortions, like after the 10th week, or
the first trimester. And I also believe that it wouldn't be
considered first degree murder, and that the mother wouldn't
be prosecuted but rather the doctor.
> You haven't answered the question. How many children of women in jail
> are you planning to adopt if abortion becomes illegal and considered
> premeditated murder?
More extreme emotionalism?
Super.
OK. If the mother aborts the child, then it's already dead and
won't have to go to jail. Moot point. :^)
|
| 20.104 | | DTRACY::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon Nov 21 1994 23:40 | 6 |
| Re: .102
>You can't change the laws to define abortion as illegal
Changing the law is NOT a consequence. It is a cause. Therefore, the
consequences require no changes.
|
| 20.105 | | DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE | | Tue Nov 22 1994 00:27 | 5 |
| If abortion is made illegal, what about women who go out of the
country to get one. Should we forbid the practice like Ireland did. how
would you enforce that. Would pregnant women become "politcal
prisoners"? Just wondering.
S.R.
|
| 20.106 | | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Tue Nov 22 1994 12:00 | 20 |
| Good morning Chelsea,
This is my rational:
Sally gains a new moral understanding in her view towards abortion,
this is change.
Sally decide not to have an abortion (consequence of change)
Change follows consequence and consequence creates change.
For every action there is a reaction, which creates an action.
Changed laws is the consequence of changed views, in which people
took action and changed the laws.
I think that we are debating a moot point..... if your point of view
work for you, than stick with it. I just don't see much of a
difference the two, because they interdepedent.
Peace.
|
| 20.107 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Tue Nov 22 1994 12:31 | 9 |
| Joe,
Many women who have abortions in this country already have living,
breathing children. If a woman practices what could become first
degree murder of a fetus, are you planning on taking in her other kids,
or leaving them out on the street, or what??? Since you are so
strongly into "family values" this inquiring mind would like to know.
|
| 20.108 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 22 1994 12:36 | 7 |
| re .107
And what of a mother who kills one of her _born_ children?
How should the rest of her born children be cared for?
/john
|
| 20.109 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Tue Nov 22 1994 14:59 | 46 |
| .107
Meg,
> Many women who have abortions in this country already have living,
> breathing children.
Duh. I guess you missed the smiley when I made that response
to your emotionally-charged question. I guess you are so bent
on being angry that you refuse to pay attention. I guess you
just don't get it that I don't expect the mother to face any
serious legal consequences, but rather the "health care"
provider will. What of his/her children? Same deal as for any
drug dealer, pimp, or thief that gets sent to jail. No longer
can you cry about the "desperate situations" faced by such as
these. They simply choose to dabble in illegal "services".
And to the person who asks about getting abortions out of the
country, most likely nothing will come from it.
But one last thing. As much as you've tried to instill compassion
in me for women seeking abortions by concocting tear-jerking
scenarios, I just can't understand the thinking that it takes
to deliberately kill one's child. I don't understand it for
the Smith case in Carolina, and I don't understand it for your
grandmothers. I **especially** don't understand it for women
who already have children -- who have experienced firsthand
the joy of holding that new life, of nurturing it and watching
it grow. How such a woman can simply snuff out what she has
already started when she has seen what life means is simply
incomprehensible to me. If she is so desperate, perhaps she
shouldn't be a mother at all. So she terminates the next one
coming up. What if that isn't enough? I'm sorry, Meg, but
compassion for people who are capable of discarding any offspring
in any way is simply not a part of my repertoire. I truly believe
that "compassion" for aberrant behavior is a terrible cancer in
this society.
> If a woman practices what could become first
> degree murder of a fetus, are you planning on taking in her other kids,
> or leaving them out on the street, or what??? Since you are so
> strongly into "family values" this inquiring mind would like to know.
Since I've already made myself perfectly clear (woman will not
go to jail), I guess I don't need to stress how poorly I think
these ridiculous emotional exaggerations reflect on you.
|
| 20.110 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Tue Nov 22 1994 15:48 | 13 |
| And if she self-aborts?
there is a nice little kit sold by a company for "menstrual
extraction." it can be used by a person to remove the contents of a
uterus to shorten and "regulate" periods, as well as for endometrial
biopsies. It comes with a training video.
Oh, thats right, you wouldn't know unless she damaged herself in the
process would you? what if she gets a script for an ulcer remedy and a
psoriasis rememdy and uses them in conjunction? You wouldn't know then
either.
meg
|
| 20.112 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Tue Nov 22 1994 17:33 | 19 |
| Joe,
try walking a mile in a woman's shoes with too many kids to support,
no safety net, and the so-called supportive partner walking out the
door to play with some bimbo. Try finding out you have tuberculosis
and that the currently forming embryo is likely to be born with this
and die as well before there were effective treaments for TB. Try
realizing that unless you live your kids will have no one to care for
them and will wind up in an orphanage. This is what one grandmother
faced during the depression.
Try watching your husband dying in a hospital bed, (here again no safety
net) in a foreign country and knowing you couldsupport your currently
living children in poverty but they could survive as long as you can
find work. try this in an era when pregnant women weren't hired.
then come back with your understanding or lack thereof.
meg
|
| 20.113 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Nov 22 1994 17:46 | 3 |
| > try walking a mile in a woman's shoes
I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK...
|
| 20.114 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Tue Nov 22 1994 18:23 | 9 |
| Wow, Meg. Break out the violins.
Try telling me that this is the reason for any significant
portion of abortions out there. Try understanding that you've
tried all these examples on me already.
Try to see how long you can stay angry at me.
I still see no reason to kill one of my kids over these "reasons".
|
| 20.115 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Tue Nov 22 1994 18:32 | 14 |
| Joe,
being abandoned by a partner or having a partner refuse support is
still one of the reasons given by women for terminating pregnancies.
read in here about people who don't believe men should have to support
their share of a pregnancy and subsequent child if a man doesn't want
the woman to give birth to his child.
I won't break out the violins, but when we have people planning on
removing the safety net for pregnant women and small children, and
still don't push men to be careful of their genetic material I can only
see the abortion rate going up even further.
meg
|
| 20.116 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Wed Nov 23 1994 15:23 | 19 |
| .115
> being abandoned by a partner or having a partner refuse support is
> still one of the reasons given by women for terminating pregnancies.
So is "It interferes with my ski vacation", but neither are
representatively common reasons.
> read in here about people who don't believe men should have to support
> their share of a pregnancy and subsequent child if a man doesn't want
> the woman to give birth to his child.
You know that this isn't part of the what I say. I'm very much
with you on this. You choose to become an angry pit bull over
specific portions of my ideology without looking at the whole
picture and how many of your issues would be addressed by other
aspects of what I'm saying. Instead you pick and choose from
various participants' positions, mold them all together and then
get angry at me for it.
|
| 20.117 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Wed Nov 23 1994 15:28 | 25 |
| Joe,
P&K on this one. You have ignored the common ground I tried to reach
with you, and pick on pieces of mine. Your credibility with saying you
are looking for a common place of reference is pretty low, if that is
what you are saying you are trying to do.
1. We both agree that there are too many abortions in this country.
2. We disagree that making abotion illegal will do anything other than
increase the price and danger to born, breathing women, many of whom
are already raising children.
3. We seem to disagree that if youu fail to support women in a
pregnancy that you will increase the number of pregnancies which will
be terminated.
4. we seem to disagree that more convenient, reliable, reversible and
safe contraciption needs to be made available.
5. I don't see you agreeing that we should explain to children and
grownups engaging in sex (most don't use BC the first time, you know)
that a partner who doesn't take precautions for you doesn't love you.
meg
|
| 20.118 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Wed Nov 23 1994 15:48 | 10 |
| Meg:
I know what you have stated on this and your position; but I still
believe Norplant or a safer version of it is a perfect compromise.
Women of assistance MUST have Norplant or a facsimile if they are to
receive assistance. It is not force...it is their choice. I believe
if Norplant were safe and effective, this would be a HUGE step in the
right direction!!
-Jack
|
| 20.119 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Wed Nov 23 1994 15:53 | 9 |
| Jack,
and you a christian. BTW do you realize that in the information
on NORPLANT that if you do become pregnant there is a strong likelyhood
of deformaties and possible death to the fetus? Tell you what, lets
just make all men store sperm when they are young and vasectomize them.
Makes as much sense, and is much safer.
meg
|
| 20.120 | | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Wed Nov 23 1994 16:02 | 9 |
| This is a topic I will stay away from, but since I stumbled into a
comment on NORPLANT I must mention that there was a spot in the news
over the weekend about more problems with women who had been using
NORPLANT. Apparently side affects are much more severe and far
reaching than originally thought. I wouldn't be willing to have it
in my body until the manufacturer is a little more forthcoming and
honest.
|
| 20.121 | re .117 | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Wed Nov 23 1994 16:20 | 45 |
| > P&K on this one. You have ignored the common ground I tried to reach
> with you, and pick on pieces of mine.
Ah, but I don't try to say that (or at least hint that) others'
positions are yours. That's what I really was saying in that
last one. You are getting angry at me for contradictory positions
held by others.
> Your credibility with saying you
> are looking for a common place of reference is pretty low, if that is
> what you are saying you are trying to do.
I really don't see hope for "common ground" between us except on
some fringe items which don't really amount to a hill of beans
compared to the differences. And that major difference is that
I see the developing baby as a human life worthy of respect
and protection.
> 3. We seem to disagree that if youu fail to support women in a
> pregnancy that you will increase the number of pregnancies which will
> be terminated.
Wrong. See .37 where I fully agreed with your statement in
.12 regarding this point.
> 4. we seem to disagree that more convenient, reliable, reversible and
> safe contraciption needs to be made available.
I haven't stated much on this because I do not support this
personally, but I can see that this could help a lot from
a humanistic perspective.
> 5. I don't see you agreeing that we should explain to children and
> grownups engaging in sex (most don't use BC the first time, you know)
> that a partner who doesn't take precautions for you doesn't love you.
I agree with this, but I go a step beyond this to say that one
shouldn't engage in sex until he (or she) is sure that person
loves him/her, and even more, until that person has married him/her.
Under the right circumstances that we should all strive for,
"precautions" aren't even necessary. Preaching "precautions"
waters down the message of the ideal relationship.
But all this agreement is fluff compared to our differences.
|
| 20.122 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Wed Nov 23 1994 17:36 | 24 |
| Meg:
I acknowledge your concerns regarding Norplant. What I would like to
know is this. If something similar to Norplant, either for men or
women could be invented...something with very minimal or no risk, would
you be open to this compromise? I believe this would reduce the
abortion rate tremendously in the inner city.
Remember, it is NOT forced. It is something available for women who
wish to receive federal or state assistance. Requirements for losing
Norplant...
Graduate from high school.
Hold down a job.
Prove your competence as a parent through training or some other mode.
Get Married!
Otherwise, no government assistance...period! I think this is more
than fair and offers great incentives to get an individual functional
in society. It will build self esteem, empower women in the long run,
lower the cost to the taxpayer, lower dependency, make government
smaller, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, lower the abortion rate DRAMATICALLY!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.123 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 23 1994 17:48 | 68 |
| This is from the November issue of "UFL Pro Vita" the newsletter of
University Faculty for Life.
We would like share with you an account we received recently of a Pro-
Life conference held at Cornell two years ago. It was written by
Angeline R. Duane, a student at Cornell, and the current President of
one of our student counterpart organizations, American Collegians for
Life (ACL). This is a national group, and UFL President Father Tom
King serves on thier Board of Directors. For the last four years,
UFL has made presentations at ACL's annual conference in Washington
at the time of the March for Life.
**********************************************************************
Hostility Greets Pro-Lifers on Campus
In the Fall of 1992, the Cornell Coalition for Life attempted to
host a pro-life conference on campus. At first, the school
administration, refusing to authorize the conference because it was
'too controversial.' Of course, Cornell University regularly hosts
speakers advocating animal rights, lesbian rights, and dozens of
other fringe causes. But the rights of unborn babies is such a
radical concept that even 'open-minded' Cornell could not tolerate
it. After considerable pressure from pro-life students, the Cornell
administration finally relented and allowed the conference to take
place. But there was one caveat: the authorities required us to have
campus police at the event to provide 'security.' As we would find
out, this was a wise precaution.
The conference was set to begin at 10 o'clock on a beautiful
Saturday morning, but by 8:30, there was already a large group of
radical pro-abortion and homosexual activists loudly protesting
outside our lecture hall.
In an attempt to keep students from entering the hall and hearing
the pro-life viewpoint, the pro-aborts locked arms and physically
blocked the doors. The police had to physically remove some of the
demonstrators so that students could enter the building. Still, this
was only the beginning of our troubles, because pro-abortion fanatics
had infiltrated the crowd in the lecture hall.
Our first speaker of the day was Mr. James Bopp, legal counsel
for the National Right to Life Committee, but he had barely started
his address when the pro-aborts stood up and began screaming
obscenities in the middle of his talk. Then, several of the
demonstrators rushed to the front of the hall, ripped the microphone
out of the podium, and blocked the lectern so that the conference
could not continue.
Despite repeated pleas from campus police, these pro-abortion
radicals refused to leave the building. They made it clear to us
that their intent was to 'shut the conference down,' and they almost
succeeded. Still, after more than 35 campus police officers arrived
on the scene, we were successful in convincing the most radical of
the protesters to leave the room.
But as the pro-aborts were leaving the lecture hall, one of them
seized a pro-life literature table, flipped it over, and sent it
crashing to the floor. Campus police rushed to arrest this fanatic,
which then sparked a violent riot outside the lecture gall. In the
ensuing struggle, two pro-aborts were arrested, and a female police
officer was physically assaulted and so seriously injured that she
missed several weeks of work while recovering.
At this point, we did what any dedicated pro-life group would do
-- we closed the door behind the rioters, and continues with our
conference. We refused to let these terrorists prevent us from
bringing the truth to students who deserved and needed to hear it.
So, we stood up for the rights of the unborn despite the attempts
to silence us. Just like many other pro-life students that day, I
was cursed at, spat upon and shoved around. And to add insult to
injury, we were ordered to pay a $3500 bill to cover the cost of
security during the riot. Naturally, we refused to pay. As you can
see, there are few environments more hostile to the pro-life message
than the modern college campus.
|
| 20.124 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Wed Nov 23 1994 18:16 | 7 |
| John,
You mean your side is shocked when another side acts out the way that
many "pro-life" organizations have at clinics? At least the
demonstrators didn't shoot anyone, and justify it for saving lives.
|
| 20.125 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Wed Nov 23 1994 18:19 | 11 |
| jack,
given the intrusieness of implants, no I still wouldn't agree. While I
don't approve of people having more children than they can support, I
fully believe in the right to choose one's reproductive destiny.
Pro-choice means just that. I also wouldn't want to tread on the
religious beliefs of those who believe artificial contraception to be a
sin, by forcing them to choose between help for their kids or a life
without their god.
meg
|
| 20.127 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Wed Nov 23 1994 19:37 | 8 |
| Meg:
You have to compromise or things aren't going to change. They'll just
harass the local drug stores that sell RU486...believe me, it won't be
a victory for the Molly Yard camp. The venue is just going to
change...that's all!
-Jack
|
| 20.128 | | DTRACY::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed Nov 23 1994 19:50 | 11 |
| This isn't quite the compromise we discussed in the previous edition.
The compromise there was that if you didn't have a verifiable method of
birth control (which includes tubal ligation, hysterectomy, or a
partner's vasectomy), then you wouldn't get an _increase_ in assistance
for a new child. Also that verifiable methods would be covered by
health care, so they were freely available.
Otherwise, you're penalizing women and their current children for what
they MIGHT do in the future. What you want to do is penalize women who
become pregnant without regard to financial circumstances, just as
people who aren't on welfare are penalized.
|
| 20.129 | | POWDML::CKELLY | A Tin Cup For a Chalice | Wed Nov 23 1994 23:13 | 4 |
| uh, meg, i think john is simply pointing out that the pro-choice
side can be as obnoxious and obstructive in their 'peaceful' protests
as are the pro-life. neither side, imo, can claim moral high-ground
with their behaviours.
|
| 20.130 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 24 1994 10:06 | 47 |
| General Motors suspended John M. Stasa, a tool and die maker at Powertrain
Division (Toledo), on Saturday, April 16, for wearing a button picturing the
severed head of a 24-week-old baby killed by abortion, in full color, with
the caption, "FREEDOM OF CHOICE???" On April 22, the U.S.- EEOC found
sufficient grounds to allow a charge against General Motors to be filed and
to initiate an investigation. Stasa has now filed a $50.5 million civil
rights lawsuit against GM.
Although Stasa, a 17-year employee of GM, has been wearing the button for
five years, the button suddenly became an issue on Monday, April 11. When
Stasa came to work, resource facilitator Bill Wallington requested that he
remove the button. With that, another resource facilitator, Richard Sobech,
shouted, "I am offended by your button, and I am going to make an issue of
it." Later that week, on April 16, superintendent John Tate, resource
director Wallington, and staff assistant Bob Griffith suspended Stasa at 11
a.m., and told him not to return until the following Monday.
Stasa was suspended on the charge that he had refused to remove the button
(shop rule n. 15: failure to obey a direct order). When Stasa sought
protection from the union, Ed McNulty, chairman of Local 14 UAW, told Stasa
that both Local 14 President Oscar Bunch and the International Union in
Detroit had been called, and the the button Stasa was wearing was "not a
protected button". The pay stubs following GM's action suspending Stasa not
only reflected the time lost, but also the standard deduction for monthly
union dues.
A survey of employees' reactions to the disciplinary action against Stasa
indicated widespread, enormous support for his First Amendment rights of
free speech and religion. It was also evident that they were shocked that
not only would GM discriminate against Stasa, but that the union would allow
GM to get away with it.
When asked for his reaction to all this, Stasa said, "I feel naked, not
wearing that button. To think that this nation of so-called Christians puts
up with the slaughter of over 36 million innocent babies, paid for by our
own tax dollars and our corporate health insurance, is appalling. The union
endorses political candidates who vote for and legislate in favor of
abortion, such as Senators Metzenbaum, Glenn, and Kennedy and Congressmen
Kaptur and Dingell, along with president Clinton. They also support
Clinton's 'health care' plan, and GM representatives tell me to remove my
button because they find it 'offensive'? What about the baby's feelings
while being ripped apart? What about the mother, who is being lied to and
used for money? What about my wife's and my children's feelings as their
generations are being wiped out?"
John Stasa filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court in Toledo on Tuesday,
Sept. 27.
|
| 20.131 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Dig a little deeper | Thu Nov 24 1994 12:35 | 10 |
|
Whatza "resource facilitator"?
Jim
|
| 20.132 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Not Phil, not Tom, not Joan... | Thu Nov 24 1994 12:49 | 3 |
|
So...what are his plans for the $50.5 million?
|
| 20.133 | | CALDEC::RAH | the truth is out there. | Thu Nov 24 1994 12:55 | 9 |
|
employers can regulate speech when it can be shown that
such regulation is related to safety on the job. a verdict
in a case in Kaliph upheld an employer's right to restrict
language of conversation on the job to English. The rationale
was that worker on an assembly line needed to communicate in
a common language to avoid accidents.
I would not be suprised if GM make a similar argument at court.
|
| 20.134 | protect your rights | STRATA::OCONNELL | | Thu Nov 24 1994 22:41 | 7 |
| re: <1
i fail to see your analogy, freedom of speech vs. speaking english
for safety reasons.
1st amendment right seems to one of opinion for GM.
another working holiday stiff...
|
| 20.135 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Nov 29 1994 20:48 | 36 |
| Here we go - the 'Chairman of the Central New York Right to
Life Federation' convicted of paying someone to commit a crime,
a clinic assault. Convicted of conspiracy.
This is just for the people who were so outraged when I suggested a few
months ago that the leaders of so-called right to life groups were
probably involved in the criminal conspiracy against clinics. Choke on
your own words of those days, you who denied it - as another misguided
criminal goes to jail.
DougO
-----
AP 28 Nov 94 15:34 EST V0342
Copyright 1994. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) -- An anti-abortion activist pleaded guilty Monday
to paying a woman to spill a foul-smelling acid in the bathrooms of
two clinics.
The 1993 attacks made about 40 people sick to their stomachs and caused
nearly $50,000 in damage.
John Arena, 73, had planned to argue that the butyric acid attacks were
justified.
"The judge made it clear he was not going to allow the defense of
necessity. I couldn't bring up the fact that babies were being killed
-- and there goes the case," he said.
Arena, chairman of the Central New York Right to Life Federation,
pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, conspiracy and violating public
health laws.
He could get seven years in prison on the criminal mischief charge
alone at sentencing Jan. 24.
|
| 20.136 | | CALDEC::RAH | the truth is out there. | Tue Nov 29 1994 20:57 | 2 |
|
can't you find something closer to home to be outrayged about?
|
| 20.137 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Nov 29 1994 21:20 | 5 |
| outrayged? Over an incredibly timely conspiracy conviction, when the
obvious likelihood of same was so hotly denied in here? I'm chortling
with glee!
DougO
|
| 20.138 | Yer right, Doug, when you called it 'so-called' RTL group | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Oracle-bound | Tue Nov 29 1994 21:30 | 1 |
| NEver heard of the New York Right to life Federation.
|
| 20.139 | Grip this | SECOP1::CLARK | | Wed Nov 30 1994 00:19 | 5 |
| .5 ..get a grip its not your decision to make.
Wrong! As long as we are a nation of laws and I have a right to vote,
my decision does count. "If men got pregnant..". What an utterly trite
stupid argument. Fact is men DON'T get pregnant so that is a
meaningless argument.
|
| 20.140 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | No Federal Tacks on the Info Hwy! | Wed Nov 30 1994 00:22 | 6 |
| trite, yes.
stupid, no.
meaningless, no way, not for me.
|
| 20.141 | The $50,000 damage sounds bogus | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 30 1994 01:30 | 14 |
| Give me a break!
This is non-violent clinic protest. Nothing worse than anti-war activists
spilling blood.
Spilling butyric acid (semi-deliberately) is probably something half
the people noting here did in high school chem lab and the other half
wanted to.
It endangers noone, and just smells like vomit.
Big hairy deal.
/john
|
| 20.142 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Nov 30 1994 09:50 | 9 |
| <- one would definitely conlcude your complacency and one might even
determine you condoning the behavior.
I'll bet it was a "big hairy" deal to the folks who went through it.
The latitude given to these obsessed - nearly out of control (and
sometime extremely violent packs) never ceases to amaze me.
Chip
|
| 20.143 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 30 1994 12:05 | 12 |
| Butyric acid (aka butanoic acid) is what you smell when butter goes rancid.
Why is a form of civil disobedience such as this OK when it's done by civil
rights protestors, by anti-war protestors, by animal-rights activists (fur
protests last Friday), or by any other liberal-cause-of-the-day?
Yet when it's done to protest the slaughter of innocent babies, it's
supposed to be some awful crime.
Right.
/john
|
| 20.144 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Who says I can't? | Wed Nov 30 1994 13:38 | 5 |
| re: .143
You are right John. It should be a crime in all cases.
...Tom
|
| 20.145 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Wed Nov 30 1994 13:55 | 11 |
| .143
> Why is a form of civil disobedience such as this OK when it's done by
> civil rights protestors, by anti-war protestors, by animal-rights
> activists (fur protests last Friday), or by any other
> liberal-cause-of-the-day?
it's not. i know an antiwar protester who was jailed numerous times
for various infractions, tne most severe of which occurred the day she
and another protester poured a pint of their own blood on the steps at
sanders. did some jail time, they did, and rightly so.
|
| 20.146 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Nov 30 1994 14:36 | 1 |
| .143 I don't recall saying that, John.
|
| 20.147 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Wed Nov 30 1994 15:02 | 19 |
| John,
those who commit civil disobedience in other formats have been jailed,
had their heads bashed and even killed knowing that was part of the
price of fighting injustice. I don't understand why you would think
differently.
Creating vomiting or gagging during a surgical procedure could injure
and even kill the person undergoing a procedure. but since it was in
"the name of life" I suppose endangering a woman isn't violent.
Neither would be leaving a partially compleated procedure because the
Dr. is unable to function.
John, this little act of civil disobedience could have killed someone.
It also cost 50K in damages to a building. Had there been someone with
an epiglottis which spasms, that person could also have been killed.
and this was done in the name of life? color me a little incredulous.
meg
|
| 20.148 | | ODIXIE::CIAROCHI | One Less Dog | Wed Nov 30 1994 15:36 | 9 |
| Actually, now that the statute of limitations has run its course, I can
admit to being one of the individuals responsible for spreading
limburger cheese on the handrails of all the stairwells in my high
school on "senior day".
I was quite effective. I think the vomit smelling acid would have been
less disruptive...
...anyway, many went home, and those classes held had open windows...
|
| 20.149 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 30 1994 15:38 | 5 |
| Did you hear about the new "morning after" pill being developed as a
replacement for RU-486?
It's called RU-Pentium. It causes the embryo to not divide correctly.
|
| 20.150 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | The Quintessential Gruntling | Wed Nov 30 1994 15:39 | 1 |
| <--------- BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!
|
| 20.151 | | GMT1::TEEKEMA | Barney made me do it !! | Wed Nov 30 1994 15:40 | 8 |
|
Bwwwwwwwwahahahah...............THUD.....
I fell off my chair for that one, I am getting strange looks
from folks walking by my office.......Good one.....A hall of famer.
%^) %^) %^)
|
| 20.152 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 30 1994 16:30 | 1 |
| I confess. I stole it from another notesfile.
|
| 20.153 | you missed the point | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Nov 30 1994 16:51 | 14 |
| >it's supposed to be some awful crime.
my contention was that leaders of right-to-life groups were likely
involved in criminal conspiracies, supporting assaults on clinics with
under-the-table logistics support and money. My statements were roundly
derided. I was told I had no proof, that I was slandering finely
principled men, that they would never do such things, that I was
deluded. Yet here we are, and a conspiracy conviction has been
reached for activities by a rtl group leader just as I alleged were
likely.
Revenge is sweet.
DougO
|
| 20.154 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | grep this! | Wed Nov 30 1994 17:16 | 5 |
|
>Revenge is sweet.
Taste it while you can I guess...
|
| 20.155 | | ODIXIE::CIAROCHI | One Less Dog | Wed Nov 30 1994 17:18 | 5 |
| Are y'all beginning to suspect that ol' Doug is going around the
country, framing anti-abortionists for crimes, just to get revenge in
the 'box?
I think we need to keep an eye on this guy...
|
| 20.157 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Wed Nov 30 1994 18:22 | 7 |
| New York Right to Life, is part of the national Right to Life groups,
one of the oldest "pro-life" organizations in this country. As a rule
they tend to limit themselves to quiet pickets, giving money to
abortion alternative centers, and education efforts. it is a shame
that this person decided to stoop to Army of God methods.
meg
|
| 20.159 | Curiousity ... | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Wed Nov 30 1994 21:13 | 4 |
|
Just wondering, are there any hard numbers relating to the org charts for
pro-life groups and pro-choice groups, regarding gender? That is, are most
pro-life groups headed by males and most pro-choice groups headed by women?
|
| 20.160 | | ODIXIE::CIAROCHI | One Less Dog | Thu Dec 01 1994 01:13 | 1 |
| Most of the people getting abortions are women, if that helps...
|
| 20.161 | Abortion benefits men more than it benefits women | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 01 1994 03:52 | 15 |
| >are most pro-life groups headed by males
No. Most prolife groups are headed by women.
Women are consistently more pro-life than men. Nearly two thirds of the
members of "National Right to Life", the largest pro-life affiliation, are
women. Of the Right to Life delegates elected by the 50 states and DC,
thirty-eight were women and only thirteen were men.
The most consistently pro-choice group consists of single men ages 19-44.
An Ohio University Poll determined that 59% of women are prolife, while
only 46% of men are prolife.
/john
|
| 20.162 | | USMVS::DAVIS | | Thu Dec 01 1994 11:46 | 20 |
| <<< Note 20.161 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
-< Abortion benefits men more than it benefits women >-
>An Ohio University Poll determined that 59% of women are prolife, while
>only 46% of men are prolife.
That's a new one on me. A MAJORITY of people are for illegalization of
abortion?! (That's what you're implying) Nonsense.
As for the numbers of women in the "pro-life" movement. Well, it is an
issue efecting women most of all, so it stands to reason. I'm also inclined
to make a generalization about women in the Catholic church as a rule
being more "into religion" than men, but I won't.
Abortion "benefits" men and women about equally. The threat to a woman's
right to make decisions about her own body however affects women more than
to men (but don't be fooled into thinking that turning your back on that
right may not end up biting men in the arse sometime down the road.)
Tom
|
| 20.163 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Dec 01 1994 13:23 | 8 |
| >That's a new one on me. A MAJORITY of people are for illegalization of
>abortion?! (That's what you're implying) Nonsense.
Yes, well, we hear a lot of that in here. It starts out that "The majority
of Americans are Pro-life" when what's really meant is that "the majority
of Americans don't favor abortion as a method of birth control." It's
apples and oranges, actually, but admitting that tends to take away from
the effect.
|
| 20.164 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 01 1994 13:38 | 13 |
| The majority of Americans do not believe that the current court-mandated
nearly unrestricted access to abortion is appropriate.
The majority of women believe that the child's right to be born outweighs
the woman's right to choose whether to bear a child from the moment of
conception. (52.6%, 1991 Gallup Poll.)
They know when life begins.
Only 5.5 percent of women (and 9.6 percent of men) agree with the current
laws permitting abortion up until birth.
/john
|
| 20.165 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Thu Dec 01 1994 14:07 | 6 |
| 20.166 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 01 1994 14:21 | 10 |
| 20.167 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Thu Dec 01 1994 15:56 | 11 |
| The reason I was asking is that most of what I have heard from prolife groups
seem to come from orgs headed by men like Randall Terry (and some other
male-headed groups, I don't remember). Clergy-related prolife statements
usually seem to come from males, and prolife congresscritters usually seem
to be male, while most female legislators seem to be prochoice (this is not
surprizing tho, since congress types sell whatever it takes to get them
elected).
Some of the "impartial" polls also phrase their questions like:
"Do you believe in unrestricted abortion on demand (thru 8.999 months)", and
if you say no, then that counts as a prolife vote.
|
| 20.168 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Thu Dec 01 1994 20:40 | 1 |
| DOOM!
|
| 20.169 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 01 1994 22:46 | 12 |
| > The reason I was asking is that most of what I have heard from prolife
> groups seem to come from orgs headed by men like Randall Terry (and
> some other male-headed groups, I don't remember). Clergy-related
> prolife statements usually seem to come from males, and prolife
> congresscritters usually seem to be male,
You aren't the only one to have so noticed. John doesn't like to talk
about the reality that so many of us have noticed. He prefers to claim
that women run major pro-life groups and make up most of the membership.
But when asked for hard numbers, well, you saw his handwave.
DougO
|
| 20.170 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 02 1994 00:25 | 19 |
| What "handwave"? The hard numbers are that two-thirds of the largest
federation of pro-life groups are women. The hard numbers are that
38 delegates from the 50 states and DC were women vs. only 15 men.
That was no "handwave", those are hard facts.
The President of NOEL (the National Organization of Episcopalians for
Life) is a woman. The local chapter chair is a woman. The President
of Massachusetts Citizens for Life is a woman. The President of Friends
of the Unborn (a residential center for women with problem pregnancies and
new babies) is a woman. The official spokesperson for the National Conference
of Catholic Bishops is a woman.
The majority of Pro-Life organizations are not involved in breaking news like
Operation Rescue. Most Pro-Life organizations are involved in education, in
providing alternatives to abortion, in helping mothers after the child is born,
in quiet prayerful protest, in political action, and other things that the news
media don't consider news.
/john
|
| 20.171 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Dec 02 1994 00:47 | 6 |
| saying so doesn't make it so. I footnoted 'hard' facts previously;
it means documented. Feel free to make all the claims you want about
the numbers, John; until you include a verifiable source, I'll feel
free to call them a handwave to a request for hard numbers.
DougO
|
| 20.172 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 02 1994 01:42 | 8 |
| Verifiable source: for the membership and delegates, see John Willke,
"The Real Women's Movement", National Right to Life News, 14 Dec 1989, 3.
For the organizations I listed: Call them.
For the polls, call Gallup, call the University.
/john
|
| 20.173 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | I'm an orca. | Fri Dec 02 1994 15:00 | 7 |
| I've still never heard of the New York Right to Life Federation,
and apparently no one else can provide any info about them either
(save their newsworthy-ness in .135).
Who are they? How long have they been in existence? Do they
really exist? Saying so doesn't make it so. Is there any
documentation on them besides what's in .135?
|
| 20.174 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | grep this! | Fri Dec 02 1994 16:03 | 8 |
|
If MMERCIER were still around, he might say it was a conspiracy by the
pro-abortion crowd to descredit the pro-life people....
Naaaaaaaaahhh... could never happen... could it?
|
| 20.175 | Wouldnt the world be a nicer place without... | PEKING::ROBINSONP | | Fri Dec 02 1994 16:27 | 20 |
| Mr Covert, you amaze me:
Explain something to me if you will; suppose I , carelessly or
otherwise, get pregnant....my decision at the time is that i cannot
afford/do not want the child , but the option of abortion is not open
to me.What do I do?Do I 1/ get someone to punch me in the stomach until
I miscarry?
2/Go for the good old hot & cold bath
treatment?
3/Just put up with it for the full term, wait
till its born & then dump it?
4/Say'to hell with it, I'll make the sacrifice
and totally f. the rest of my life by bringing another unwanted baby
into the world, which co-incidentally, will probably make the childs
life complete cr..
You are not God, sir.Judge not lest thou be judged.Sanctimonious,
parochial git.And personally, I dont care if my spelling isn't worth
shite.
Pierre
Righteous people just pistle me off.
|
| 20.176 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Fri Dec 02 1994 17:45 | 8 |
| Pierre:
The populace of a country has to take pride in their mores, actions,
and ideologies...
Keep your dirty laundry off my front yard!
-Jack
|
| 20.177 | A sensible variation on your third option | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 02 1994 18:16 | 7 |
| re .-2
I could not find the word "adoption" anywhere in your reply.
Consider that.
/john
|
| 20.178 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 02 1994 18:19 | 7 |
| BTW, I don't think you'll find a note in this topic where I've "judged" anyone.
If you're going to quote the bible, you might read a little further on in the
same chapter after the "judge not, lest ye be judged" quote, where you will
see the explicit direction to admonish and correct others.
/john
|
| 20.179 | | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Mon Dec 05 1994 13:01 | 61 |
| re.175
>Mr Covert, you amaze me:
I blasted John with that one before. I wouldn't say that he is amazing,
but I will say that he can be intriguing and thought provoking at times.
Okay, okay I'll admit it, it amazes me how comes up with his facts.:-)
It would appear that Mr. Covert does his homework.
>Explain something to me if you will; suppose I, carelessly or
>otherwise, get pregnant......
Stuff happens, what can you do about it? Well your actions concerning
the circumstance will determine the stuff that your made of.
>My decision at the time is that I cannot not afford/ do not want the child.
My mother raised three boys, for the most part by herself and I'm pretty
sure that abortion was an option. Could she afford it, at times no.
We went without some wants, but she always managed to meet the needs.
Did she have to put her dreams on hold, yes. I'd like to imagine that
she believed that creating life meant taking on the responsbility that
came with it, no matter what the cost.
>4/ Say to hell with it, ill make the sacrifice and totally f. the rest
of my life by bringing another unwanted baby into the world.
This is more a matter of how you choose to view the circumstance.
Another unwanted baby? I think the parent is the one that determines
this.
>Which co-incedently, will probably make the childs life completey
cr...
For all intents and purposes, I didn't turn out so bad. In fact I'm
what I'm a "Productive part of Society"
>You are not God, Sir.
Making a decision to take a life, isn't?
>Judge not least ye be judged.
Hmmmmmmm, Your using the Word ........and your pro-choice.
Now that's bold.:-)
Sanctimonius Parochial Git.
Woooow, I thought that I was creative, but that was pure genius. :-)
If we're going to judge John, let's judge his reaction to your note,
I personally think that it was pretty civil, after being call a
Sanctimonius Parochial Git <Laughing> :-)
>I don't care if my spelling isn't worth _____
Your not alone on this one.
Agreeing to disagree,
Kimball
|
| 20.180 | | USMVS::DAVIS | | Mon Dec 05 1994 13:58 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.164 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>The majority of Americans do not believe that the current court-mandated
>nearly unrestricted access to abortion is appropriate.
>The majority of women believe that the child's right to be born outweighs
>the woman's right to choose whether to bear a child from the moment of
>conception. (52.6%, 1991 Gallup Poll.)
I'd sure like to see how that question was framed! I know somewhere,
sometime, polls have asked: Do you favor making abortion a criminal
offense in all cases? Do you favor making it an offense in all cases but
rape and incest? I'd like to see THOSE numbers. If anyone has them, it'd be
you, John. Care to share them?
Tom
|
| 20.181 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Mon Dec 05 1994 14:26 | 16 |
| Tom,
It would be entertaining.
I clearer poll might be from the Wyoming elections which had an
initiative to ban abortion in all cases except for rape or incest
reported to the police in a timely manner. wyoming is a VERY
conservative part of the county with several large groups of people who
belong to religions with a heavy-duty commitment to pro-life doctrine.
The initiative did not pass. Even among those who are pro-life in
practice, freedom of reproductive choice is considered paramount.
meg
meg
|
| 20.182 | Most Women are Pro-Life; it is Men who are mostly Pro-Abortion | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 05 1994 14:35 | 21 |
| re .-2
>>The majority of women believe that the child's right to be born outweighs
>>the woman's right to choose whether to bear a child from the moment of
>>conception. (52.6%, 1991 Gallup Poll.)
>
>I'd sure like to see how that question was framed!
"At what point in the pregnancy do you personally feel that the unborn
child's right to be born outweighs the woman's right to choose whether
she wants to have a child."
52.6 percent of women and 47.3 percent of men answered "conception".
5.5 percent of women and 9.6 percent of men answered "birth".
I don't have the intervening numbers for various stages of development, but
you can look it up in "Abortion and Moral Beliefs: A Survey of American
Opinion" conducted by the Gallup Organization, 1991, pp. 4-7.
/john
|
| 20.183 | | USMVS::DAVIS | | Mon Dec 05 1994 16:50 | 19 |
| <<< Note 20.182 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
-< Most Women are Pro-Life; it is Men who are mostly Pro-Abortion >-
>52.6 percent of women and 47.3 percent of men answered "conception".
>5.5 percent of women and 9.6 percent of men answered "birth".
Ahhhh, I see where the problem lies. It's your choice of wording. If I were
to take your wording literally, the numbers don't add up -- well they do
add up...to 115%. And that doesn't count the stages in beteen!
I believe what you MEANT to write was: "Of those responding 'conception,'
52.6 percent were women and 47.3 percent were men." [ not sure about the
other .1% - UNIX I suppose (or maybe it was calculated using a Pentium)]
That's an entirely different kettle of fish, John, as you well know. It
kind of puts all your supposed statistics in doubt.
Tom
|
| 20.184 | | AIMHI::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Mon Dec 05 1994 16:55 | 9 |
| Someone made a statement that abortions benifit men and women. Nope. It
only benifits women. Why? The moment Herm the Sperm exist to places
known.... it is no longer property of the man. Kinda like engagement
rings and such. Its a gift. And its womens bodies, and its womans call
to either terminate the life form or to bring it to term. So... As this
rat hole should be. Its not a cause for both men and women. ITs is and
always will be for women. Peroid. When men get an equal say in the life
form termination or term issues. It is and always will be the womans
call.
|
| 20.186 | | USMVS::DAVIS | | Mon Dec 05 1994 19:52 | 13 |
| <<< Note 20.185 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "I'm an orca." >>>
> No, Tom, you misunderstand.
> 52.6% of women chose "conception", 5,5% of women chose "birth"
> and the other 41.9% of women chose something else.
I beg your pardon. Another spontaneous emission of stupidity on my part.
Since, I believe, most people are opposed to illegalization of abortion, I
have some doubt about this poll. Either these people don't understand what
their answer means in a legal sense, or the sample was not representative
of the general public. Or, of course, I'm wrong again...
|
| 20.187 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Perdition | Mon Dec 05 1994 19:55 | 2 |
|
Well...I'd like to know where they found the women they asked.
|
| 20.188 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Dec 06 1994 09:21 | 8 |
| Does the majority or minority opinion really matter in this case?
I mean, choice should not be something that is always dictated by
the majority. I see no argument to uphold the notion that it should.
There are folks on both sides of the fence and they'll always be...
Chip
|
| 20.189 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Cyberian-American | Tue Dec 06 1994 09:30 | 3 |
| No, silly Chip, the folks on the OTHER side of the fence are godless
sinners and need to be squonked.
|
| 20.190 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Dec 06 1994 10:15 | 3 |
| <- ...ahhh, thank you.
Chip
|
| 20.191 | So-called "choice": | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Dec 07 1994 19:00 | 16 |
| Dear Ann Landers:
After four sons, my husband and I got the daughter we longed for. "Melinda"
was the can-do-no-wrong apple of her daddy's eye.
Shortly before her 17th birthday, Melinda and her 21-year-old boyfriend,
"Ike," came to tell us she was pregnant and they wanted to get married.
My husband literally threw Ike out of the house and forbade Melinda to
see him again.
The next day, we made an appointment with a doctor to have "the problem"
taken care of. Melinda climbed out her bedroom window and ran off with Ike.
[The rest of the story goes on to explain that Melinda's father still
refuses to speak to her four+ years and two grandchildren later. And
this is "choice"? Kudos to Melinda for making the only decent choice.]
|
| 20.192 | | NEMAIL::SCOTTK | My multiple extremities: O:) >:> :P +:) | Wed Dec 07 1994 19:06 | 1 |
| Go Melinda, you go girl.
|
| 20.193 | | MPGS::MARKEY | My big stick is a Beretta | Wed Dec 07 1994 19:18 | 1 |
| Yeah, but what does Tina think of what Ike did with Melinda?
|
| 20.194 | | DTRACY::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed Dec 07 1994 20:38 | 4 |
| Re: .191
I'm trying to figure out the connection between the story, and being
pro-choice. How 'bout a hint?
|
| 20.195 | Did the availability of abortion enhance the daughter's "choice" | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Dec 07 1994 20:43 | 3 |
| Were the parents "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion"?
/john
|
| 20.196 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 07 1994 20:53 | 9 |
| >Did the availability of abortion enhance the daughter's "choice"
>
>Were the parents "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion"?
Ah, so the question for pro-choicers amounts to "have you stopped
beating your wife" "have you stopped coercing your children".
Thank you for playing.
DougO
|
| 20.198 | | DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE | | Thu Dec 08 1994 00:06 | 3 |
| <------ re
NO
|
| 20.199 | Talk Hard | SNOC02::MACKENZIEK | o...ex-SUBURB::DAVISM | Thu Dec 08 1994 01:38 | 3 |
| <-------
try adding "Absolutely not"
|
| 20.201 | Aborted Snarf | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Cyberian-American | Thu Dec 08 1994 01:50 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.202 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | perforated porcini | Thu Dec 08 1994 11:58 | 8 |
| John,
sionce the daughter didn't have an abortion, her choice was neither
enhanced nor degraded by availability of abortion. Her father is
irrational about his daughter and her husband, which was the point of
the letter.
meg
|
| 20.203 | She was told she didn't have a choice. Many young women are told this. | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 08 1994 12:19 | 7 |
| The mother wrote in the letter that she was complicit in the attempt to
force her daughter to have the abortion.
Do you have the statistics on the number of young women who are coerced
into having abortions?
/john
|
| 20.204 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | imagine | Thu Dec 08 1994 12:24 | 11 |
| John,
I have those at my finger tips, just like the number of daughters who
are coerced into continuing a pregnancy by their gardians.
I know of no doctors who provide abortions who will terminate a
pregnancy on the unwilling. If you want to look at coercian, how about
the number of young women who were coerced into giving up their
children for adoption in the '50's, '60's, and early '70's?
meg
|
| 20.205 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Perdition | Thu Dec 08 1994 12:44 | 8 |
| er, John, the actual wording in the letter was something to the effect
of "we made an appointment with a doctor to have the problem taken care
of". There was no reference to "force" or "no choice". You are drawing
conclusions.
That said, the daughter made the right decision for herself. She
exercised her freedom of choice. She wouldn't have had that option in
China or in Ireland.
|
| 20.206 | | DNEAST::RICKER_STEVE | | Thu Dec 08 1994 21:46 | 11 |
| Perhaps the number of Daughters forced to make this choice is equal
to the number of children forced to participate in a religion they
don't want to. My best friend since third grade was forced by his
mother to participate in the Jehovas Witness religion despite numerous,
loud and inpassioned complaints. Since the day he turned 18 he hasn't
had anything to do with them since. His relationship with his mother is
also pretty strained and he certainly views all organized religion with
suspicion.
S.R.
|
| 20.208 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Dec 09 1994 15:33 | 14 |
| .206
It is sad... really sad. That is why I don't force Christianity on my
children... if my son said to me tomorrow I don't want to go to that
school any longer [Christian school], I'd take him out.
Why? Because I trust that God's given ability to choose is not mine to
take away.
Better that he test and try to the waters himself than to build his
faith off mine. I'd like my faith to be an example... but my faith
won't carry him to God.
|
| 20.209 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Fri Dec 09 1994 15:52 | 9 |
| "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved AND thy
house."
I see what your saying Nancy and I would do the same. A child must
live by his faith. I believe the verse above does speak however on the
issue of training a child and that it is our primary responsibility to
train in the Christian faith as I know you do also.
-Jack
|
| 20.210 | | SUBPAC::JJENSEN | Jojo the Fishing Widow | Fri Dec 09 1994 15:52 | 3 |
| Ditto, Nancy. Beautifully expressed.
joanne
|
| 20.211 | Duck... | OAW::MILLER | HE WHO DIES W/ MOST TOYS, STILL DIES | Fri Dec 09 1994 17:18 | 9 |
| re: letter to Anne Landers
I just heard a report this morning that One of our fearless leaders had
made a public statement ( I believe he was speaking in regards to
euthinasia) that NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHEN ANOTHER IS TO DIE.
Gee, If his statement is true, Why is abortion still legal?
(incoming)
|
| 20.212 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Fri Dec 09 1994 17:40 | 8 |
| Yawn, we have been through this before.
just as I don't consider a catterpiller a butterfly or a scrambled egg
a fried chicken dinner, I dont see embryos as breathing humans. They
all have the potential to become the next piece in the metomorphasis,
but they aren't the metamorphise piece.
|
| 20.213 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Fri Dec 09 1994 18:03 | 12 |
|
RE: .212
>Yawn, we have been through this before.
>breathing humans.
And if you took the "Iron Lung" away, what would they be?
Yawn, we have been through this before...
|
| 20.215 | That wouldn't be my reaction.... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Fri Dec 09 1994 18:53 | 4 |
|
I wouldn't. I'd say, "Waiter !"
bb
|
| 20.216 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Fri Dec 09 1994 18:59 | 13 |
| .214
> The eggs you use for eating are unfertilized.
wrong.
> Were you to
> crack open an egg and find a developing chicken embryo, you
> would most likely not know what to do with it.
wrong.
care to try for three strikes?
|
| 20.217 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Fri Dec 09 1994 19:00 | 3 |
| Dick:
Please elaborate further. I've been eating fertilizes eggs?!!!
|
| 20.218 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Fri Dec 09 1994 19:11 | 6 |
| .217
i buy brown eggs at shaw's here in nashua. virtually all of the eggs I
buy have visible embryos in them, some just a pinpoint spot and others
larger - the biggest i can remember was about the diameter of the
eraser on a wooden pencil.
|
| 20.219 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Fri Dec 09 1994 19:15 | 7 |
| Joe,
I get my chickens from a farm with roosters in with the hens, so yes I
do get fertile eggs. They scramble up just like the egg factory ones,
execpt the look and taste better.
meg
|
| 20.220 | I prefer omelettes | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Fri Dec 09 1994 19:20 | 5 |
|
So Joe used a lousy analogy....
Hang him out to dry!!! Revenge is sweet... no?
|
| 20.221 | not that i suspect this of joe, but... | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Fri Dec 09 1994 19:21 | 2 |
| use of an invalid analogy implies an inadequate grasp of exactly what
the discussion is about.
|
| 20.222 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Fri Dec 09 1994 19:37 | 8 |
|
Not really Dick... some can grasp the concept being forwarded even with
an invalid analogy...
Covert Bailey used one last night on PBS, and I got the gist of his
message....
|
| 20.223 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | I'm an orca. | Fri Dec 09 1994 20:13 | 16 |
| Well, gee, Dick, you're so special. I find it hard to believe
that an operation that supplies someone as large as Shaw's
Supermarket would be dealing with "scratch eggs", but I won't
question your claim. MOST (sorry I did not correctly qualify
my original statement) eggs sold to consumers are supplied by
operations where the laying hens never come in contact with
males during their productive lives.
And I was not really considering "pinpoints" or "pencil erasers",
but rather a small-but-recognizable developing embryo.
Finally, Dick, for your little ejaculatory "wrong" in .216 regarding
what to do with it, it is not wrong at all. I did clearly qualify
that with "most likely". Most people do not know what to do with
it, and such eggs often get thrown out. You are not "most people"
and you let us know that every day!
|
| 20.224 | | VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK | Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly | Fri Dec 09 1994 20:15 | 8 |
| re: Note 20.212 by CSC32::M_EVANS
I disagree. I saw my (-4month old) 2nd child on some machine last
week. It's a living human being.
I still support the womans right to choose. How I personally feel
about what someone else does with their body don't mean squat.
|
| 20.225 | LESSONS FROM ROMANIA | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Dec 09 1994 20:16 | 198 |
| From the American Journal of Public Health, October 1992, volume 82, number
10, pages 1328-1331. Reprinted without permission.
COMMENTARY: THE PUBLIC HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF RESTRICTED INDUCED ABORTION -
LESSONS FROM ROMANIA
Patricia Stephanson, ScD, Marsden Wagner, MD, MSPH, Mihaela Badea, MD, and
Florina Serbanescu, MD.
INTRODUCTION
Abortion policy is being debated in a number of countries in which
abortion is currently legal and women have access to safe abortion,
performed by qualified practitioners, through the health care system.
Some political or religious groups in Hungary, Poland, Germany, Spain,
Sweden, and the United States seek to ban abortion or at least to
restrict it as much as possible.
Both proponents and opponents of legal abortion debate the issue in
the abstract terms of women's rights, fetal rights, religious theories,
or constitutional principles. However, those who ultimately decide
this question will sooner or later have to come to terms with the
concrete reality of what can happen to women and children when and if
the right to safe abortion is taken away.
SAFE ABORTION AND MATERNAL MORTALITY
When access to safe abortion has been introduced in a country,
maternal mortality has decreased. In the United States during the
1960s, as some states began to change their laws on abortion and
hospital abortion policies became less restrictive, gradual decreases
in maternal mortality were noted. After the US Supreme Court decision
in 1973 guaranteeing women the right to safe abortion, national
maternal mortality rates decreased further. In England and Wales
there were no deaths due to unsafe abortion in the triennium 1982 to
1984, compared with 75 to 80 such deaths per triennium prior to the
Abortion Act of 1967 (which gave free access to safe abortion).[1]
Although it is reasonable to conclude that these trends are due to the
changes in the abortion laws, one can never completely rule out the
possible simultaneous effects of other factors.
More instructive is what happens in a country when abortion is made
illegal and access to safe abortion is taken away. Before 1966,
Romanian women - like their neighbors in other Eastern European
countries - had access to safe abortion through the country's health
care system. In 1966 Romanian President Nicolae Ceaucescu introduced
pronatalist policies, outlawed abortion and contraception, and took
measures to enforce the law. Mandatory pelvic examinations at places
of employment were imposed on women of reproductive age. Informers
for the security police were stationed in maternity hospitals. Doctors
could be prosecuted for performing unauthorized abortions, and nurses
were to make unannounced supervisory visits to new mothers to determine
whether they were taking proper care of their infants.
The consequences of this policy and its enforcement are presented in
Figures 1 through 3, through data from the Romanian birth and death
registration system and the nationwide, ongoing maternal mortality
audit system. (World Health Organization site visits from 1991 to 1992
have found that these systems are comparable to those of Western
Europe in terms of completeness of reporting and the reliability of
data [2]. Romanian vital data systems and maternal mortality reports
use ICD-9 CM definitions and diagnostic classifications.) After a
brief rise, the crude birth rate fell and continued to fall (Figure
1). Thus the policy intended to increase the birth rate failed.
Before the 1966 law went in to effect, the Romanian maternal mortality
rate was similar to those of other Eastern European countries.
Afterward, abortion-related maternal mortality increased to a level 10
times that of any other European country (Figures 2 and 3). For the
decade 1980 to 1989, the average Romanian maternal mortality rate was
150 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. [6] Many women obtained
abortion illegally, and every year approximately 500 otherwise healthy
women of childbearing age died from postabortion hemorrhage, sepsis,
abdominal trauma, and poisoning.
Precise figures on the Romanian prevalence of postabortion morbidity
are not available. The country's most common cause of obstetrical
death were postpartum hemorrhage and infection, [3] complications that
could be associated with unsafe abortion. In Romania, local health
professionals report that unsafe abortion - as performed by the woman
herself or by untrained persons - may involve very dangerous
techniques, such as scraping the uterus with a rubber tube or other
instrument, uterine lavage with water or a caustic fluid, introduction
of foreign bodies into the uterus, or external trauma. Such methods
often result in damage to the uterine cervix, chronic infection, and
severe anemia that, in turn, increase the risk of postpartum
hemorrhage and infection, infertility, preterm birth, and low
birthweight. [7,8]
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF RESTRICTED ABORTION
Legions of Romanian children in institutions are another sad legacy of
the years of the Ceaucescu pronatalist policy. Some women who did not
have illegal abortions bore children after unwanted pregnancies and
placed the children in institutions because they and their families
simply could not find the means or motivation to care for them. [9]
Although the number of children institutionalized before the overthrow
of the Ceaucescu government is unknown, shortly after the revolution
approximately 150,000 to 200,000 children were in institutional care.
[10] Warehousing of children in institutions overwhelmed the health
care system and reduced the standard of care. [9] Present programs
have returned many institutionalized children to their families or have
attempted to place them in adoptive homes. [9] However, several
thousand severely retarded and handicapped children are likely to
remain in institutions for the rest of their lives. [9]
CONCLUSIONS
After the December 1989 Romanian revolution, one of the provisional
government's first acts abrogated the 1966 law banning abortion and
contraception. This was done as an emergency public health measure to
try to decrease maternal mortality due to unsafe abortion. Since
then, more and more induced abortions have been performed by qualified
doctors in hospitals or clinics; the maternal mortality rate fell by
50% in the first year following the change in the law. It continues
to fall as more and more women avail themselves of safe abortion. New
admissions to children's institutions have decreased in spite of
severe economic conditions. [9]
The Romanian experience demonstrates the futility and folly of
attempts to control reproductive behavior through legislation. A law
that forbids abortion does not stop women from aborting unwanted
pregnancies. In Ireland today, where abortion is illegal, some 4,000
women each year travel to Britain for the procedure. Nor can laws
concerning reproductive behavior be effectively enforced. The extreme
pronatalist policies in Romania did not succeed in sustaining the
desired levels of reproduction and natural increase (Figure 1).
To reduce or eliminate abortion, the rational approach is to promote
contraception. To paraphrase the position of the 1984 International
Conference on Population, the solution to the abortion question is to
prevent unwanted pregnancy. [7] The outlawing of abortion and
contraception is not pronatalist by antinatalist in that the results
are likely to be fewer healthy, fertile women who might have children,
reduced fertility from widespread gynecological infection, the birth
of more damaged babies, and, in sum, not more but fewer healthy
citizens for the future.
In the 23 years of its enforcement, the antiabortion law in Romania
resulted in over 10,000 deaths of women from unsafe abortion. The
pronatalist policy as a whole resulted in the untoward
institutionalization of thousands of children and in an elevated rate
of infant deaths. In effect, it also turned otherwise law-abiding
women and their partners into criminals; women learned to fear the
government and its representatives. Doctors and other health care
providers were victims as well because they were forced to carry out
the policies of the state. Working today to improve and strengthen
women's health servicesm Romanian doctors report that many women remain
fearful of contact with the health care system.
The lessons of the Romanian experience hit home for those of us who
remember how it was in our own countries prior to the legalization of
abortion. Those who could afford to fly to other places could obtain
legal, safe abortion, while those who could not made due with
"backstreet" procedures or relinquished their unwanted children to
orphanages. Perhaps we have come so far and accomplished so much that
we have forgotten the public health consequences of restricting access
to safe abortion.
In light of those consequences, it does not matter whether, as health
professionals, we believe that life begins at conception or whether
8-week-old fetuses should have equal protection under the law. Policy
on abortion is being formulated in the rarified atmosphere of
legislatures and parliaments, meeting halls and court room. Let us
hope that policy makers accept their responsibility for protecting the
health and lives of women and children.
REFERENCES
1. United Kingdom Department of Health, Report of Confidential Enquiries into
Maternal Deaths in England and Wales, 1982-1984. Report on Health and Social
Subjects 34. London, England, 1990.
2. World Health Organization, European Regional Office, Maternal and Child
Health Unit, Report of an MCH Mission to Romania, january 1991.
3. Birth and Death Register, Bucharest, Romania, 1992.
4. Maternal Mortality Audit System, Bucharest, Romania, 1992.
5. Health for All Database, WHO, Denamrk, 1991
6. Tabulated Birth and Death Statisticsm 1991, Ministry of Health of Romania,
1992.
7. WHO, Maternal and Child Health Unit and Family Planning Division of Family
Health, Abortion: A Tabulation of Available Data on the Frequency and
Mortality of Unsafe Abortion, WHO, 1990
8. Royston, E, Armstrong,S, Preventing Maternal Deaths, WHO, 1989.
9. The Children's Health Care Collaborative Study Group, The Causes of
Institutionalization in Romanian Leagane and Sectii de Distrofici: Report of a
Populatio-based Study with Recommendations, Bucharest, 1991.
10. Report of a UNICEF Mission to Develop Emergency Assistance Programme for
Institutionalized Children in Romania, New York, United Nations Children's
Fund, 1990.
|
| 20.226 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Dec 12 1994 13:53 | 26 |
| .223
> I find it hard to believe
> that an operation that supplies someone as large as Shaw's
> Supermarket would be dealing with "scratch eggs"
you can find it hard to believe whatever you like finding it hard to
believe, joe.
> but I won't
> question your claim.
thank you. maybe most eggs where you are, are infertile, but then you
don't live in new england, do you?
> "pencil erasers"
a chicken embryo less than the size of a pencil eraser is readily
identifiable; it has a clearly recognizable head, body, and stub limbs.
> You are not "most people"
if "most people" can't figure out how to remove that little bloody bit
and dump it down the drain, then i guess i'm pretty glad i'm not "most
people." on the other hand, i think you give your fellow humans too
little credit.
|
| 20.227 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Mon Dec 12 1994 14:51 | 9 |
| re .225
dougO
You are charged with inserting facts instead of emotional bruhaha.
How do you plead?
meg
|
| 20.228 | Newt wants orphanages, does he? | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Dec 12 1994 15:00 | 5 |
| I plead relevance, Meg. The results of 23 years of Romanian law
forbidding abortion were 10000 dead women and 150,000-200,000
institutionalized unwanted kids. It could happen here.
DougO
|
| 20.229 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Mon Dec 12 1994 15:04 | 9 |
| But doug,
Don't you know that all the unwanted babies born will be instantly
adopted by loving families? Just like happened in Romania. Forget the
fact that many were so abused/traumatized by being institutionalized
that they will never be the bright adoptable babies everyone likes to
think are aborted.
meg
|
| 20.230 | Funny thing is, I thought only Democrats did things that stupid | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Dec 12 1994 16:17 | 1 |
| Some great humanitarian, that old Ceaucescu, eh?
|
| 20.231 | tradegy continues | 48649::HUMAN | I came, I saw, I conked out | Tue Dec 13 1994 07:51 | 18 |
| Sadly, one of the consequences of the Rumanian "experiment" (where each
woman was _required_ to have at least 5 children) is that many women,
still unable to access contraception, still cornered by ever-increasing
poverty, continue to have children they are unable to care for.
Because there was/is no stigma attched to inability to care for
children (the state would take care of them), unwanted children are
_still_ placed in orphanges, where the conditions are often pitiful (2
to a bed, 1 blanket, no heating, no real caring) due to lack of funds.
A program is under way to try and enable adoption for some of these
children. However, the mothers of many refuse to allow this
(understandably) in the hopes of one day being able to care for them.
In the meantime, the children suffer a terrible "no-mans land" of
emotional and material deprivation.
martin
martin
|
| 20.232 | U.S. is different... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Dec 13 1994 11:15 | 13 |
|
There's been a lot of articles on REAL, not make-believe U.S.
orphanages lately - the other day a successful NY stockbroker
put his story of his rise to success from one, and I've seen
several others. In the U.S., orphanage population is small and
VERY successful. There are numerous myths, however. The drug
and violence free environment, the discipline and professionalism,
probably can't be duplicated on the Gingrich scale. Also, it is
MORE expensive than AFDC. Nevertheless, any kid who can get into
one instead of being raised in a project by a welfare mother is
one lucky youngster in this country.
bb
|
| 20.233 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Dec 13 1994 11:22 | 9 |
| -.1 There are generalities and exceptions to both upbringings.
I've never seen any studies or statistics on which will yield
to more successful adult. I think it's stretch to make these
assertions without the facts...
Have you statistics?
Chip
|
| 20.234 | Ask Justice Clarence Thomas... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Dec 13 1994 11:54 | 25 |
|
The article was in the Wall Street Journal, and included some
factoids, but would hardly be considered a statistical study.
Anyway, as I pointed out, even if orphanages are currently very
successful, in terms of say, eventual college degrees, it proves
nothing about the efficacy of doing this for MILLIONS. We've never
done that.
In NYC, religious orphanages (Catholic, Jweish, etc) are the
majority. This is not China, where they are a disastrous dumping
ground for unwanted girls. They represent only a tiny fraction of
the charity budget of the big religions.
This same topic has been discussed the last few days on C-Span. A
bunch of VERY liberal social workers were distraught over the liberal
trashing of the Gingrich phraseology. While they probably cannot
replace AFDC because of the costs, orphanages are a help in reducing
the problem, and most people's Oliver-Twist fantasies are wrong.
Why would it surprise anybody that kids do better as residents at a
parochial or synagogue pre-school than in the projects ? I'd be
shocked if this WEREN'T true.
bb
|
| 20.235 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 13 1994 12:21 | 7 |
|
| i buy brown eggs at shaw's here in nashua.
Brown eggs are local eggs, and local eggs are fresh!
|
| 20.236 | | 48649::HUMAN | I came, I saw, I conked out | Tue Dec 13 1994 12:50 | 16 |
| >In the U.S., orphanage population is small and
>VERY successful. There are numerous myths, however. The drug
>and violence free environment, the discipline and professionalism,
>probably can't be duplicated on the Gingrich scale. Also, it is
>MORE expensive than AFDC. Nevertheless, any kid who can get into
>one instead of being raised in a project by a welfare mother is
>one lucky youngster in this country.
Well I admit I don't live in the US, but what you state here is not in
accordance with the Tv reporting I saw last night on your orphanages
(state run, note). The ex-orphans, now adult, were a very unhappy bunch
of people indeed, who as adults had made courageous efforts to
overcome their lack of emotional attention and feelings of loss and
worthlessness.
martin
|
| 20.237 | Selling Teen Abortions | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Dec 13 1994 22:57 | 19 |
| Carol Everett writes about the deceptive way she targeted teenagers for
her lucrative abortion business:
First, I established myself with the teens as an authority
on sex. I explained to them that their parents wouldn't
help them with their sexuality, but I would.
Second, our doctors prescribed low dose birth control pills
with a high pregnancy rate knowing very well that they needed
to be taken very accurately at the same time every day or
pregnancy would occur. This ensured the teens to be my best
customers as teenagers typically are not responsible enough
to follow such rigid medication guidelines on their own. I
knew their sexual activity would increase from none or once
a week to five or seven times a week once they were introduced
to this contraceptive method. Then I could reach my goal --
three to five abortions per year for each classroom of teenagers
between the ages of 13 and 18 that I spoke to.
|
| 20.238 | | SUBPAC::GOLDIE | Zed's dead,baby...! | Wed Dec 14 1994 01:16 | 9 |
|
I live very close to the Worcester Planned Parenthood clinic and I
thing I have noticed of all the anti-abortionists that parade outside
(weather permitting of course) is that all protesters are male!
Isn't it funny how a man can try and tell a woman what to do with
*her* body!
This isn't directed at anyone but merely an observation.
|
| 20.239 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Dec 14 1994 01:34 | 2 |
| I'll bite. Who the christ is Carol Everett?
|
| 20.240 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Cyberian-American | Wed Dec 14 1994 02:13 | 6 |
| Whoever she is, you can bet that JC will claim she's aMAzingly typical
of all those who do sex ed. I, for one, tend not to think so. And
that tends to be understatement.
John? Your move...
|
| 20.241 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Dec 14 1994 02:43 | 19 |
| re .238
I sincerely doubt that _all_ the protesters are male.
I attend a vigil at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline which
usually involves about 300 people (in all kinds of weather), the majority
of whom are women, especially Barbara Bell, the founder of Massachusetts
Blacks for Life, who is the main sidewalk counselor.
The data from polling organizations which shows that women are consistently
more pro-life than men has been presented earlier in this topic.
re .239
Carol Everett was involved in the abortion industry in the Dallas/Fort
Worth area from 1977 until 1983; she now speaks throughout the world on
the dangers of abortion.
/john
|
| 20.242 | | TINCUP::AGUE | DTN-592-4939, 719-598-3498(SSL) | Wed Dec 14 1994 12:50 | 7 |
| I suspect Carol Everett is just typical of abortionists as The Rev.
Paul Hill is of pro-lifers. No way would I condemn their respective
tribes because of each's foul play.
Very poor argument to introduce Everett's misdeeds.
-- Jim
|
| 20.243 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Cyberian-American | Wed Dec 14 1994 13:27 | 3 |
| Trouble is, Herr Covert never seems to twig on that fack, being too
far offcenter hisself, imho.
|
| 20.244 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Wed Dec 14 1994 14:01 | 5 |
| and if this person had been prescribing the "high dose" BC pills, she
would have been pilloried by many for the side effects involved with
them, many of which are life threatening.
meg
|
| 20.246 | | MPGS::MARKEY | AIBOHPHOBIA: Fear of Palindromes | Wed Dec 14 1994 16:20 | 13 |
| RE: Carol Everett
It seems to me that someone who jumps from one extreme to the other
can hardly be trusted as a reliable source of information...
Who's to say that she's not wildly exagerrating her previous actions
to make her current actions look better?
Either way Joe, as someone who is pretty neutral on the subject, I
didn't look at what you wrote about Carol Everett and conclude that
you scored any major points in the argument...
-b
|
| 20.247 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Dec 14 1994 16:26 | 2 |
| Ackshually, I think it was our /john who posted the tidbit on Ms. Everett.
|
| 20.248 | | MPGS::MARKEY | AIBOHPHOBIA: Fear of Palindromes | Wed Dec 14 1994 16:35 | 3 |
| Ah yes, so it was. Sorry.
-b
|
| 20.249 | | SUBPAC::GOLDIE | Zed's dead,baby...! | Wed Dec 14 1994 19:46 | 9 |
|
re- .241
yup,all the protestors are male and all about retirement age.If you
don't believe me,take a drive down there on a sunny morning(preferably
tuesdays)they don't seem to like the cold/wet weather.
Ian
|
| 20.250 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 15 1994 03:08 | 3 |
| OK, I will.
/john
|
| 20.251 | So-called "choice" | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 15 1994 13:00 | 18 |
| "Confidential Chat", Boston Globe, 15-Dec-1994
Dear Chatters:
At the age of 41, I find myself very unexpectedly pregnant. This is a
huge shock as I have faithfully used birth control. Our family situation
has been difficult the past few years due to tight finances.
My husband lost his job a few years ago and we have not paid off old
debts from that period. We have three children; the youngest is nearly
5. Although I work part time, I had planned to return to work full time
once my youngest was in school. My husband wants me to terminate the
pregnancy as he feels we just cannot afford one more. Our house is too
small and in need of some repairs, nothing major.
I don't know if I can live with myself if I go ahead and terminate. I
am at least six weeks along. As you can tell, my husband is being
totally unsupportive.
|
| 20.252 | Sounds like she has plenty of choices | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Dec 15 1994 13:04 | 10 |
| What's your point?
Was there more?
Did she go on to say that her life is under threat if she doesn't abort?
Did she say she'd consider leaving the guy rather than abort?
Oh - the guy's a jerk! So what's that have to do with "choice"?
|
| 20.253 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 15 1994 13:37 | 4 |
| Why are men so frequently pushing women towards abortion, when they
would not choose it for themselves.
Abortion does not liberate women. It allows men to apply force to women.
|
| 20.254 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Thu Dec 15 1994 13:39 | 5 |
| Why are men so frequently pushing women away from abortion, when they
would choose it for themselves.
Forced pregnancy does not liberate women. It allows men to apply force
to women.
|
| 20.255 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Dec 15 1994 13:41 | 10 |
| Who says he wouldn't choose it for himself?
You seem to be grasping at straws this morning . . .
You want to conclude that if abortion were not a choice, she'd be better
off because it wouldn't be something he could pressure her into?
More than likely, an airhole like this guy would give her a swift kick
in the belly instead. That's a nice choice, now, isn't it?
|
| 20.257 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 15 1994 16:53 | 21 |
| >> Isn't it funny how a man can try and tell a woman what to do
>> with *her* body!
Dear Ian:
Not really sure where you are from but wherever it is, there is
something perhaps you can ponder on.
I've heard the statement above and may I say it is a fallacy-loaded
lame reason. The fetus is not "her" body so that dispells that
bologna. Secondly, you said a mouth full above. Prochoice has nothing
to do with free choice or any of the other garbage. Prochoice is
a vehicle for the "in your face" crowd...mostly uppity feminists
who hate men and are so angered by the thought that it is a "man's
world"....abortion is the one thing a woman can do that a man can't do.
The uppity feminists of this country are bent on making this abundantly
clear in society. Furthermore, they think nothing of manipulating
and using the weak, the poor, and the less discerning to help fulfill
their agenda.
-Jack
|
| 20.259 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | | Thu Dec 15 1994 17:41 | 1 |
| Doncha love it when she talks dirty like that?
|
| 20.260 | how can he remain that dense? | TIS::HAMBURGER | let's finish the job in '96 | Thu Dec 15 1994 17:59 | 2 |
|
MZ_DEB is right. the man hasn't a clue!
|
| 20.261 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Thu Dec 15 1994 18:10 | 3 |
|
i especially like the part about how abortion is "the one thing a woman
can do that a man can't do". hoo boy... that's a good one.
|
| 20.262 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Dec 15 1994 18:15 | 12 |
| That reminded me of the old riddle -
What is it that a man does standing up, a woman does sitting down, and
a dog does on three legs?
Now, clean up your act . . .
Why, shaking hands, of course.
|
| 20.263 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 15 1994 19:53 | 2 |
| Hey...like chill dears!!! I'm just trying to get people's goats
that's all!!!!!
|
| 20.264 | | SUBPAC::GOLDIE | Zed's dead,baby...! | Thu Dec 15 1994 20:00 | 10 |
|
re-1
ok..I just thought you were a pompus,arrogant idiot.If you want to get
at my goat,keep spouting the kind of drivel you have been and *mean*
it other than that,peace!
ian
|
| 20.265 | <--- P&K material fer sure!! | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Thu Dec 15 1994 20:01 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.266 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 15 1994 20:05 | 12 |
| Hey Ian:
Don't insult me...I am a paumpous arrogant idiot...but I can live with
that. But at least I'm not a 1960's dependent liberal letch. At least
I can wake up in the morning and not dislike myself. At least I can go
through each day with my convictions and integrity intact.
Incidently, my last statements, although mostly tainted to draw
emotionalism, aren't necessarily false. They are just not the norm.
There are certainly a share of uppity feminists in this country.
-Jack
|
| 20.267 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 15 1994 20:06 | 5 |
| Diane:
My apologies regarding the poor rhetoric and grammer!!
-Jack
|
| 20.268 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Thu Dec 15 1994 20:08 | 9 |
|
>> Don't insult me...I am a paumpous arrogant idiot...but I can live with
>> that.
>> There are certainly a share of uppity feminists in this country.
you mean pompous, arrogant feminists? they can probably live
with that.
|
| 20.269 | | SUBPAC::GOLDIE | Zed's dead,baby...! | Thu Dec 15 1994 20:51 | 13 |
| Jack,
nice to see a man who knows his flaws and can deal with them.I may
be a "1960 liberal letch" but hey guess what???I can deal with that
too.
fwiw...there are a few feminists out there who are exactly like you
mentioned.People are all different and have different views if you
can't deal with them then avoid them at all costs!I know I would.
ian
ps..I'm not as liberal as you think!
|
| 20.258 | modified | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Perdition | Fri Dec 16 1994 00:38 | 8 |
|
Oh puhleeze, jack, you are so full of it your eyes are brown.
You don't know pro-choice from a hole in the ground, as you've
demonstrated.
Uppity feminists, in your face, get real.
|
| 20.270 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Dec 16 1994 09:23 | 4 |
| ...whew, Jack. Really enjoy livin' on the edge doncha. That edge
can get mighty sharp in here.
Chip
|
| 20.271 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Fri Dec 16 1994 12:13 | 14 |
| I think what really gets my goat is when a group preaches that a
certain vice or a certain problem is "societies problem". Uh
Uh...no...the way it works is...you screw up...it is your problem. You
then go to society to ask for help...then society determines whether to
help you or not! This goes for abortion, AIDS, and anything else that
you had control over and chose to neglect.
Paumpous, arrogant, uppity or whatever, there are many feminist out
there that feel this is societies problem. Well, it is NOT societies
problem...kay?! (insert Bill Murray sinister smile here).
This twenty year paradigm that society is to blame MUST STOP!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.272 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Fri Dec 16 1994 12:43 | 33 |
| | <<< Note 20.271 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| I think what really gets my goat is when a group preaches that a certain vice
| or a certain problem is "societies problem".
Jack, could it have something to do with the fact that while you may
consider <insert action> a vice, others do not? And when you base the vice on
religious beliefs, others, like law officials, do not see it as a vice?
| Uh...no...the way it works is...you screw up...it is your problem. You then go
| to society to ask for help...then society determines whether to help you or
| not!
I just wanted to keep this here for furture use in this note.
| This goes for abortion, AIDS, and anything else that you had control over and
| chose to neglect.
I agree with this part Jack, that if one gets any disease, like cancer
and such, all because of neglect on their part, then the fault is theirs. I
think anyone would agree with that. But it does not mean you let them die. You
may view abortion as a disease, I really don't know. It is something that can
be prevented, but it is not something illegal.
| Paumpous, arrogant, uppity or whatever, there are many feminist out there that
| feel this is societies problem.
Gee, could these women be doing what you said above? They are going to
society and asking for help? What, should they ask and if someone says no, stop
asking?
Glen
|
| 20.273 | God is punishing them, right? | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Dec 16 1994 12:43 | 5 |
| > AIDS, and anything else that you had control over and chose to neglect.
I'm sure Elizabeth Glaser's survivors will appreciate your reasoned and
thoughtful attitude on this, Jack.
|
| 20.274 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Fri Dec 16 1994 12:46 | 8 |
|
I think Jack is refering to those who got the disease through sex,
which would fit his description of it being their own fault. Am I right about
that Jack?
Glen
|
| 20.275 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Dec 16 1994 12:47 | 2 |
| I just figured Jack's brain wasn't fully engaged.
|
| 20.276 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Fri Dec 16 1994 13:11 | 4 |
|
That's understandable.... :-)
|
| 20.277 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Fri Dec 16 1994 14:23 | 18 |
| Now now boyz....no picking on me today.
Glen is correct. I was speaking of those whose vice brings about
their demise. So Glen, by your standards:
1. Man smokes cigarettes for two months. Triggers off acute form of
emphasima...dies of his own vice.
2. Man has sex only once with his secretary. Contracts AIDS and dies.
However, man only dies from an accepted lifestyle...not a vice.
Is this pretty close to what you are saying Glen?? Ya see, it doesn't
matter if you consider it a vice or not. That is secondary to the fact
that the end result is the same...be it death by smoking one laced
joint or that one little innocent night of sleeping with a secretary,
both parties DIE!!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.278 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Fri Dec 16 1994 16:04 | 11 |
| re .273
Should we use the terrible misfortune of the exceptions to
turn a blind eye to the rest? And what do you suppose was
the source of the tainted blood she received? Other innocent
victims?
Surely you agree that most AIDS victims *DID* have control
over the disease. And I'm willing to argue that today even
a higher percentage of people have control over their exposure
to it.
|
| 20.279 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Fri Dec 16 1994 16:34 | 35 |
| | <<< Note 20.277 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| Now now boyz....no picking on me today.
Why should today be any different?
| So Glen, by your standards:
I should have seen this coming......
| 1. Man smokes cigarettes for two months. Triggers off acute form of
| emphasima...dies of his own vice.
Jack, is this a possibility after 2 months? But we'll go with it.
| 2. Man has sex only once with his secretary. Contracts AIDS and dies.
| However, man only dies from an accepted lifestyle...not a vice.
Jack, smoking is not a vice to everyone. So a vice is in the eye of the
beholder.
| Is this pretty close to what you are saying Glen?? Ya see, it doesn't matter
| if you consider it a vice or not. That is secondary to the fact that the end
| result is the same...be it death by smoking one laced joint or that one little
| innocent night of sleeping with a secretary, both parties DIE!!!!
Jack, please show me where I've stated anything differently. What I DID
say was that one may consider X a vice, another would not. Not that the
misfortune wasn't so and so's fault.
Glen
|
| 20.280 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Dec 16 1994 17:45 | 4 |
| re: .-2
You appear to be wanting to pick an argument, Joe, although, I'm unsure
whom with.
|
| 20.282 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Fri Dec 16 1994 18:27 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.281 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>
| Only if you want to argue with .278
But then we would be arguing with you... or you with yourself....
|
| 20.284 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Fri Dec 16 1994 18:47 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.283 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>
| >| Only if you want to argue with .278
| >
| > But then we would be arguing with you...
| So what did I say in .278 that you disagree with?
I never said I disagreed with anything. Just that we would be arguing
with you.
|
| 20.286 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | SERVE<a href="SURF_GLOBAL">LOCAL</a> | Sat Dec 17 1994 21:30 | 2 |
| Personally, I think you came here for abuse.
|
| 20.287 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Dec 17 1994 22:49 | 14 |
| Christmas Abortion
Christ in the womb Killers in the Womb
A Promise Fulfilled A Lie completed
A Scared Unwed Mother A Scarred Unwed Mother
A Babe in the Manger A Babe in the Disposal
Good News of Great Joy Rachel Weeping without End
Heaven in the Infancy Stage Hell in the Infancy Stage
A Guiding Star No Place to Turn
God With Us, Immanuel Herod With Us
Love's Pure Light Slaughter of the Innocents
Forgiveness Sent Forgiveness Needed
Worth Celebrating with Worth Fighting with
All Your Might All Your Might
|
| 20.288 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Sun Dec 18 1994 00:37 | 7 |
| re: .-1
Previous
A load of crap.
Too bad it wasn't close
to a .666.
|
| 20.289 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Dec 19 1994 13:14 | 4 |
|
Jack, he has other crap to stick in the .666 notes.
|
| 20.290 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Dec 19 1994 13:30 | 19 |
| >>> Jack, he has other crap to stick in the .666 notes.
Ya know Glen, I noticed over the last year that you are certainly one
to pick your allegiances in these conferences. In fact, I have yet to
see you disagree with any of your allegiances. By your term above,
"other crap" I have to assume you also believe what John wrote was
crap. Yet at the same time, I have heard you say that abortion is a
moral issue which would tell me you believe it to be wrong, even though
you support its existence in society.
FWIW, there were definitely parellels that John listed which made
sense. Again I find it amazing how individuals support something when
at the same time the thought of them having one is unthinkable. It
tells me that we live in a society that has lost, conviction,
propriety, and the ability to stand up for what is right or wrong. I
find I have alot more respect for individuals who are pro abortion
than those who are pro choice. They have convictions and live by them.
-Jack
|
| 20.291 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Perdition | Mon Dec 19 1994 13:40 | 3 |
|
Jack, people who are pro-choice have convictions too. They think
people should be able to run their own lives without interference.
|
| 20.292 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Dec 19 1994 13:50 | 39 |
| | <<< Note 20.290 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| Ya know Glen, I noticed over the last year that you are certainly one to pick
| your allegiances in these conferences. In fact, I have yet to see you disagree
| with any of your allegiances.
Jack, I disagree with you all the time. I also stick up for you all the
time. I have disagreed with Jim Percival a couple of times as well. I have also
stuck up for Steve Leech a few times. So I guess I don't quite understand just
what it is you're saying.
| By your term above, "other crap" I have to assume you also believe what John
| wrote was crap. Yet at the same time, I have heard you say that abortion is a
| moral issue which would tell me you believe it to be wrong, even though you
| support its existence in society.
Jack, if it was a moral issue with me, I would not say I want the laws
to remain as they are right now, until we address things like back-alley
abortions, mothers life being in danger, etc. I don't like abortion to be used
as a form of birth control. I think that is wrong. But a moral issue? No.
And I don't agree with what he wrote from the standpoint that abortions
are always so wrong and ugly. It is definitely his view, but not mine. Both
sides use extremes to discuss the other groups meaning/existance. A clear
example of the pro-life side is what John wrote. But BOTH sides do it. This
leaves very little time to fix any problems. That was why I viewed what he said
as crap. It does nothing to solve anything, just get people upset, or applause
from some who are pro-life.
| I find I have alot more respect for individuals who are pro abortion than
| those who are pro choice. They have convictions and live by them.
Jack, maybe it's a type-o, maybe it's you view them differently, but
what is the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice? Aren't they the
same people?
Glen
|
| 20.293 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Perdition | Mon Dec 19 1994 13:58 | 18 |
|
Glen, I personally don't like the term pro-abortion any more than I
like anti-life, any more than the pro-life people like anti-choice, I
suppose. I consider myself pro-choice. You've got to do what you've
got to do to live your own life and live with yourself. I'm not going
to tell you what to do; if you want to have an abortion, if you want to
keep the child, if you want to give him/her up for adoption - it's your
choice to make, not mine. And I will emotionally support you in your
decision. I don't agree with the policies of, for example, Ireland (no
abortion, and they'll prevent you from leaving the country to obtain one
if they can), China (one child only, forced abortions), Romania (no
abortion, is that still on?), etc.
I think using abortion rather than birth control is reprehensible. One
should endeavor to prevent pregnancy if one doesn't want to become
pregnant. If all else fails, then you have a choice to make and I'm
not going to make it for you. I expect you're mature enough to make that
decision for yourself.
|
| 20.294 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Mon Dec 19 1994 14:01 | 4 |
| I think that if you have three people there will be three different
points and I still say its a matter of choice not a matter of morals.
It is not up to me to 'make" any one see it my way...this is just "my"
way.
|
| 20.295 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Dec 19 1994 14:02 | 26 |
| No, they most certainly are not. A pro abortionist is one who would be
willing to go through the procedure themselves if they were able to.
They believe abortion should be unregulated, used as birth control,
used for gender choosing, used for convenience, used all the way up to
the time the water breaks. That is pro abortion.
I find the pro choice crowd seems to have a difficult time discerning
where they really stand. Take your comment for example. To you,
abortion is wrong if used for birth control BUT...abortion to you isn't
a moral issue. You contradicted yourself here...if it isn't a moral
issue, then abortion should be available for ALL reasons sice there is
no moral dilemna to be dealt with. That seems to make sense to me.
I find this inconsistency disturbing in society more than any other.
It tells me that society either hasn't thought the issue through very
clearly...or society simply has no concept in discerning right from
wrong. In other words Glen, moral relativism...something that has
plagued other societies in history...the American south in the
17/1800's, Nazi Germany, etc.
Notice I am careful here. I picked these two societies as examples of
moral relativism, I didn't say America was like Nazi Germany because of
abortion. I think what we're seeing here Glen is a dysfunctionally
thinking America.
-Jack
|
| 20.296 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Dec 19 1994 14:10 | 7 |
| >> I think using abortion rather than birth control is reprehensible.
See now here we go. Debra, you are one of my favorites in the
conference. Please take this as challenging dialogue. WHY WHY WHY,
I don't understand for the life of me why you find a procedure like
this reprehensible. Please help me with this Debra. What is wrong
with it...in your own words please...
|
| 20.297 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Perdition | Mon Dec 19 1994 14:22 | 9 |
|
Simply because it's showing a lack of forethought and personal
responsibility. It's the fact that you didn't try to prevent pregnancy
in the first place. There are plenty of non-abortion related things that
I feel the same way about - the "who cares if x happens, I can always do
y" that irks me. It's like tripping in the shopping mall and then
suing the management, spilling coffee in your lap and suing McDonalds,
being careless with your personal belongings and then expecting the
insurance company to reimburse you, etc.
|
| 20.298 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 19 1994 14:24 | 12 |
|
But why does it matter?
Why do you personally think abortion is OK in one circumstance
but not OK in some other?
What is it about abortion that makes it wrong?
Is it the killing of the child?
/john
|
| 20.299 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Perdition | Mon Dec 19 1994 14:33 | 10 |
|
As mentioned, I feel the same way about other things. It's not the
procedure itself, it's the lack of forethought and the attempt to duck
responsibility.
I consider making a decision to do x after attempting to prevent y is
more responsible than leaping off the bridge and saying "Full speed ahead,
damn the consequences, I have health insurance."
|
| 20.300 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Mon Dec 19 1994 14:33 | 17 |
| John,
It doesn't matter.
My views around abortion are different from anothers, which are
different from anothers, and so on and so on.
what makes pro-choice what it is, is even when we don't approve of a
person's decisions regarding her reproduction, we don't condemen her.
this is whether she aborts for the "frivolous" reason of the fact that
she can't support another child, or deciding to attempt to breed
constantly and have more children than she can physically, emotionally,
or financially. While I consider both of those options not moral to
me, I can't condemn another person for making either descision for
herself.
meg
|
| 20.301 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 19 1994 14:51 | 7 |
| I can't condemn a person for any reason, even aborting her child, or driving
it into a lake.
However, I do believe these actions are wrong and should be prevented in
advance with all possible means.
/john
|
| 20.302 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Dec 19 1994 14:57 | 13 |
| Debra:
Do you consider Ms. Smith's actions in South Carolina reprehensible
because she drove her children into a lake...or because without
foresight she broke the law?
On the same note, do you believe an abortion for birth control is
reprehensible because it lacked foresight, or because another persons
life is being terminated in the process? I'm particularly curious as
to your opinion of the last sentence...visa vie to you even consider it
a life?
-Jack
|
| 20.303 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Perdition | Mon Dec 19 1994 15:27 | 3 |
|
I do not consider a non-viable fetus to be a person. Susan Smith's
children were persons.
|
| 20.304 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Mon Dec 19 1994 15:28 | 3 |
| How many pro-choice people support federal funding of abortions?
-steve
|
| 20.305 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Mon Dec 19 1994 15:44 | 9 |
| I support COMPLETE reproductive care funding. this includes prenatal
care for those who choose to have babies, as well as abortions for
those who choose not to have them. I also support strongly research
into better BC methods and free contraception for those who request it.
Unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are the root cause of abortion. solve
that problem, and you will stop 95% of all abortions.
meg
|
| 20.306 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Dec 19 1994 15:45 | 3 |
| me, too.
DougO
|
| 20.307 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Dec 19 1994 15:54 | 16 |
| Then Debra, I assume by non viable, you are saying that a fetus which
relies on the host (that being the mother) is not human or a person.
See, this is the whole crux of the matter. If the above could be
proven, then forget the reprehensible talk...everybody should have as
many abortions as they want, providing they are safe.
In fact, I would be a very big proponent of genetic research...taking
live embryos and doing experimentation on them to find cures for
whatever genetic diseases they want to fix.
Yes, if it isn't human and it isn't a person, then absolutely nobody is
being hurt here. I'm glad you seem confident of this...I wish more
could be the same!
-Meaty!
|
| 20.308 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:01 | 5 |
|
Why go through an invasive medical procedure when there's no need? I
personally do not support government funding of pretty much _anything_
with my tax dollars, so no, I don't support government funding of
abortions.
|
| 20.309 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:02 | 7 |
| >
> I do not consider a non-viable fetus to be a person.
>
If you prick it, does it not bleed?
/john
|
| 20.310 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:04 | 6 |
| .309
> If you prick it, does it not bleed?
you missed the obligatory ooh er. but if you prick a frog, does it not
bleed? is it therefore a person?
|
| 20.311 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:06 | 2 |
| and snakes, scorpions and tarantulas all bleed too. goodness how many
humans have I offed when smashing bugs?
|
| 20.312 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | prepayah to suffah | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:06 | 10 |
| >free contraception
Since when is anything free? What you really mean is for people who
don't want to spend their money on birth control getting it at a cost
to everyone; i.e. our tax dollars being spent on those who can't be
bothered to buy condoms or what have you. If you're that fond of the
idea, why not spend your extra money directly on condoms that you can
give away to anyone who wants them? Why do I have to pay for my
contraception as well as the contraception of people who cannot be
bothered?
|
| 20.313 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:30 | 9 |
| >but if you prick a frog, does it not bleed? is it therefore a person?
Frog does not have human dna.
Fetus does. It bleeds if you prick it, it feels pain, it moves away from
invasive objects, its heart rate increases out of fear as you begin the
abortion procedure...
/john
|
| 20.314 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:40 | 5 |
| >invasive objects, its heart rate increases out of fear as you begin the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bzzt.
|
| 20.315 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:43 | 49 |
| | <<< Note 20.295 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| No, they most certainly are not. A pro abortionist is one who would be
| willing to go through the procedure themselves if they were able to. They
| believe abortion should be unregulated, used as birth control, used for gender
| choosing, used for convenience, used all the way up to the time the water
| breaks. That is pro abortion.
Oh, never knew that. Thanks for educating me. I had always put them in
the pro-choice group, and thought the "pro abortion" term was just another slam
against pro-choice people.
| I find the pro choice crowd seems to have a difficult time discerning where
| they really stand. Take your comment for example.
We will, but I am not pro-choice.
| To you, abortion is wrong if used for birth control BUT...abortion to you
| isn't a moral issue. You contradicted yourself here...if it isn't a moral
| issue, then abortion should be available for ALL reasons since there is no
| moral dilemna to be dealt with. That seems to make sense to me.
That's fine, it should make sense to you. Now, turn off Jack Martin
brain. Turn on ears. Listen. Jack, it is not a moral issue for me because God
is not part of my decision making on it. If people know the result of having sex
could cause one to get pregnant, then *I* feel they should take the consequences
that go with it. But that's just *my* opinion, it does not mean it is right, it
is wrong. It means that for *me*, it is the right view. How does this become a
moral issue? Ok, turn off ears, and slowly turn back on the Jack Martin brain.
Don't turn it on too fast, as we wouldn't want to blow a fuse! :-)
| I find this inconsistency disturbing in society more than any other.
Jack, what isn't inconsistant is your constanly telling us things we
don't mean. That is very consistant. :-) But seriously, I agree that people
can be very inconsistant on many things. I guess you could through out any
topic of discussion, and someone will end up at some point in time with an
inconsistant view. What happens is the same thing you just did. You point out
that inconsistancy and work with it from there. Except in this case there were
no inconsistancies, just a misinterpretation.
Oh..... and just incase you were wondering, *I* view that getting
<insert anything that can be prevented> is the person who got it's fault,
PROVIDING they knew what the end result could have been, that they weren't
forced into something, etc.
Glen
|
| 20.316 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:43 | 11 |
| It is fun to read the pros and cons in this topic. I enjoy the debate
and the many rational reasons for the participants beliefs. The
baby is a person is a good argument for pro-life. It can be argued
effectively. Individual rights for a women to choose is also a good
argument. As an individual rights advocate, I see the logic. The one
argument that I have trouble with is that women are using abortion as
birth control. It is difficult for me to believe that a women is saying
to herself, "I don't have to worry about birth control, I can always
get an abortion." Can someone explain the logic of this to me?
...Tom
|
| 20.317 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:45 | 4 |
| > It is fun to read the pros and cons in this topic. I enjoy the debate
> and the many rational reasons for the participants beliefs.
Quick! Someone call 911!
|
| 20.318 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Dec 19 1994 16:48 | 12 |
| Glen:
I find it interesting that you tied morality in with God. Also, I am
very careful to try to keep religion mutually exclusive from my
opinions on abortion. Not always but lately anyway!
Glen, I know plenty of athiests who are very moral and lead moral
lives. This makes your argument null and void. The question is, from
a scientific point of view, is abortion an immoral act? Not from a
belief aspect but from a scientific one!
Jack Martin brain on!
|
| 20.319 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Dec 19 1994 17:33 | 30 |
| | <<< Note 20.318 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| I find it interesting that you tied morality in with God.
I guess I do that because He was the one who defines what is and isn't
moral?
| Glen, I know plenty of athiests who are very moral and lead moral lives. This
| makes your argument null and void.
No, it does not. One can be a very moral person Jack, but would it get
them to Heaven if they did not believe in Him? The morals had to start
somewhere. It is my belief that it started with God.
I was hoping you would have talked about how my reasons are a moral
issue though.
| The question is, from a scientific point of view, is abortion an immoral act?
| Not from a belief aspect but from a scientific one!
So, if we take something scientific, don't put any beliefs into it, we
have to decide if it's immoral? Impossible Jack. Impossible.
| Jack Martin brain on!
God, are we in danger now!
Glen
|
| 20.320 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Dec 19 1994 17:36 | 7 |
| Glen:
Morals are relative to one's conscience, not necessarily to the deity
they follow. And we know that morals can fluctuate...depending on the
situation. We can always find a way to justify an action.
-Jack
|
| 20.321 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Mon Dec 19 1994 17:42 | 4 |
| >>We can always find a way to justify an action.
i can't.
|
| 20.322 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Dec 19 1994 17:45 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.321 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>
| >>We can always find a way to justify an action.
| i can't.
Lady Di, that is because you aren't a fundamentalist. The Spanish
Inquistions and stuff were always justfied.
|
| 20.323 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Mon Dec 19 1994 17:48 | 3 |
|
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
|
| 20.324 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Dec 19 1994 17:49 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.323 by POWDML::LAUER "Had, and then was" >>>
| Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
You are right about that! They never saw it coming....
|
| 20.325 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Mon Dec 19 1994 17:53 | 2 |
| Webster pretty much defines what is moral and what isn`t for me. God is
too busy for that sort of thing!!!!!!!!!!!1
|
| 20.326 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Dec 19 1994 18:10 | 14 |
| >> Lady Di, that is because you aren't a fundamentalist. The
>> Spanish Inquistions and stuff were always justfied.
Glen, please get your facts straight as to which fundamentalists you
refer to. I don't believe you will find fundie bible believing
Christians supporting the Spanish Inquisition...which they had no part
in anyway.
It's like speaking to a Irish woman saying, "that's because you aren't
German. The Holocaust and stuff were always justified."
Totally disjointed.
-Jack
|
| 20.327 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Dec 19 1994 18:16 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 20.326 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| Glen, please get your facts straight as to which fundamentalists you refer to.
Jack, I used the Spanish Inquisitions as an example. I used the word
fundamentalists because it also applies to more than just Christianity
religions.
| I don't believe you will find fundie bible believing Christians supporting the
| Spanish Inquisition...which they had no part in anyway.
Jack, I'm talking about, "at the time". There are things today that
fundamentalists will believe that will end up being wrong.
| It's like speaking to a Irish woman saying, "that's because you aren't
| German. The Holocaust and stuff were always justified."
Good point, but I think now you know I wasn't referring to this type of
logic.
Glen
|
| 20.328 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Dec 19 1994 18:18 | 4 |
| Okay...it's just that in the BOX, fundies usually defaults to bible
believing Christians.
-Jack
|
| 20.329 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Dec 19 1994 18:33 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.328 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| Okay...it's just that in the BOX, fundies usually defaults to bible believing
| Christians.
Take things on an individual basis please.... :-)
|
| 20.330 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Mon Dec 19 1994 19:34 | 18 |
| re: .305 & .306
Then you contradict your pro-choice stance. Pro-choice decries the
power of the individual to make a choice. What about MY choice? I do
not wish to fund abortions with my tax dollars. You say you are for
choice, but obviously only in part. You wish your choice to be
mandated via federal intrusion into my wallet (to fund something I find
morally reprehensible, i.e. abortion).
You can't yell about getting the government out of your life (in the
name of choice) while promoting government (taxpayer) funding of you
choice. It is inconsistent.
Now, if you were against federal funding of abortion, then you remain
more consistent with your goals of "pro-choice".
-steve
|
| 20.331 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Dec 19 1994 19:49 | 34 |
| >Then you contradict your pro-choice stance.
nonsense.
> What about MY choice? I do not wish to fund abortions with my tax
> dollars.
Tough noogies for you. That isn't the choice we're defending (as if
you didn't know.)
>You say you are for choice, but obviously only in part.
The part where a woman gets to decide whether or not to carry a
pregnancy to term.
> You wish your choice to be mandated via federal intrusion into my
> wallet (to fund something I find morally reprehensible, i.e. abortion).
aw, ain't that just a heartbreaker. How many times will you bring up
this shibboleth? Your premise was deemed invalid in the trials of
those who withheld taxes so as not to fund "bombs" purchased to fight
the "immoral" war in southeast asia. The courts laughed at the
defense. You get to vote. You get to pay taxes. You don't thereby
get to decide what is going to happen with those tax dollars. And you
don't get to decide what is going to happen in any womb but your own.
Me, I argue for full funding of prenatal care because it will result in
healthier babies and healthier women, and in a healthier society. Feel
free to argue those premises; feel free to write your congresspersons
to insist that public funding of abortions be prohibited. Feel free to
withhold your tax payments in protest, if you must; but for that
latter, you'll go to jail.
DougO
|
| 20.332 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Mon Dec 19 1994 20:07 | 8 |
| Pre-natal care can't really cover abortion, because if the baby
is aborted then there is no birth, therefore no pre-natal term.
Likewise "reproductive healthcare" can't really cover abortion
because abortion isn't reproductive -- it's anti-reproductive.
Just happened to come across "pro-choice" in my dictionary.
It says: pro-choice. adj. pro-abortion. FWIW.
|
| 20.333 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Mon Dec 19 1994 20:10 | 12 |
| DougO:
It's people like you that give prochoice a bad name. You are a
hypocrite...plain and simple. Saying things like tough noogies makes
other prochoicers fight against you...not just prolifers!
You want to fund prenatal care, that's one thing. But don't sit there
and try to convince us that abortion is prenatal care. It isn't and
all your going to do is continue to make life a living hell for those
you wish to benefit from this!
|
| 20.334 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Mon Dec 19 1994 20:17 | 2 |
| Abortion does = reproductive healthcare in that it has to do
with the reproductive _system_.
|
| 20.335 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Dec 19 1994 20:23 | 8 |
| Take a chill pill, Jack. Steve and I've had this discussion before,
and he drags it out every now and then when he's bored and wants to
fight. Defending his wallet obviously gives him a charge. So I stick
a pin in him and watch him pop. And if you blow up too, hey, what can
I say? Tough noogies. Prochoice is one issue, and funding is another.
Steve's .330 confused the issues. Don't you do it too.
DougO
|
| 20.336 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Mon Dec 19 1994 20:39 | 25 |
| Steve,
Every weekend that the AFA has home games, I watch a couple of hundred
thousands of my tax dollars at work in a method I don't approve of. I
live on the flight path for every variety of military aircraft as they
buzz the stadium.
I don't see where this improves my lot in life, cares for the health of
our nation or much of anything other than letting people with tiny
genatalia (IMO) feel bigger.
However sending a polite letter to the IRS explaining that I am
withholding x dollars from my taxes for this inane nonsense will land
me in jail. I pay it grudgingly.
The end results of women winding up self aborting (yes you and I pay
for this care, as well as the high number of low-birthweight babies for
those who do not get correct prenatal care) costs a hell of a lot more
than a theraputic abortion. You see we pay one way or another. FWIW I
put my money where my mouth is on this, donating to both the local
"justice fund for reproductive care" here as well as sending reasonable
donations to Birthright, an organization which helps women who wish to
carry to term as well.
meg
|
| 20.337 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Mon Dec 19 1994 20:45 | 17 |
| re: .331
"bombs" are a constitutional expenditure...like it or not...that is the
difference. You failed to differenciate this point last go round, too,
if memory serves.
At least you admit one thing, your pro-choice stance has nothing to do
with the government. Now we can move on to my next question...since it
is not government intrusion you are against, why do you use this stance
in your argument?
Women say "get out of my body" (and you agree), and I say get out of my
wallet. You seem to say that intrusion is okay as long as it agrees
with your viewpoint.
-steve
|
| 20.338 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Mon Dec 19 1994 20:54 | 9 |
| Steve,
They aren't bombing the academy, so your anology fails here. They are
using the planes the same way CU uses Ralphie the buffaloe. If you
feel mascoting a team is in the constitution.....
Well your reading comprhension defers with mine.
meg
|
| 20.341 | also applies to my last, .339, which I deleted | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Mon Dec 19 1994 20:59 | 7 |
| re: .338
You are right on that point. I misread that part of your note, as I
have been continually interupted by other concerns here at work. I
promise to read more carefully in the future.
-steve
|
| 20.342 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Mon Dec 19 1994 21:00 | 4 |
| re .335
I disagree. The issue and the funding of the issue cannot be
separated so easily.
|
| 20.343 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Dec 19 1994 21:01 | 23 |
| > since it is not government intrusion you are against, why do you use
> this stance in your argument?
Be so good as to recognize I didn't bring this up as part of any
'argument'. I answered a direct question (.304, I think). I consider
the funding issue separate from my prochoice position. I know of other
people who are prochoice who disagree with me on the funding issue. I
don't support federal funding for everything, I support it for some
things; in this case, as a health-care procedure that is more expensive
than it should be due to our catastrophically inadequate health care
delivery system, it shouldn't be denied to people who happen to be too
poor to afford it; because the cost to society is greater with unwanted
births and untended prenatal needs than is the cost of providing them
at taxpayer expense. But to me, they are separable issues. I
recognize that political niceties may prevent funding; some pols are
simply too spineless to face the heat on the issue.
I am amused that you consider an intrusion into your wallet as
important as an intrusion into a 9-month debilitating condition
so intimate as pregnancy. I guess few things are so important to
some as their money.
DougO
|
| 20.345 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Mon Dec 19 1994 21:10 | 3 |
| .340
Well then, perhaps it should be.
|
| 20.346 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Tue Dec 20 1994 12:28 | 75 |
| re: .343
> Be so good as to recognize I didn't bring this up as part of any
> 'argument'. I answered a direct question (.304, I think).
I recognize this fact. You had the right of it back a few...I'm just
prodding discussion (or starting an argument, as I believe you called
it).
> I consider
> the funding issue separate from my prochoice position.
You cannot easily separate these issues...they are connected. First,
legalize abortion (1972). Next, get taxpayers to foot the bill for
those who can't afford the procedure. The next step, being pushed by
pro-choice people (not all, but the ones who get media exposure) is to
have it covered on a national health care bill (though so far we have
been lucky enough not to have handed over this much of our economy to
the government).
> I know of other
> people who are prochoice who disagree with me on the funding issue. I
> don't support federal funding for everything, I support it for some
> things;
Why not everything? If you can rationalize abortion, welfare, federal
housing, health care, why not everything? Where do you draw the line?
> in this case, as a health-care procedure that is more expensive
> than it should be due to our catastrophically inadequate health care
> delivery system,
I disagree. Our health care delivery system is the best in the world,
even with the current problems. It is the socialization of medicine
along with ridiculous malpractice premiums that keep the cost of health
care skyrocketing year after year (though there are other reasons, as
well).
> it shouldn't be denied to people who happen to be too
> poor to afford it; because the cost to society is greater with unwanted
> births and untended prenatal needs than is the cost of providing them
> at taxpayer expense.
And why is the cost to society greater? Because we have taken on the
mentality that all the poor should be coddled by the federal
government, rather than private organizations as was done in the past.
This mentality of big-daddy government will take care of all is the
problem.
If they are too poor to afford an abortion (or children, which goes
without saying if they can't afford and abortion), then quite frankly,
they shouldn't be engaging in certain activities that are WELL KNOWN to
cause pregnancy. Why am I, as a taxpayer, responsible to clean up
someone else's mess (which resulted from irresponsible behavior).
> But to me, they are separable issues. I
> recognize that political niceties may prevent funding; some pols are
> simply too spineless to face the heat on the issue.
And others are so spineless that they would force all taxpayers to dole
out money to pay for other people's irresponsibility. No wonder things
never get better.
> I am amused that you consider an intrusion into your wallet as
> important as an intrusion into a 9-month debilitating condition
> so intimate as pregnancy. I guess few things are so important to
> some as their money.
I'm surprised that you can't see that an intrusion into the wallets of
taxpayers to fund your morality is wrong, and is every bit the
government intrusion you feel a limitation on abortion on demand would
be.
-steve
|
| 20.347 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 20 1994 12:58 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.333 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| It's people like you that give prochoice a bad name. You are a hypocrite...
| plain and simple.
Jack, calling people hypocrites and everything else you do makes people
wonder about you. DougO has been very straight forward in his replies, and very
consistant. If tough noogies is something you think is proof for him being a
hypocrite, please elaborate on that.
Glen
|
| 20.348 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 20 1994 13:00 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.337 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>
| "bombs" are a constitutional expenditure...like it or not...that is the
| difference.
Steve, where is it written that the government will fund abortion
clinics?
Glen
|
| 20.349 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Tue Dec 20 1994 13:02 | 11 |
| Steve,
with Health care reform, why should I have to take a lesser coverage
than I have now with my HMO? Reproductive health care (including
male reproductive health care) is covered.
Would you like a health care program that doesn't cover BPE? I mean
after all, having the trickles is only a "minor inconvenience" for a
man, and certainly not life threatening.
meg
|
| 20.350 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Tue Dec 20 1994 13:49 | 7 |
| Meg,
I don't feel abortion is "reproductive health care". You aren't
reproducing, you are exterminating.
-steve
|
| 20.351 | YOU WILL BE EXTERRRRMINATED! | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 20 1994 13:51 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.350 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>
| I don't feel abortion is "reproductive health care". You aren't
| reproducing, you are exterminating.
Exterminating is what Darleks do best!
|
| 20.352 | Point of information. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Dec 20 1994 14:01 | 5 |
|
I'm going to admit to ignorance. At this time (12/94), does the
government of the USA provide funds for abortions or not ?
bb
|
| 20.353 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 20 1994 14:05 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.352 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
| I'm going to admit to ignorance. At this time (12/94), does the government
| of the USA provide funds for abortions or not ?
bb, I was hoping Steve would have answered .348, as he has been in this
topic. I'm sure he has no reason to avoid the question.
Glen
|
| 20.354 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Tue Dec 20 1994 14:20 | 8 |
| Glen:
I don't mean to come across disrespectful to DougO. But DougO claims
to be prochoice...as long as it fits his agenda. For some reason he
has this notion that the government has a God given right to fund
programs that aren't constitutional.
-Jack
|
| 20.355 | Just a request for data. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Dec 20 1994 14:32 | 11 |
|
My understanding is that SCOTUS has ruled the USA may not prohibit
abortion outright on vaguely 4th Amendment grounds, and that the
elected Congress may choose to fund them, or not - either being
consitutional. I just don't know whether Congress has done so.
I vaguely remember that it has NOT funded them. If that's true,
DougO's "tough noogies" is for himself, since his side lost the
vote. But if it IS funded, tough noogies is for his opponents.
Surely John Covert knows what is funded currently ? bb
|
| 20.356 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 20 1994 14:42 | 20 |
| | <<< Note 20.354 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| I don't mean to come across disrespectful to DougO. But
A Jack Martin CLASSIC!!!! :-)
| DougO claims to be prochoice...as long as it fits his agenda.
I have seen the 1st part, but not the 2nd.
| For some reason he has this notion that the government has a God given right
| to fund programs that aren't constitutional.
One, nice of you to throw in God given right, but two, I'll ask you the
same thing I asked Steve Leech. Where is it written that the fed gov will fund
abortions?
Glen
|
| 20.357 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Tue Dec 20 1994 15:01 | 12 |
| Glen,
The medicaid funding for abortions only happens if:
1. A woman's life is in danger
2. If the pregnancy is a result of a timely reported rape
3. If the pregnancy is the result of incest (also must have been
reported before the pregnancy is known about.)
|
| 20.358 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Tue Dec 20 1994 15:01 | 17 |
| Glen,
It doesn't...not yet anyway. However, I believe that abortion is now
funded at army hospitals overseas and only in cases of rape, incest,
and life endangerment. I happen to agree with this.
Thank God that FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) was crushed in conference
and thank God for the Hyde Ammendment. Believe me, they are
trying...relentlessly. I believe it would cause a severe backlash if
it were funded.
So I take DougO's tough noogies lightly. As for your other question,
DougO is pro choice. Problem is, he doesn't give the society
choice...he says tough noogies. That's what makes him hypocritical at
times!
-Jack
|
| 20.359 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Tue Dec 20 1994 15:05 | 13 |
| Jack,
when I have the choice to defund those freakin jets that are on my
flight plan every other weekend in the fall, or to push my money to
items I want funded, then I will agree that you should have a choice on
how your tax dollars are spent as well.
I really think it would be entertaining to allow taxpayers to allocate
say 20% of their money for their favorite programs. Could be
interesting if teachers are paid what they are worth and the pentagon
had to hold a bakesale, now wouldn't it?
meg
|
| 20.360 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Tue Dec 20 1994 15:18 | 14 |
| Meg:
Coming from a gun nut, I'm quite surprised at your attitude toward
military funding...being one of the big tenants of the Constitution and
all.
Try to understand...healthcare is not a tenant of the Constitution.
Expecially a service that the country is adamantly opposed to for
themselves. Yes Meg, many pro-choice folks wouldn't even consider the
option. And most of them oppose federal funds for this. This is why I
moved out of Massachusetts. Governor Weld has his sheep paying for sex
changes for cryin out loud!!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.361 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Tue Dec 20 1994 15:24 | 12 |
| Jack,
I have no problem with a military to defend the borders of this
country. I do have a problem with the US becoming the world's
mercenaries, and definitely a problem with unnecessary expenditures,
especially when they come at the expense of conversing at a normal
level in my back yard for up to three hours every other saturday in the
late summer and early fall. For this mess of feedlot sweepings to boost
egos, the pentagon can hold a bake sale.
meg
|
| 20.362 | | HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS | | Tue Dec 20 1994 15:29 | 12 |
| <<< Note 20.360 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
> Coming from a gun nut, I'm quite surprised at your attitude toward
> military funding...being one of the big tenants of the Constitution and
> all.
Yeah? Do they pay rent?
Try to understand...healthcare is not a tenant of the Constitution.
But if we can get more rent-paying tenants, we could get rid of the
national debt.
|
| 20.363 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Tue Dec 20 1994 15:49 | 3 |
| Man I'm worse than Emily Latella (Gilda Radner)
What this I hear about endangered fecies?!!!
|
| 20.364 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 20 1994 17:29 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.357 by CSC32::M_EVANS "My other car is a kirby" >>>
| The medicaid funding for abortions only happens if:
| 1. A woman's life is in danger
| 2. If the pregnancy is a result of a timely reported rape
| 3. If the pregnancy is the result of incest (also must have been
| reported before the pregnancy is known about.)
Then whu would anyone complain about the medicade funding? Those are
all excellent reasons as to why one may not want to have a child.
Glen
|
| 20.365 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 20 1994 17:31 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.360 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| Governor Weld has his sheep paying for sex changes for cryin out loud!!!!
Gene.... you can get a sheep for any occasion here in MA. Maybe this is
where you should move to. :-)
|
| 20.366 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Tue Dec 20 1994 17:34 | 8 |
|
RE: .364
>...as to why one may not want to have a child.
A child? Isn't it just a bunch of tissue???
|
| 20.367 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Dec 20 1994 17:35 | 2 |
| Speaking of sheep sex changes, the Fordham University women's basketball team
is (or was) called the Lady Rams.
|
| 20.368 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Tue Dec 20 1994 17:37 | 5 |
| re: .367
Now that's funny!!!
...Tom
|
| 20.369 | Good choice... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Dec 20 1994 17:44 | 3 |
|
Ewe you call them that... bb
|
| 20.370 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 20 1994 17:50 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.366 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
| >...as to why one may not want to have a child.
| A child? Isn't it just a bunch of tissue???
We ALL are a bunch of tissue.
|
| 20.371 | | GMT1::TEEKEMA | The ultimate experiment gone bad !! | Tue Dec 20 1994 17:51 | 7 |
|
Then I've been blowing my nose the wrong way........%^)
I thought we were just bags of water.........%^))
|
| 20.372 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Tue Dec 20 1994 17:59 | 7 |
| re: .361
I agree with you on this, Meg. The military is being used for
non-Constitutionally sound agendas (not to mention being put under UN
command).
-steve
|
| 20.373 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Tue Dec 20 1994 18:05 | 13 |
|
RE: .370
Nice spin... But you do a lot of that, don't you...
You used the word "child"... is that what you meant? Yes or no!
I want to see the wriggle on this one...
and BTW.... remember, don't quit your day job...
|
| 20.374 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 20 1994 18:12 | 22 |
| | <<< Note 20.373 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
| Nice spin... But you do a lot of that, don't you...
My head is spinnin today.... there is that flu goin round....
| You used the word "child"... is that what you meant? Yes or no!
Of course it was what I meant. You're the one who went off on a tissue
tangent. I just went with it. If a woman decides to not have an abortion, she
will have a child. If she does have the abortion, she will not have a child.
What is so hard about that Andy? I support the funding for the abortions that
were mentioned in meg's note. But of course you could explain why you went on
your tissue excursion.
| I want to see the wriggle on this one...
No wriggling needed Andy.
Glen
|
| 20.375 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Tue Dec 20 1994 18:28 | 5 |
|
>If she does have the abortion, she will not have a child.
Thank you.... that explains everything...
|
| 20.376 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Dec 20 1994 18:57 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.375 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
| >If she does have the abortion, she will not have a child.
| Thank you.... that explains everything...
Now explain the tissues thing if you would...
|
| 20.377 | make 'em pay | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 21 1994 17:21 | 45 |
| AP 20 Dec 94 20:10 EST V0493
Copyright 1994. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
MILWAUKEE (AP) -- The federal government filed its first lawsuit
Tuesday seeking compensation from protesters who blocked access to an
abortion clinic. Six of the eight defendants had been the first people
charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Each was
convicted Nov. 15 of a misdemeanor for a first-time nonviolent
offense.
The first person convicted under the new law was Paul Hill, a former
minister who killed an abortion doctor and an escort July 29 outside a
Pensacola, Fla., clinic. He was convicted Oct. 5 and has been sentenced
to die in the electric chair.
The defendants in the lawsuit chained and locked themselves inside cars
parked June 4 in front of the entrances to Affiliated Medical Services.
Another protester was cemented into a 55-gallon drum in front of one of
the doors, and d to be chipped out by firefighters.
The demonstration closed the building for about 90 minutes.
The Justice Department lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction barring the
defendants from blocking clinic entrances and seeks unspecified
monetary damages to compensate the clinic, police and fire
departments.
The clinic also has sued.
Monica Migliorino Miller, director of Citizens for Life, said the
lawsuit was unnecessary.
"The United States attorney is apparently filing this action to recover
costs. Regarding the police and fire department, morally speaking, they
had absolutely no right to be there," Mrs. Miller said.
Six of the defendants each face up to six months in prison and a
$10,000 fine at sentencing Feb. 13 on the criminal charges. Mrs.
Miller's husband, Edmund, and a juvenile who weren't charged were also
named in the lawsuit.
The federal law prohibits blockades, violence or threats against
abortion clinics, workers and clients, with tougher penalties for acts
of violence.
|
| 20.378 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Dec 21 1994 17:29 | 5 |
| >make 'em pay
Why should they pay any more than anti-nuke or anti-fur demonstrators?
/john
|
| 20.379 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Wed Dec 21 1994 17:34 | 3 |
|
If someone throws paint on my fur coat, I'd certainly expect them to
pay.
|
| 20.380 | These people simply blocked the entrance | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Dec 21 1994 17:38 | 1 |
| What if someone delays you from buying a fur coat for 90 minutes?
|
| 20.381 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Wed Dec 21 1994 17:45 | 3 |
|
Is there a Freedom of Access to Furrier Entrances law?
|
| 20.382 | The existence of a law doesn't mean it's a good law | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Dec 21 1994 17:45 | 3 |
| re .381
Should there be?
|
| 20.383 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Dec 21 1994 17:53 | 1 |
| John, don't act furrier than thou.
|
| 20.384 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 21 1994 17:54 | 6 |
| >The existence of a law doesn't mean it's a good law.
doesn't mean its a bad law either. Civil disobedience has its price.
make 'em pay it.
DougO
|
| 20.385 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Wed Dec 21 1994 17:59 | 4 |
| >>John, don't act furrier than thou.
that's all he sable to do.
|
| 20.386 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Wed Dec 21 1994 18:00 | 6 |
|
.385
You stole my line
|
| 20.387 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Wed Dec 21 1994 18:35 | 9 |
|
Seeing someone was cemented in a barrell, maybe a trip to the white
coat ranch would be in order..... or instead of chipping him out, take him out
for a roll!
|
| 20.388 | Involuntary customer... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Wed Dec 21 1994 18:42 | 6 |
|
They should pay for any real damages, like anybody else would. So ?
You could just chip a hole in the cement around his left pant pocket,
take the wallet out, abscond. :-) bb
|
| 20.389 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Wed Dec 21 1994 18:42 | 6 |
| John:
To have laws blocking access to other things would be wrong. Blocking
clinic laws is politikly korrect these days...the others aren't.
-Jack
|
| 20.390 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Wed Dec 21 1994 18:52 | 4 |
|
Maybe once the protesters start making as much of a nuisance of themselves
at furriers and power plants as they do at clincs, there *will* be a
law.
|
| 20.391 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Wed Dec 21 1994 18:56 | 4 |
|
very good point deb
|
| 20.392 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Wed Dec 21 1994 19:13 | 2 |
|
But if I comb my hair properly, bla bla bla.
|
| 20.393 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Wed Dec 21 1994 19:33 | 1 |
| Yeah but it's inconsistent!
|
| 20.394 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Wed Dec 21 1994 19:35 | 2 |
|
How so, meatyluv?
|
| 20.395 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Wed Dec 21 1994 19:48 | 5 |
| Got to maintain a distance from the clinic even though it's public
property. Not so with a fur company. This is an invasion of YOUR
constitutional rights!
-Meaty!
|
| 20.396 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Wed Dec 21 1994 19:54 | 13 |
|
But meatyone, if the anti-fur protesters start making the
aforementioned nuisance of themselves, and blocking the entrance, and
harassing the customers, and carting around jars with skinned minks in
them, and praying, bla bla bla, then it's possible that a law will be
enacted to protect the furriers. It's possible that law will include a
protest-free zone.
There are, I'm sure, other "public property" places into which we cannot
step.
Isn't there also a law that states no campaigning within x feet of a
polling place? Is that against our constitutional rights also?
|
| 20.398 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Just say `Oh, all right.' | Wed Dec 21 1994 20:00 | 7 |
|
.397
'fraid Joe's right...my sister is one of those anti-fur protesters.
Just got arrested a couple of weeks ago...doing exactly what was
described (except for the skinned mink, and the praying).
|
| 20.399 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Wed Dec 21 1994 20:01 | 11 |
| >> It's possible that law will include a
>> protest-free zone.
But don't you see Too-Ra-Lu-Ra-Lu-Raaa...Tu-Ra-Lauer-Li...
You are relinquishing your 1st ammendment rights here. Regardless of
the issue, this is wrong wrong wrong!!!!!
Good point on polling places. Yes, lets give them the ability to poll
by the front door!
MeatyLuv (not dog food!!!)
|
| 20.400 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Wed Dec 21 1994 20:02 | 2 |
|
Is the White House public property?
|
| 20.401 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Wed Dec 21 1994 20:05 | 2 |
| It is under the auspices of the Federal government as are all the mall
exhibits in DC. A sidewalk in front of a clinic is different!
|
| 20.402 | | POWDML::LAUER | Had, and then was | Wed Dec 21 1994 20:11 | 9 |
|
Well, you know, Jack, with the rash of shootings, dive bombings, etc. at
the White House, I wouldn't be surprised if a neutral zone was made around
it. Gotta-protect-the-occupant-idea, ya know. There are crazies out
there.
Same with the clinic, in a fashion. With the rash of bombings, shootings
of doctors, etc. at clinics...gotta-protect...there are crazies...see
my point?
|
| 20.403 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Thu Dec 22 1994 12:30 | 13 |
|
IMNSHO.... I believe anti-abortionists should receive the same
penalties as anti-nuke, anti-fur, anti-whatever activists....
No more, no less...
So let's find out what the harshest penalty is for all those "crimes"
and apply it across the board....
Deal?
|
| 20.404 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 22 1994 12:54 | 15 |
| Debra:
I was listening to CSPAN the other night. They closed down the side
roads to the White House some years back...making them non public ways.
To close down Pennsylvania Ave. or the road behind the White House
would be a sign of isolationism and something the Executive office
doesn't want to communicate to the public. There are political reasons
for everything aren't there?!!
The only thing I'm interested in is protecting YOUR constitutional
rights under Ammendment 1. If we give way on one form of protest, we
open a pandoras box for weakening the BoR.
-Meatybabe!
|
| 20.405 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Thu Dec 22 1994 13:03 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.400 by POWDML::LAUER "Had, and then was" >>>
| Is the White House public property?
No, everyone knows the WH is America's FAVE-O-RITE shooting gallery!
|
| 20.406 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Thu Dec 22 1994 13:04 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.393 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
| Yeah but it's inconsistent!
No Jack, it isn't. If Deb combs her hair a certain way, the point goes
away every time! Trust me! :-)
|
| 20.407 | 'ala communisT nations'...rather | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Thu Dec 22 1994 13:05 | 13 |
| re: .403
Those weren't harsh enough, so they twisted RICO laws to suit their
purposes.
You know, I get this strange feeling about using RICO on abortion
protesters...like they are being treated as political criminals ala
communism.
It's strange the way politically incorrect "crimes" are worse that the
same crime committed in a politically correct cause.
-steve
|
| 20.408 | Agreed | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Thu Dec 22 1994 13:35 | 8 |
|
<-------
Can you say "hypocrite" boys and girls?
Sure you can!!
|
| 20.409 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Dec 22 1994 13:40 | 5 |
| Gee, mine has approx. 6 definitions (only one identifying it as a
weapon). Did your dictionary include more than one (and didn't
mention them out of conveneince)?
Chip
|
| 20.410 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Thu Dec 22 1994 13:47 | 8 |
| >>Did your dictionary include more than one (and didn't
>>mention them out of conveneince)?
Of the definitions in my dictionary that define a gun as
a device for shooting projectiles, 75% define it as a weapon.
(Definition number 1 included.)
|
| 20.411 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Dec 23 1994 00:05 | 11 |
| Saw and saved on another system some news aricles about California's
new approach to sex-ed for middle schoolers. Its a forty-hour (1-week)
unit for co-ed eigth grade classes. Locally, Planned Parenthood has
the contract to deliver it in several districts. The program is called
ENABL; that's for Educate Now, And Babies Later. Next time I get
access to the systems where I saved the articles, probably next
Tuesday, I'll send 'em over here and enter them. Meanwhile, I'll
expect the usual uninformed thumpery about evil Planned Parenthood and
bad sex-ed, in here...
DougO
|
| 20.412 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Fri Dec 23 1994 00:35 | 5 |
|
And of course we get the privilege of paying for it whether we
want/like it or not....
|
| 20.413 | Not The Last Word | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Dec 23 1994 01:51 | 509 |
|
I am not a regular reader of this notesconference, but a friend of mine
who lurks here occasionally and knew of my interest in abortion policy
persuaded me to post a document I'm co-authoring with my daughter for
one of the University's law-school policy rags. I must confess to
amazement at the size of this note. No wonder we're having so much
trouble ... [:-)
Caveat: this note is the first of two parts of a *very* rough draft of
the final article. Its intent is to propose a secular case for
opposing liberal abortion policies. I do not mean to diminish the
importance of religion in providing content to this debate, but at
present my perception is that the religious based justifications for
opposing abortion predominate the anti-abortion rhetoric. I've always
felt this was too bad, because I've come to believe a stronger case for
opposing liberalized abortion exists when grounded in empirical
science, especially if developed with a rigorous understanding of
evolutionary biology and role nature has played in shaping our
foundational philosophies.
Unfortunately, I am only able to post the first part as the second
part, while drafted is in even rougher shape than this. I'll probably
have the second part in shape by the end of the holidays.
Just a quick bio for you:
My daughter is a second year law student at the University of
Washington. I am an infrequent, part-time instructor at the University
of Washington Medical School (I used to do research there in my
previous life). My day job is here at DECwest in the I/O engineering
group.
Enjoy,
/mtp
*** DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT ***
1.0 Overview
Words are important. The extent to which the words we use do not convey
our intended meaning are often a measure of our deceit. When we build a
phrase from words that carry disruptive, pejorative, or otherwise negative
connotations when a less emotionally charged construction would be more
accurate, our objective becomes not to persuade but to deceive, to insult,
or to hurt. Thus is the debate over abortion. Communication between the
two camps has deteriorated, essentially to an ad hominem polemic that is
embarassing at best, and destructive at worse.
Essential to this general decline in civility has been our tendency to
use words that are deliberately disengenuous. For example, the use of
the phrases pro-choice and pro-life are consciously misleading because
they imply a meaning with which, in other contexts, most of us would
agree. These phrases do not inform us what the debate is all about
unless they are followed by "with respect to abortion". For example,
if the debate is not so much about abortion, but about free choice and
individual liberty then the fundamental question must be "under what
circumstances, and to what extent, may the right of free choice and an
individual's liberty be constrained". We should be hearing a lot more
from the pro-choice advocates about what Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith,
Friedman, Jefferson, Hamilton, Marx, and Engels and others, all of whom
played significant roles in developing the foundational principles of
free choice and individual liberty, had to say.
In my experience, the pro-choice advocates uniformly ignore these
seminal thinkers principally for two reasons:
1) They are unfamiliar with the writings of these philosophers, though
probably not their names. These pro-choicers believe deeply in the
concepts of free-choice and individual liberty but have not thought
particularly deeply on the problems that arise when freedom is
unconstrained and we are all free to do whatever we will.
2) They are familiar with the writings of these philosophers, but choose
to ignore their findings, namely that governments and the laws by which
they govern are constructed precisely to limit free-choice and
individual liberty where conflicts arise. The practical corollary over
which Jefferson and Hamilton debated vigorously was how does a society
construct a fair and just government and still promote free-choice and
individual liberty?
Pro-lifers are no less relaxed about the rationalization of their position:
If the issue is about pro-life, we should be hearing a lot more about the
sanctity of human life and the extent to which a society really holds to
the concept that the right to life, if it exists at all, is inalienable.
Certainly we must kill to eat? However, we also have a set of ethical and
moral values that permit us to kill other humans for instructional purposes
or to take revenge. We kill in self-defense or under the color of triage.
When society makes war, individuals are conscripted and then required to
kill and be killed for reasons that may have little or nothing to do with
self-defense, or the defense of others. Do pro-lifers, who by and large
support these forms of killing, really believe in the sanctity of human
life, or are they just being sanctimonious?
I am of the opinion that both camps have something to say, but because of
the way the debate has been structured, pro-choice v. pro-life, the
arguments of one camp are not responsive to the assertions of the other.
Accordingly, I propose to recast the abortion debate in a more rigorous and
straightforward way. To this end, I assert the following:
o The debate is more meaningfully characterized as pro-abortion versus
anti-abortion. The principles of free-choice and individual liberty are
relevant only insofar as the inform one position or another.
o The claim that a fetus is an individual human being is scientifically
valid. As such, a fetus is not the property of its biological mother
and, accordingly, may not be sold or its rights transferred to another.
o As a fundamental principle, the right-to-life is inherent in all human
beings and can not be withheld or arbitrarily denied. The concept of a
right-to-life derives from socio-biological and evolutionary
considerations of reproductive fitness, not any specific moral or other
arbitrary ethical framework. As such it is a general right, and
attaches to everyone, not just those of a particular culture or
religion.
o The fetus, as a human being, merits the full protection of the state.
Full protection of the state means that the state, and not a mother,
has an obligation to determine how and under what circumstances
abortion may be permitted. Full protection does not mean, or even
imply, that abortion must be completely and irrevocably outlawed.
The arguments are presented in two major sections of the paper, of which
this posting constitutes only the first. In this section, the biological
and sociological arguments against the premise that a fetus's mother has
autonomous life or death purview over its fate is presented.
The second section, The Ethical and Legal Myths of Pro-Abortion Theory I
address the ethical dilemmas raised by the legal principle of substantive
due process, from which the right-to-privacy as discovered in Griswold v.
Connecticut and expanded in Roe v. Wade, was derived. The intent of this
section is to show that those who support the findings in Roe hold to the
same logic used by racists and eugenicists. The dilemma faced by
pro-abortionists who justify abortion on the basis of privacy is that the
society that permits abortion on the basis outlined by the Court must
logically and ethically permit racism and eugenics. To do otherwise,
renders the protection of human life subject to intentions of people, not
the constraints of law.
2.0 The Socio-Biological Foundations of Anti-Abortion Theory
2.1 The Fetus as Part of the Mother's Body
A fetus is a unique and individual member of its species (identical twins,
notwithstanding) and, from a biological point of view, is not part of the
mother's body. In support of this assertion, note the following:
The fetus is immunologically incompatible with the mother. This is to say,
that the maternal host will reject (destroy and expel) the fetus using the
same mechanisms by which she would reject a foreign tissue graft.
Fortunately, the maternal cellular immune system is suppressed only with
respect to the antigens of its fetus. After parturition, a graft of infant
tissue to its mother will be rejected outright, suggesting that nature has
provided specific mechanism suppressing the maternal host's normal
rejection response to the allogeneic tissue of the fetus. Note carefully
that histoincompatibility (which causes rejection of foreign tissue) is
used in both scientific and legal forums to define individuality.
The genotype of a fetus, determined as it is by combining both paternal and
maternal DNA, is genetically distinct from both its mother and its father.
By construction, this finding demonstrates biological individuality.
The fetus is anatomically and physiologically separate from its mother.
The fetus attaches to the outside (the topological exterior) surface of its
mother and, under normal circumstances, does not invade or otherwise
penetrate into the interior of the mother's body. Said another way, no
finding exists for the argument that the fetus is part of, or contained
within, the mother's body. To this end, a fetus is unlike its mother's
ovaries or uterus, uniquely female organs over which the mother most
certainly has absolute control.
The fetus obtains nourishment by absorbing nutrients across its placental
membranes (the placenta is fetal tissue, not maternal). A suckling infant,
subject to the full protection of the law, obtains its nourishment in the
same manner except it forces fluid from its mother's breast by creating a
vacuum over the nipple, whereas a fetus's nourishment is transferred across
its placental membranes via an osmotic pump. The physics are identical and
both would die of starvation, but for the mother.
The fetus is immunologically, genetically, physiologically, and
topologically analogous to a suckling infant; and no less an individual
human being as a consequence. To understand otherwise is naive and fosters
an invalid assumption that a fetus is biologically analogous to a wart,
mole, or follicle of hair. A fetus, apart from its size and shape, is
provably a unique individual member of the human race. More to the point,
a fetus, begins its life completely separate and apart from its mother and,
just like newborn infants, is totally dependent on the favorable
intentions, health, and competence of its mother for survival.
The overwhelming evidence for biological individuality of the fetus,
separate from that of its maternal host, argues strongly against the
pro-abortionist's argument that, because a fetus is part of a woman's body,
she should have life or death control over its fate. Put simply, the fetus
is not a part of her body, never was, and never will be. On the other
hand, uteruses and ovaries are uniquely female body parts over which
individual women have uncontested final authority.
2.2 Abortion as a Female-Only Issue
Not having a biological basis for the claim that a fetus is a part of a
woman's body, from where does the female claim of autonomous fetal purview
derive? The answer lies, I believe, in two fundamental assertions:
1. A fetus imposes a great, and sometimes fatal, burden on the mother.
2. Bringing a fetus to term is a uniquely female obligation.
The first point is grossly overstated and the second, while true today,
shows every indication that, in the near future, will not be true.
2.2.1 The Fetal Burden as a Risk Factor
Historically, pregnancy has been viewed as a risky undertaking. In many
third-world countries pregnancy still imposes a significant risk to both
baby and mother. However, the risk is not inherent in the pregnancy.
Rather, the risk arises as a consequence of other factors, notably drug
abuse, malnutrition, diabetes, age, and genetic deficiency disease for
which pregnancy would be otherwise contraindicated. Said another way,
pregnancy is inherently safe, except in the presence of these, and other
well-known risk factors.
That a fetus makes significant physiological demands on its maternal host
is inarguable. However, the assertion that pregnancy puts a female at
greater risk than she would be otherwise is not supportable. The morbidity
and mortality studies of which I am aware show unambiguously that a normal
healthy woman is less likely to be injured by, get sick from, or be killed
by her pregnancy than would her non-pregnant sisters. For example, in
healthy adult females of reproductive age, the U.S. mortality rate due to
complications of pregnancy is 7 in 100,000. To put this into perspective,
observe that the probabability of a healthy adult female dying from any
accident this year is 24 in 100,000, over 3 times greater than for
complications of pregnancy.
In the final analysis, the claim that pregnancy is inherently dangerous and
imposes a risk on females is simply not true. To claim that a woman's life
is put at risk because she bears an increased risk from her pregnancy and
that therefore a right accrues to her granting sole purview over the fetus
does not follow. Such a conclusion could only follow if women are put at
risk by pregnancy. They are clearly not, and therefore the claim that a
woman must have life or death purview over the fetus does not follow.
2.2.2 The Myth of Female Obligation
2.2.2.1 Female Obligation and Society's Interest
Society has a deep and profound interest in the welfare of women and
expresses this interest in the enactment of laws and cultural behaviors
that protect, and exalt women, generally, and pregnant women specifically.
For example, the likelihood that an adult male will die from any accident
this year is 40 in 100,000, while for adult women the ratio is 24 in
100,000. This is a significant and inarguable difference. More to the
point, this difference arises from natural cultural atavism, that is
society's expression of the greater relative value evolution has placed on
female reproductive fitness over that of males.
Gender-specific disparity in risk is not an artifact of human civilization
and is very common in many other organisms. The explanation for
gender-specific differences in general, is based on the observation that
females have a much higher energy investment in the gene pool than males.
To protect this investment, many animal species have evolved physical
characteristics, individual and group behaviors, and social organizations
designed to protect and nurture females in general, and pregnant females,
in particular. From termites to humans, many animals exhibit a social
structure conforming to a model in which females, especially pregnant ones,
are more highly valued than males.
The basis for gender-specific risk disparities can be seen in the great
apes, among other animals. These animals are sexually dimorphic (the male
is the larger, more aggressive sex). Sexual dimorphism arises in many
species in which a significant role of the male is to defend of the clan,
or more specifically, the clan's females. Apart from breeding, these males
have evolved the physical and behavioral attributes necessary to put
themselves in harm's way to protect the females (and infants). For
example, male chimpanzees, much larger and more aggressive than females,
behave in ways that are explicitly designed to protect the clan's females.
Jane Goodall has observed, for example, that when cornered by a [dummy]
leopard, male chimpanzees will attack the leopard while other males
physically shield the females from potential harm.
Behavior of this type is not limited to the great apes. The adult bulls of
tundra caribou, when pursued by wolves, run behind and to the side of the
herd while the calves and females run at the center. Protective behaviors
of this kind are very common. By contrast, no mammalian species has
evolved behaviors in which females and children work in concert to protect
the male members of the species.
Humans are fundamentally no different. In most human cultures the relative
value of females, and especially pregnant ones, is expressed by a number of
behaviors, not the least of which are the numerous legal protections
applied to females generally, and pregnant females specifically. These
same protections are explicitly withheld from males. Protections for
pregnant women, for example, can be found in the earliest known written
laws including the Summerian code (2000 BC), the Hammurabic code (1500 BC),
the Assyrian code (1300 BC), and the Hittite code (600 BC). All of these
ancient canons contain laws that apply differential protection to females
over that of males. In each of these codes, explicit and harsh penalties
are applied to any member of society who harms a pregnant woman. The
penalties range from partial dismemberment to death-by-torture.
Animals evolve behaviors, just as they evolve coat-color, as a response to
selective forces in nature that serve to remove non-adaptive genes from a
population. In many animals, females are more highly valued than males
precisely because the reproductive success of the species is concentrated
in the female. For example, while sperm are readily available and can be
made on demand, eggs are relatively rare and are created only once in a
female's lifetime. Females, as producers of eggs, and as incubators of
embryos, are the engines of a species' reproductive success. When these
engines are compromised the likelihood that the species will become extinct
is increased.
The moral impulse of human societies to apply differential and more
effective protections to their female members should not be interpreted as
a conscious attempt to relegate women to a subordinate role. Rather, such
impulses are the product of evolution and natural selection and constitute
the strongest of biological imperatives. The desire to protect human
females and their reproductive potential is at once natural, efficient, and
in the final analysis, in the best interests of the species. We should not
be surprised, therefore, that human cultures express the higher value
placed on female reproductive fitness in the form of cultural behaviors and
legal sanctions that serve to protect women and exalt her role as guardian
of the our reproductive heritage.
2.2.2.2 Females as Incubators
Today's medical technology has not yet progressed to the point where human
embryos can be grown to term in vitro. Until this becomes a reality,
pregnancy will remain a uniquely female obligation. Such a future,
however, is not far away. In 1991, scientists at the University of
California, Berkeley were able to demonstrate the growth of lower organisms
entirely in vitro, notably salamanders and frogs. More recently,
researchers at both the NIH and University of Michigan have been able to
incubate successfully post-implantation mouse embryos for up to 9 days of
the 21-day mouse gestation period. Inevitably, as incubator and surgical
technology advance, and as our understanding of fetal physiological
requirements progress, the time will come when human fetuses can be
transferred to artificial wombs or into surrogate hosts and gestated to
parturition.
When the point is reached when females are no longer required to incubate
fetuses, the extent to which the pro-abortion argument is based on
considerations of female obligation will no longer be valid. At this point
in the future, the ethical choices faced by a woman for whom pregnancy is
an undue financial and social burden, will not include abortion. Instead,
a mother may select to give up the fetus via surrogacy, or to bring it to
term and offer it up for adoption, or to keep it. The pro-abortionist
argument, to the extent that it is based on the notion that only females
can provide the physiological necessities for fetal nourishment,
respiration, and excretion is impermanent and, if acceptable today, will
not be compelling in the future..
2.2.3 Abortion as a Strategy Favoring Male Sexual Dominance
Infanticide is relatively common among higher mammals, but has also been
observed in insects and fish, as well as mammals including humans. Humans
are unique, however, in the practice of infanticide because they are not
obligated to wait until the female gives birth before killing the infant.
Scientists who study animal behavior observe infanticide to occur under two
general conditions: Overpopulation and male displacement. Infanticide as
a consequence of overpopulation is typically, though not always,
accompanied by cannibalism. As a strategy, eating the young is an
efficient way to conserve and recycle nutrients within the species. This
type of infanticide has been observed in guppies and mice, among other
species.
The other form of infanticide typically occurs when the genetic father is
displaced by a male who would seek to impregnate females with his genes.
In species that exhibit this behavior, their ecology is such that males who
waste their energy providing food and protection to the offspring of other
males do not leave as many genes behind as those males who only tend and
care for their own. This type of infanticide is observed in mammals, and
most frequently in omnivores and carnivores (humans, chimpanzees, langurs,
and lions, among others). In most of these examples, the termination of an
infant immediately causes the female to enter estrous and [re]breed with
the new male.
Deliberate female-mediated abortion has not, to my knowledge, been observed
in any animal species except humans and, in the natural world, is
considered non-existent. Until shown otherwise, female-mediated abortion
can reasonably be hypothesized as an artifact of human civilization since,
from a biological and cultural studies, we know that the natural impulse of
women is to bring their offspring to term. Countering this impulse is the
burden placed on women, especially non-married women, who become pregnant
against their wishes. The burdens of pregnancy are profound and in a
technologically advanced culture, in which abortion is less dangerous than
crossing the street, the temptation to abort in the face of such a burden
is seductive. Unfortunately, abortion is a two edged sword and males have
the sharper edge.
For example, abortion presents the [human] male with an opportunity to
husband his genetic investment, while at the same time permitting him to
engage in promiscuous behavior. In the natural world, the male proclivity
toward promiscuity is held in check by the reduced reproductive fitness of
such males. Promiscuity leads to reduced reproductive fitness because, as
the theory goes, over the course of human evolution, males who bred
promiscuously were unable to provide adequate support for their many
offspring. These offspring tended not to succeed as well or as frequently
as offspring whose mother and father cooperated to bring them to breeding
maturity (1).
With the advent of liberal abortion policies, males have discovered that
they can have their cake and eat it too. For example, if a female insists
on bringing a child to term against the will of the father, he can withhold
the promise of child support upon the birth of the infant, in effect
coercing the female to have the abortion.
Such actions are legally permissable under constitutional law. The legal
reasoning is this: Since the father was willing to pay for an abortion,
and since the woman had a constitutional right to get one, even if he
wished to prevent it, by her failure to obtain the abortion she took sole
responsibility for the child. Therefore, the father should not be liable
for any child support should she choose to bring the child to term. The
particular Court decision that set this precedent is Planned Parenthood v
Danforth in which the Court held that the legal obligations and
responsibilities of fatherhood were constitutionally denied until the
moment of birth (2).
That liberalized abortion is a coercive strategy employed by, and favoring
males, was first put forth by Catherine MacKinnon, a feminist legal
scholar. Her contention is that liberalizing abortion, rather than
liberating females, enslaves them to male prerogatives (3). The effect,
according to MacKinnon, has been to remove "...the one remaining
legitimized reason that women had for refusing sex beside the headache."
More direct evidence for MacKinnon's theory comes from a number of
empirical studies. These studies demonstrate convincingly that male
coercion plays a significant role in women's abortion decisions. A survey
from the Medical College of Ohio, for example, examined 81 women who had a
great deal of difficulty dealing with their abortions. More than one-third
felt they had been coerced into having the abortion. In Zimmerman's study
(4) of women who had undergone abortions, she found that men who were
informed of the pregnancy supported their partner's initial decision to
abort by a margin of 2:1. In cases where women initially chose to bear the
child, their male partners were opposed to the decision by a margin of 8:1.
In everyone of these cases, the male withdrew his support for his partner,
thereby eliminating abortion as a choice.
Liberal abortion policy has created a climate where men can enjoy sexual
relations with little or no concern for the consequences. From a
socio-biological perspective, these policies lend themselves to the male
impulse for promiscuity and effectively nullify the predominant biological
mechanism nature has accorded females to control males, i.e., nature's
requirement that males share the burden of pregnancy. In human societies
that adopt liberal abortion policies, women lose power and become second
class citizens. Just as bad, a view of women as sexual objects is promoted
over that of women as repositories of genetic wealth.
Great imagination is not required to see that this may explain why support
for the pro-abortion position is predominantly male, whereas females
constitute the majority of the anti-abortion forces. That abortion is a
strategy that furthers male sexual goals, is further suggested by noting
the thousands of dollars the Playboy Foundation provided during the 1980s
to the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, Catholics for a Free Choice, the
National Abortion Federation, NARAL, the NOW Legal Defense and Education
Fund, and many others.
The problem for human societies posed by this aspect of the abortion debate
arises from the observation that liberal abortion policy serves to relax
the biological constraint on male promiscuity, i.e., having to provide for
the care and support of multiple pregnant females and the consequent
support of too many children. Such policies, as stated by MacKinnon,
remove one of the strongest forces controlling the male sexual impulse.
Rather than liberate women, abortion-as-a-woman-only issue enslaves women
to male sexual prerogatives.
2.3 Conclusion
Considering the biology of individuality, the observation that a fetus is
not necessarily the sole obligation of the mother, that pregnancy is
inherently safe, and the rapid advancement of medical and biological
science, to contend that a woman has an autonomous right to determine
whether the fetus shall live or die is not consistent with a scientific
understanding of how nature has structured life on this planet.
The evolution of gender-specific behaviors is natural and has been
efficiently designed to foster high birthrates of genetically diverse
individuals. For a rational society to permit females to have autonomous
control over its genetic wealth is neither biologically adaptive, nor
consistent with human gender-specific sexual behaviors - Behaviors that
promote the reproductive fitness of the human species.
When constraints on these behaviors are relaxed, as liberalizing abortion
relaxes the constraint on male promiscuity, pathological effects ensue.
Thus, those societies that institute unregulated, and largely
abortion-on-demand policies are uniformly male-dominated (e.g., Japan,
India, and China). Moreover, women in these societies are subordinated in
class relative to males. Ironically, those societies that do not support
liberalized abortion policies, or in which abortion still remains a
divisive issue, tend to be those that promote the individual rights of
women and tend to accord women the privileges and protections that are
consistent with the dominant and critical biological role they play in the
human species.
1) Symons, Donald, The Evolution of Human Sexuality, Oxford Press, 1979
2) Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 1976, in which the
Court ruled that men had no rights to protect fetal life.
3) See MacKinnon, Catherine, "Roe v. Wade: A Study of Male Ideology", In
Abortion: Moral and Legal Perspectives, edited by Jay L. Garfield and
Patricia Hennessey, University of Mass. Press, 1984.
4) Zimmerman, Mary K., Passage Through Abortion: The Personal and Social
Reality of Women's Experiences. New York, Praeger, 1977
|
| 20.414 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Dec 27 1994 15:30 | 24 |
| > And of course we get the privilege of paying for it whether we
> want/like it or not....
You live in California, Andy? Elf has you in MKO, that's back east,
right? If you'll read .411 FOR COMPREHENSION this time, you may note
that I explicitly said it was a California state program. I predicted
ignorant thumpery, too, thanks for obliging...just in case the
principles of federalism were too tough for you in school, the idea,
see, is that the 50 states can act as 50 independent policy
laboratories, and programs that work can then be transplanted to other
states that need them. That way, states can take advantage of other
states' experiences. If this California state program is successful,
THEN you'll get to pay for it in your state, too. Of course,
meanwhile, you're paying for the costs of the unsolved problems -
strange how you didn't complain about that in your first message.
Makes it look like you not only don't understand federalism and the
idea of policy laboratories, but you don't even understand the costs of
the problem the policies are formulated to address in the first place.
Thanks for the opportunity to soapbox at you; such a great straight
line you gave me. Coming up - the articles that explain the program in
a bit more detail, as promised.
DougO
|
| 20.415 | 5 days - notes from class | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Dec 27 1994 15:40 | 270 |
| Just Say `Not Now'
New class teaches kids to talk openly about sex and sing praises of
abstinence, but whether they'll follow through in the back seat is
another subject
By Melinda Sacks
Mercury News Staff Writer
NANCY Mucha knows that it won't be long before her eighth-grade
students will be deciding whether to have sex, if they're not already.
It's a fact of teen-age life that by the ninth grade nearly half the
boys and a third of the girls will be sexually active.
But rather than let hormones take their course, Mucha and her class at
Mountain View's Crittenden Middle School are participating in a
statewide effort to put the brakes on teen sex. It's a five-day
state-funded class called ENABL -- Education Now, Babies Later. It is
an acronym educators hope sticks.
Day No. 1
On Monday morning, a crispy December frost covers the school lawn as
the 13-year-old students saunter into Room 9 and drop their packs. Some
of the girls check their makeup while the boys whisper.
The kids have been warned that this week's life skills class will be
different. Mucha introduces Nancy Fomenko, who will be presenting the
course, then slides into the background to observe her young charges.
``How many of you watch MTV?'' asks Fomenko.
There's a sea of hands.
``How many of you have seen the ad, `If you're not ready, you're not
alone?' Anybody remember that?''
So begins a discussion that will range from why the state of California
cares if kids have sex (because it costs the government a lot of
money) to why kids should figure out a plan of action now (before
someone else tries to pressure them into something they'll later
regret). The conversation is at once refreshing and astonishing in its
frankness. These budding adolescents are so full of questions that
Fomenko can barely stay on track this first day.
``Let's imagine you have a baby,'' she suggests, outlining what it
would be like to begin the day at 2 a.m. with a crying, colicky infant
to rock and feed.
She walks the students through an imaginary day -- packing the car for
day care, strapping in the mandatory car seat and even missing lunch
with friends to check on baby.
``What will you need to pack?'' Fomenko asks. The girls shout out the
answers: diapers, wipes, bottles. The boys listen as if stunned by the
thought.
``Babies are 24 hours a day,'' Fomenko says. ``Now you're doing two
jobs -- there's school and there's being a parent. Which one are you
going to give up?''
Fomenko makes her point quickly: With a baby, everything changes -- no
more dates, no more after-school gatherings. Lots of new expenses.
They are compelling reasons to think twice before becoming sexually
active, she suggests, adding: ``If you have no opinion (about whether
you are ready to become sexually active), you're going to be an easy
mark for someone else's ideas.''
Fomenko hands out a resource list for teens. There are hot lines (peer,
AIDS and sexually transmitted disease), rape crisis numbers, Planned
Parenthood clinics and a host of others.
``If I call one of these places, will the police know I called?''
Lawrence wants to know.
No, Fomenko tells him. The call is confidential.
``You mean Planned Parenthood gives away free birth control?'' Stacey
inquires from the back row.
When the bell rings, the class has covered a lot of ground, but has
strayed from the ENABL curriculum more than Fomenko would have liked.
Still, it is important to answer questions, she says, vowing to move
ahead more quickly on Day 2.
Day No. 2
Today, it is easier to dive into the scheduled curriculum on social
pressures. After a quick review of the risks of early sexual
involvement, Fomenko asks the class what might lead someone to become
sexually active.
``Well, you might get horny,'' says Merrisha, eliciting class murmurs
of agreement.
``Peer pressure,'' says Chris.
``Love,'' says David, who adds looking down at his high tops, ``I hate
that word. But maybe the girls want someone to love. You know, a
baby.''
Fomenko's next question creates a flurry of answers. How many times
might one person fall in love, she asks. ``It's not a bad reason to
put on your list, but it's not reason enough to get involved.''
``It looks like fun,'' one girl admits.
Fomenko writes their list on the chalkboard. The trick, she suggests,
is deciding which are the right reasons for you. The message seems to
be sinking in as they formulate their ideas.
After watching a short video in which a girl confides in her friend
that she has had sex, Fomenko asks the class what this girl needs to
think about now that her period is two weeks late.
``Oh, I thought she meant she was late for second period at school,''
says Chris, eyes widening with comprehension. In spite of their veneer
of sexual sophistication, it is more than occasionally clear that
there is much these youngsters are still unsure about.
``Sexually transmitted diseases,'' says Kathy. ``She needs to take a
pregnancy test,'' says Merrisha.
``She can get an abortion,'' says David.
Maybe she doesn't believe in abortion, Fomenko points out. Maybe she
will have to put the baby up for adoption.
She'll have to tell her parents, the kids agree.
``Oh God,'' they moan in unison.
Day No. 3
Everyone notices the signs that dot the walls around Room 9. ``Hold
hands,'' one reads. ``Touch above the waist,'' says another. ``Touch
below the waist.'' ``Have sex without protection.''
They start with a discussion on peer pressure -- what is it and how to
deal with it. Another video addresses media pressures that inundate
teens. There is a big difference between the fiction of TV and movies,
Fomenko tells them, and real life.
For example, she says, you see plenty of sex, but what don't you see
people doing on TV?
``Ordinary things,'' the kids say, ``like cutting your toe nails or
going to the bathroom.''
Fomenko passes out a brochure, ``101 Ways to Make Love without Doing
It.'' The kids are enthralled.
``You might find out you can't even do No. 27 (grocery shopping)
without getting in a fight,'' she says.
``Ooh, I like No. 63 (eat dinner by candlelight),'' says Stacey.
``If you kiss (No. 5), you have sex almost all the time,'' says David.
``But you don't have to,'' Fomenko counters. ``When I was a kid, back
in the olden days, we did a lot of No. 41.''
``Go fishing,'' it reads.
How can you deal with the pressure, Fomenko asks, if your boyfriend or
girlfriend wants you to have sex ``because everyone is doing it?''
``You could tell him just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean we
have to,'' says Stacey.
``You could just say, `I'm not everybody,' '' says Merrisha.
``I'd just say I was busy,'' says David.
Now it's time to use the posters. Fomenko asks the class to imagine
that a friend has asked how far she should go with her new boyfriend.
She asks the students to stand under the sign that represents what
their advice would be.
The class splits almost precisely by gender: Girls cluster under ``Hug
and kiss.'' The boys are bunched under ``Touch above the waist.''
Next, the class is asked to stand under the sign that represents their
parents' advice. Again there is a split: Girls go to ``Friendly
looks,'' boys divided between ``Hold hands'' and ``Have sex with
protection.''
``I think what a lot of parents would say is spend a lot of time down
here,'' Fomenko says, gesturing to the posters whose slogans represent
the earliest stages of a relationship. ``This (sex with protection) is
not bad advice if you're going to have sex, but what's the important
word? IF!''
Day No. 4
``No'' means ``no.''
Simple? Hardly. In this session, the class will practice all the ways
to say ``no.''
There's the aggressive approach -- yelling, threatening, putting down.
Not good, Fomenko warns. Better is the assertive response that includes
firmly repeating ``no,'' suggesting something else or just walking
away.
``Make sure you don't waffle,'' she advises. ``If what you are going to
say is you're not ready, know what it will take for you to be ready --
when I'm 18, when I have a job, when I've graduated, when I know you
better.''
In a role-playing segment, Fomenko advises her students not to ``fall
for that old song, `You would if you loved me.' ''
In clusters of four and five, the boys and girls pore over the
scenarios they've been handed. To the boy who tells his girlfriend,
``You would if you loved me,'' one group says, ``I do love you but I'm
not ready for the consequences.''
To the boy who pressures his girlfriend: ``You can't really mean `No,'
'' one group suggests: ``I really like you, but I'm not ready for a
sexual relationship and I didn't mean to turn you on.''
``You have to be careful,'' Stacey says when they have finished the
exercise. ``If a boy starts kissing you, he might start trying to take
your clothes off.''
Classroom teacher Nancy Mucha, who has been largely silent during the
ENABL sessions, walks by the back row of chairs shaking her head. It is
not what a mother wants to hear (she has three teens of her own), but
it is what's on these kids' minds.
``It's OK to talk about sex, to think about sex, to acknowledge your
feelings about sex,'' says Fomenko. ``But find ways to not act on
it.''
Day No. 5
For these final 50 minutes, students will practice their assertiveness
skills, first by responding on paper to video vignettes, then in group
role-playing sessions.
Video scene: Jimmy's friends ask him if he has had sex with his
girlfriend. Jimmy doesn't want to be sexually involved, so he says . .
.
``No!'' is the most popular answer. ``Having sex might ruin my future
plans,'' says Lawrence. ``It's none of your business,'' says Chris.
``That's what I put!'' two girls shout together.
As the scenes unfold, class members call out their answers. There's no
question they have learned what to say. But will they hang on to their
resolve outside the classroom? That's a harder question to answer --
although an evaluation of the program now under way should help make
that clearer.
When the bell rings, a few boys linger to talk.
``When I get involved, I'm going to go out with the girl a long time
before I do anything and really get to know her,'' says Chris.
Daniel adds: ``I won't do it until I'm older and more mature. Yeah, and
I have a job.''
Fomenko knows it's just the beginning.
``We've made everyone in here more aware and now they can talk about
it,'' she says. ``That means maybe they'll have a plan. This is just a
piece of a much bigger subject. But it's a start.''
Published 12/22/94 in the San Jose Mercury News.
|
| 20.416 | basics on ENABL | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Dec 27 1994 15:43 | 36 |
| Teen-age pregnancies sparked the ENABL program
THE ENABL program -- Education Now, Babies Later -- was initiated in
1991 as part of California's $18 million effort to reduce rising teen
pregnancy rates. Gov. Pete Wilson allocated $5 million to the Office
of Family Planning for development of a three-year preventive
education program.
ENABL focuses on the 70 percent of children between ages 12 and 14 who
are not yet sexually active. It is a window of opportunity in which
educators believe there is still time to teach the risks of early
sexual involvement and to teach teens skills that help them say no.
``There was a decision to put a portion of the funds toward primary
prevention for kids before they become sexually active,'' says Judith
Pratt, chief of health education for the California Office of Family
Planning. ``We wanted to reinforce the idea that it is better to
wait.''
Based on the idea that young teens should not have sex -- but that
there are overwhelming societal and peer pressures that lead them to
become sexually active -- Pratt's office designed the five-day ENABL
curriculum specifically for middle schools. Students take the class in
eighth grade after they have had a basic course on reproduction.
Wilson also funded a media campaign to get out the ``postpone sexual
involvement'' message, which is the basis of the ENABL curriculum.
Offered to public schools at no cost, ENABL is taught by trained adults
who are contractors with the state of California. In Santa Clara and
San Mateo counties, Planned Parenthood is the local contractor. So far
this year, 25 Santa Clara County schools have participated.
Parents are notified before the course begins.
Published 12/22/94 in the San Jose Mercury News.
|
| 20.417 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Tue Dec 27 1994 16:05 | 23 |
| > I predicted
> ignorant thumpery, too, thanks for obliging...
Yup, you predicted it. And you were so bent on having your
predictions come true that you declared it to be so.
Just more boogeymen, Doug. There was no thumpery in that reply.
But it *was* from someone to whom you have attached the thumper
label, so your prejudice was all you needed to find what you
wanted. Let go of some of that defensive anger. You might see
your blood pressure drop!
> is that the 50 states can act as 50 independent policy
> laboratories, and programs that work can then be transplanted to other
> states that need them. That way, states can take advantage of other
> states' experiences.
So you wouldn't have a problem with one state outlawing abortion
independent of the other 49, right?
BTW, thanks for posting some details about the program. It looks
like it has great potential.
|
| 20.418 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Dec 27 1994 16:30 | 14 |
| well, Joe, what it was really about was that all the real anti-Planned-
Parenthood thumpers were too wary to take my bait and go awailing on
them before I got to post the article and show 'em up. Andy was the
only one who came close, and on the face of it, complaining about
paying for something that is only a California program, he did display
remarkable ignorance. So he was the only one remotely qualified for
the ignorant thumperism award. You wouldn't expect me not to give it
to him, would you?
You're welcome for the articles. Let the record show that Joe has
expressed guarded approval for a program delivered by Planned
Parenthood.
DougO
|
| 20.419 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Tue Dec 27 1994 16:40 | 22 |
| > was that all the real anti-Planned-
> Parenthood thumpers were too wary to take my bait and go awailing on
> them before I got to post the article and show 'em up.
You give yourself too much credit. At least in my case I couldn't
be bothered wasting time on that posting. But maybe you're right.
Maybe some others are intimidated by you. (Fat chance...)
As for "show 'em up", I see you're still stuck at dealing with
things on that immature level. Payback. Show 'em up. Sigh...
> You wouldn't expect me not to give it
> to him, would you?
No, I wouldn't expect it.
> You're welcome for the articles. Let the record show that Joe has
> expressed guarded approval for a program delivered by Planned
> Parenthood.
See, Doug? People *CAN* get beyond reactionary prejudice if they
want to!
|
| 20.420 | dancing by the blunderbuss | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Dec 27 1994 19:30 | 12 |
| re .413 - hey, thanks for the effort, but if you start from assertions
that mirror the pro-lifers (in particular, #2, #3 and #4) then who do
you think you're going to convince? One also notes that you structured
your opening very one-sidedly- you assert that prochoicers are either
ignorant of or ignoring Jefferson, Locke, et al, but when you jump the
pro-lifers for similar lack of rigor, you do it half heartedly, without
developing the corresponding philosophical rigor yourself- that is, who
are the thinkers they ignore who have proven to western civilization
that a "right to life" exists? Cite them, if you would be perceived as
evenhanded.
DougO
|
| 20.421 | Even-handed? NOT! | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Dec 27 1994 22:07 | 37 |
| You raise a number of points. Here is my response to [most of] them:
First, I had (and have) no intention of being even-handed. This is, afterall, a
polemic. I am unambiguously anti-abortion and I challenge any and all
pro-abortion advocates to counter my assertions with science, or a set of
ethical principals, or historical imperitives, or a recognized philosophy, etc.
Something, anything that would support granting to mothers the sole purview of
the life-or-death over the fetuses they carry.
Second, the introduction to #413 proposes two main points: (1) That the issue
is "abortion", not pro-choice or pro-life. To contend otherwise is to engage is
high-school sophistry. (2) Too much of the pro- and anti-abortion argument
seems uninformed by science or any recognizable philosophy. Hence the ethical
framework of both sides is inconsistent and contradictory. Specifically, the
pro-abortion camp seems enamored (sic?) with principals grounded in ethical
relativism and the anti-abortion camp depends too much on religion of one form
or another.
Third, I really don't really care if I am able to persuade or not. I don't view
this exercise as a contest. I am much more interested in advocates who can
dispute my assertions on some foundation other than personal opinion or ad
hominem logic. In the end, I seek to be enlightened and . To date, discussions
with pro-abortionists have been less than intellectually exciting.
Finally, the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence are two highly
regarded documents that assert unambiguously that a general "right-to-life"
exists and may not be taken away without due process. This assertion is one of
the great constants of both western and eastern ethics. However, its most
powerful semantics is that while the "right-to-life" is NOT absolute, society
must explicitly spell out those circumstances in which an individual's
right-to-life may be forfeit. Therefore, the pro-abortionists have the
responsibility for justifying the assertion that the "right-to-life" does NOT
extend to the fetus, not the other way around. If only because, by all
scientific measures, the fetus is a human being.
/mtp
|
| 20.422 | | NETRIX::thomas | The Code Warrior | Tue Dec 27 1994 22:15 | 2 |
| Question: After a miscarriage, is a death certificate issued?
|
| 20.423 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Tue Dec 27 1994 23:06 | 14 |
| Before miscarriage, was life really there? How do you know that
what was developing was not just a placenta without an associated
fetus? (It happens more than you think.)
I really can't say that what's developing is truly a life. All I
can do is give that development the benefit of the doubt.
Now many times we *do* know that what's there is life. We can
monitor the movement, heartbeat, brain waves. We can easily
take ultrasound pictures, and surely we've all seen the spectacular
pictures in LIFE magazine. Many times we KNOW it is life. So
perhaps the legal system doesn't recognize the loss with a death
certificate. Tell that to the mother grieving the loss of that
baby...
|
| 20.424 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 28 1994 16:09 | 56 |
| > First, I had (and have) no intention of being even-handed. This is,
> afterall, a polemic.
ok.
> I challenge any and all pro-abortion advocates to counter my
> assertions with science, or a set of ethical principals, or historical
> imperitives, or a recognized philosophy, etc. Something, anything that
> would support granting to mothers the sole purview of the life-or-death
> over the fetuses they carry.
Oh, like it hasn't been done before? Or you weren't paying attention,
maybe, or you simply chose not tor ecognize that its been done
countless times. I'll review a few of the more obvious arguments.
First-
>anything that would support granting to mothers the sole purview
Presume the negative. Presume that pregnant citizens are no longer to
be granted the rights to life and liberty; the rights to go where they
will and do as they will; the rights to control whether or not they
will obtain the health care of their choice for the condition that will
force weight gain, poor circulation, sleeplessness, nausea, cramps,
muscle soreness, and in the AVERAGE case, a threat to their OWN lives
from carrying to term and delivery GREATER than from choosing not to do
so and terminating the pregnancy. That is - presume that the state has
the right to dictate that a pregnant citizen carry to term, and you
presume that the state has the right to life-or-death medical care
decisions over its citizens.
I do NOT grant the state that authority over my life or over the life
of any other citizen. Oh, you can claim that you are defending the
'right to life of the fetus'; but I don't recognize that right. I
consider that a fiction, an invention of a religious minority, and it
is NO EXCUSE for the state to usurp control of wombs. It is the
slippery slope - if the state has the right to dictate that pregnant
women carry to term, it will eventually take the right to force blood
donations during wartime, to force organ donations from convicted
criminals, to force euthanasia upon the terminally ill. I do not grant
the state the right to make life-or-death decisions about health care
for any citizen, period, because if the state is granted any such
rights it will seek to expand upon them, and it will abuse them.
So, women have sole purview over continuing their pregnancies, JUST AS
every (sane and competent) citizen has sole purview over their own
life-or-death medical treatment decisions. Its all of a piece. You
can't logic chop that right away from women just because you want to
invent a right for the fetus they carry- you can't do that without
stripping away something inviolable from the pregnant citizen.
This is not "ethical relativism". This is primacy of the individual
over the state, purely liberal philosophy. The Magna Carta and the DoI
support my side of this debate far more strongly than yours.
DougO
|
| 20.425 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Wed Dec 28 1994 16:35 | 1 |
| Eloquent blather.
|
| 20.426 | | WMOIS::FAFEL | Life is short. Play Dead. | Wed Dec 28 1994 16:45 | 10 |
| The American Heritage dictionary defines the word "conception" as: The
fusing of a sperm and an egg to form a zygote capable of developing
into a new organisim.
How soon after conception does the egg and the sperm fuse?
Also, at what point does a zygote develop into a new organisim and is
that new organisim a fetus?
|
| 20.427 | | WMOIS::FAFEL | Life is short. Play Dead. | Wed Dec 28 1994 17:05 | 10 |
| Nevermind, I read .1.
Where did .1 get that information?
Also, after reading .2 and the description regarding RU486, I have
another question: isn't RU486 a so called "morning after pill"? The
definition in .2 sounded like a "when she doesn't get her period pill".
Is that true?
dave
|
| 20.428 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Wed Dec 28 1994 17:56 | 6 |
| RU486 has been used, both as a morning-after pill and as an
abortifacent. It has also been used in the treatment of advanced
breast cancers, pituary tumors, and a few other medical problems where
progestin needs to be inhibited.
meg
|
| 20.429 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Wed Dec 28 1994 18:15 | 5 |
| I've been fascinated by the name RU486.
When you throw something in the trash, you say that you "86 it".
Are you for 86?
|
| 20.430 | from SJ Merc today of all days | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 28 1994 18:20 | 15 |
| Q - Sometimes when people quit doing a job they say, ``Let's 86 it.''
What does this mean?
A - A variety of dictionaries agree that ``86'' is a term from a verbal
shorthand developed and used over the years at lunch counters by cooks,
waiters and bartenders to communicate in a way that customers would not
understand.
``Eighty-six'' had several meanings. For example, ``Eighty-six on the
chili'' referred to customers who should not be served more liquor
because they could become drunk or disorderly. This usage probably
derives from the weaker 86-proof whiskey. The usage meaning to throw
something out or put a stop to it perhaps comes from the practice of
throwing out or ejecting rowdy customers from a restaurant whose
address was No. 86 Bedford St.
|
| 20.431 | | GAVEL::JANDROW | Raquelf | Wed Dec 28 1994 18:25 | 4 |
|
you just got that now, joe???
|
| 20.432 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Dec 28 1994 18:25 | 2 |
| I've heard it's rhyming slang for "nix." That doesn't explain why it's 86,
not 26 or 36.
|
| 20.433 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Wed Dec 28 1994 20:08 | 1 |
| DougO's got that slippery-slope thing backwards.
|
| 20.434 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 28 1994 20:13 | 3 |
| You let the government control wombs, watch where it leads.
DougO
|
| 20.435 | | MPGS::MARKEY | AIBOHPHOBIA: Fear of Palindromes | Wed Dec 28 1994 20:16 | 5 |
| Yeah, they might actually start stealing money from us to pay for
bloated social programs and try to squelch our 2nd amendment rights
too...
-b
|
| 20.436 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Wed Dec 28 1994 20:17 | 9 |
| re .431
Of course not, Raq. It's fascinated me since I can remember hearing
about it. Don't you find it curious that the names of some things
work out this way? For instance, the square root of 69 is
8-something.
Totally meaningless in other languages, yet somehow appropriate
in ours.
|
| 20.437 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Wed Dec 28 1994 20:53 | 3 |
| "Government control wombs". Cute soundbite. Pure drivel.
Let's just forget that there is a life in there. It's more
convenient that way.
|
| 20.438 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 28 1994 21:27 | 4 |
| Your way, forgetting that there's a life on the outside of the
womb, is so much more ethical, Joe. Yeah. Right.
DougO
|
| 20.439 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Wed Dec 28 1994 22:30 | 9 |
| Sure it is. The life outside the womb goes on (save for
exception cases) while the life inside grows, and once the
life inside is born.
The life inside the womb ends in all cases (save for exceptions)
under abortion.
Which is more ethical to you? (You don't have to answer. We
already know.)
|
| 20.440 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 28 1994 22:39 | 5 |
| The ethics of depriving the life outside the womb of guaranteed
inalienable rights doesn't even phase you, does it? One of the reasons
I don't take ethics lectures from you too seriously.
DougO
|
| 20.441 | :-) | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Dec 28 1994 22:41 | 7 |
| .440
The ethics of accountability for one's behavior doesn't even phase you,
does it? That's why I don't take ethics lecutres from you too
seriously.
|
| 20.442 | You are without honor | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Wed Dec 28 1994 22:42 | 2 |
| "Depriving the life"? What of the inalienable right to life
for the one inside the womb?
|
| 20.443 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Dec 28 1994 22:47 | 5 |
| Nancy, John Covert plays that game all the time, and it bores.
Joe, I give that right to the citizen on the outside first.
DougO
|
| 20.444 | | NETRIX::thomas | The Code Warrior | Wed Dec 28 1994 23:05 | 23 |
| > What of the inalienable right to life for the one inside the womb?
That's the major point of disagreement.
There are two conflicting "entities" with inalienable rights here.
The question is which entity has rights which are truly inalienable
and which doesn't. Both can not have inalienable rights since that
would be a paradox.
That is the whole abortion debate. One side says the mother and another
side says the fetus. The two positions are irreconcilable.
And since you brought up inalienable rights, let me quote from the
fifth admendment: "..., nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law ...".
There should be no question that the mother is under the protection of the
Constitution. Ignore the presence of the fetus [try really hard]. "Due
process of law" means your day in court before a judge and possible some
jurors. Obviously the simple act of becoming pregnant does not satisfy
the "due process" clause. Therefore the mother can not be deprived of life,
liberty, or property (take your pick) without going through the courts.
|
| 20.445 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Dec 28 1994 23:13 | 4 |
| .443
Get insulting why don't you! Harumph!
|
| 20.446 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 29 1994 12:06 | 37 |
| Some anti-choice organization is running a glitzy ad on television. It
shows beautiful children dressed for wonderful/cute futures --
executive, firefighter, et cetera. But these pictures are a facade;
they aren't the reality of most people facing abortion. For these
people, their children would not face such wonderful futures. When you
see behind the facade, the commercial is despicable. The lives they
urge choosing are lives of misery, poverty, struggle, despair, and
suffering. First, their choices would lock the mothers into poverty,
saddling them with burdens they can barely handle. Then their choices
would condemn subsequent generations to the same fate.
This commercial belies the compassion of the anti-choice groups. It
reveals their callousness. They don't care about the futures of the
children. For the sake of a single unthinking principle, they would
save a child in the present only to destroy the future of both child
and mother. The commercial shows the fantasy world anti-choice groups
live in: It's an imaginary place where the ugly realities of the world
are given no thought. These people are surrounded by luxury -- good
homes, food, jobs, families, and a secure future that most of the
people on this planet lack. The choices that are safe in their
lifestyle are disaster to other people.
The young mother, the poor mother, the unemployed mother, the hungry
mother, the single mother -- the choice these people need is time.
They need time to get an education, time to gain experience, time to
build savings, time to make a life. Give them a child now and they
have no time to prepare. You trade the now for the future. Don't
push a child upon them; leave them alone. Do you want beautiful
children who will be executives and firefighters? Then let the mothers
make their own lives; that is the path to building a good future.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.447 | | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Thu Dec 29 1994 12:57 | 4 |
| .446
Well said, EDP, well said.
|
| 20.448 | yes, nicely put | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Ecstacy | Thu Dec 29 1994 13:00 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.449 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | | Thu Dec 29 1994 13:08 | 7 |
| I agree that such an add is a facade if you consider that the child
will live with it's natural mother. What they really should do is show
these children being adopted by wonderful parents who can provide a
future for the child. This would be a more constructive approach in my
opinion.
Glenn
|
| 20.450 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 29 1994 13:47 | 85 |
| Re: RUSURE::EDP
>> Some anti-choice organization is running a glitzy ad on television. It
>> shows beautiful children dressed for wonderful/cute futures --
>> executive, firefighter, et cetera. But these pictures are a facade;
>> they aren't the reality of most people facing abortion.
You are correct. I believe it is the Edward Moss foundation. However, they
are promoting a choice...that's the bottom line.
>> For these
>> people, their children would not face such wonderful futures. When you
>> see behind the facade, the commercial is despicable. The lives they
>> urge choosing are lives of misery, poverty, struggle, despair, and
>> suffering. First, their choices would lock the mothers into poverty,
>> saddling them with burdens they can barely handle. Then their choices
>> would condemn subsequent generations to the same fate.
Yes, once again an example of elitism and false compassion. First of all, I
have utter contempt for the typical flower child attitude in society that says
because a child is born in poverty etc., they would be miserable and therefore
abortion should be available because they wouldn't be happy. Who made you
God to decide that a child doesn't have the fighting chance to live and
survive? Okay, the commercial can be perceived as a facade....but what are you
doing to lower the number of abortions in this country? Probably nothing!
At least the commercial appeals to the small percentage of women who can afford
to keep the child but simply use abortion as birth control.
Besides, the commercial also communicates a glitter of hope. It may give the
woman the ambition to focus her eyes on what might be, and not on herself.
But instead, you continue to promote the defeatist 1970's mentality... Ohhh,
Casandra is on welfare and now she's pregnant. She will never better herself
so let's make abortion available to her....Typical liberal mentality!
Elitist and defeatist.
>> This commercial belies the compassion of the anti-choice groups. It
>> reveals their callousness. They don't care about the futures of the
>> children. For the sake of a single unthinking principle, they would
>> save a child in the present only to destroy the future of both child
>> and mother.
Oh! So because a majority of the children are in poverty you take the Jocelyn
Elders approach..."EVERY CHILD A WANT-ED CHILD..." How arrogant. What gives
you the right to set a paradigm in society that if you are in poverty, your
child shouldn't have the right to fight for survival?
>> The commercial shows the fantasy world anti-choice groups
>> live in: It's an imaginary place where the ugly realities of the world
>> are given no thought. These people are surrounded by luxury -- good
>> homes, food, jobs, families, and a secure future that most of the
>> people on this planet lack. The choices that are safe in their
>> lifestyle are disaster to other people.
I agree they should make the commercial more real to life. However, the
underlying fact is that your an elitist! Margaret Sanger felt the same way.
>> The young mother, the poor mother, the unemployed mother, the hungry
>> mother, the single mother -- the choice these people need is time.
>> They need time to get an education, time to gain experience, time to
>> build savings, time to make a life. Give them a child now and they
>> have no time to prepare. You trade the now for the future. Don't
>> push a child upon them; leave them alone. Do you want beautiful
>> children who will be executives and firefighters? Then let the mothers
>> make their own lives; that is the path to building a good future.
EDP, where have you been? There are plenty of poor people who have healthy
family structures...even single parent families. There are plenty of rich
people who are so deep into dysfunctionalism that it is unbearable for the
kids.
You equate wealth or even simple financial stability with good families and
good future. Here are the facts of life EDP. You're using the wrong
measuring stick. What gives a child stability in life is good parental role
models, a parent with character and integrity, a parent with a vision...yes
a vision even with the responsibility of another mouth to feed. And most
importantly, an object of spiritual faith in one's life. Without these EDP,
society is chasing after the wind. What I see pro abort people promoting is a
quick fix...an easy out....no responsibility and the danger of setting a
paradigm or prescedent that morality is relative. You may be willing to be
blase about the condition of society but I am not!
-Jack
|
| 20.451 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Thu Dec 29 1994 13:47 | 22 |
| Glenn,
given the number of unadoptable children in the country today, this add
would be a facade also. Read the adds in the personals in the
newspaper sometime from couples looking for babies. "Loving
professional couple looking to adopt your white newborn." A large
number of unwanted babies are really unwanted by these couples as well.
They are:
1. Not white
2. Not healthy
3. Over the "ideal" age of two.
4. Mentally and emotionally injured, either in utero, or afterwards by
the rejection of their parents.
5. healthy but have other physical limitations, such as blindness, or
deafness.
|
| 20.452 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 29 1994 14:05 | 16 |
| > 1. Not white
Around 1970, a national organization of black social workers raised a fuss
about whites adopting non-white children. Since then, it's been very
difficult for whites to adopt non-whites. Hence the glut of non-white
children waiting for adoption.
> 3. Over the "ideal" age of two.
There aren't very many reasonably healthy children (physically and emotionally)
up to 8 or so that are awaiting adoption (unless they're non-white: see above).
> 5. healthy but have other physical limitations, such as blindness, or
> deafness.
Blind children and deaf children get adopted very quickly.
|
| 20.453 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | My other car is a kirby | Thu Dec 29 1994 14:15 | 8 |
| Gerald,
There are far too many children whose putative adoptive parents have
given them up for all of these problems. In the case of biracial
adoptions, the adds are for private adoptions, rather than DSS
adoptions.
|
| 20.454 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 29 1994 14:45 | 5 |
| I don't follow you. What do you mean by "putative adoptive parents?"
Obviously, the ads are for healthy white infants. People don't have to
advertise to get non-HWI's. But whites who want to adopt non-white
domestic children are thwarted.
|
| 20.455 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Thu Dec 29 1994 15:10 | 23 |
| .443> Joe, I give that right to the citizen on the outside first.
Right to life? But the one "outside" the womb already *IS*
alive!
The "rights" you have expressed that you are giving to the woman
in favor of the right to life of the infant are: The right not
to gain weight during pregnancy. The right not to experience
morning sickness. The right to unencumberance during the
pregnancy, and afterwards if she doesn't want to raise the child.
The right to keep the money that she will now have to spend
to raise the child. The right to maintain her pre-pregnancy
lifestyle.
These pale in significance to the primary right to LIFE that you
are stealing from the child to grant those others to the mother.
What you have carefully avoided saying all along is that you don't
believe that the fetus is alive and worthy of the right to life.
Your arguments would make more sense if you would just come out
and say that, but you are on very shaky ground if you are simply
trying to argue that those other "rights" outweigh the baby's
right to life.
|
| 20.456 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Plucky kind of a kid | Thu Dec 29 1994 15:12 | 6 |
| re .446
Eric -- I just want to add one more vote of support to those
who disagreed with your posting. What I would have said has
already been said, so I see no need to repeat it. But I also
didn't want to remain silent on it either, so here I am.
|
| 20.457 | Not responsive | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 29 1994 15:41 | 117 |
| re .424 (Doug Olson)
Most of this reply seems to me to be a non-sequiter at worse, and simply
unresponsive to the question, at best. Rights must be recognized for them
to have an effect. Societies recognize rights by instituting governments
and laws that ensure them and specify under what conditions they apply.
In our society, for example, the right-to-life is inadequately defined, if
only because a great dispute exists as to whom the right-to-life is to be
accorded.
What I've asked of pro-abortionists is to come forward with the
fundamental principles for the contention that a fetus does not have a
right-to-life. As far as I can tell based on this notes conference,
pro-abortionists have been unresponsive to this request because they
insist that the fetus does not have a right to life because the mother is
inconvenienced, or even threatened. In otherwords, whether the
right-to-life is granted to a fetus depends on who is inconvenienced (or
threatened, if you insist). This is what I meant by ethical relativism.
In the pro-abortionist's system of ethics, whether the right-to-life
applies to all humans is relative to whom it affects. If we were to apply
pro-abortion logic to the right of free speech, we would say that the
right of free speech does not apply to communists because their speech
offends and threatens our government.
> Presume the negative. Presume that pregnant citizens are no longer to
> be granted the rights to life and liberty...
A preposterous presumption that I will not accept. I assert that the
right-to-life ought not be denied to any human being - Including pregnant
women, post-partum babies, fetuses, Jeffery Dahmer, even Digital
employees.
The problem I'm interested in discussing, and that pro-abortion advocates
tend to ignore, arises when rights in general, and the right-to-life in
particular come into conflict. This is the essence of a just and
rationale state, i.e., the obligation to protect and ensure the liberty of
its citizens, while at the same time arbitrating conflicts when these
liberties clash.
Two clean examples exist in which history and cultural values inform the
decision as to whom should determine when a pregnancy is to be terminated.
First, when the life of the mother will be lost if the fetus is allowed to
come to term. Under these circumstances, the mother's interests override
that of the fetus's and the decision is hers alone to make. We generally
accept that when fetal and maternal lives are in conflict, the life of the
mother wins. Quite apart from the legal foundation behind this policy,
life-or-death decisions of this kind are granted to mothers based on the
principles of triage - A well-accepted, long-standing historical and
philosophical foundation for arbitrating between who shall live and who
shall die.
Second, who should determine whether a pregnancy as a consequence of rape
may be terminated? Justification for granting this decision to the mother
can be found in the observation that the mother's pregnancy, in such
cases, is not be a consequence of a choice freely made. The writings of
Locke and Rousseau, our own history with slavery, and the ease and safety
with which pregnancies can be terminated suggest that decision to bear the
consequences of a forced pregancy are squarely up to the individual whose
liberty was compromised, vis, the mother. In such cases, the choice is
hers.
In all other cases, I fail to find any support in history, in cultural
tradition, or in any philosophy of ethics that would grant a mother the
unfettered right to terminate a pregnancy into which she freely entered.
> ... the rights to go where they
> will and do as they will; the rights to control whether or not they
> will obtain the health care of their choice for the condition that will
> force weight gain, poor circulation, sleeplessness, nausea, cramps,
> muscle soreness, and in the AVERAGE case, a threat to their OWN lives
> from carrying to term and delivery GREATER than from choosing not to do
> so and terminating the pregnancy. That is - presume that the state has
> the right to dictate that a pregnant citizen carry to term, and you
> presume that the state has the right to life-or-death medical care
> decisions over its citizens.
First, the effects you ascribe to the fetus do not mortally effect the
mother. More to the point, the effects they impose are temporal and most
certainly have no effect on the mother's right-to-life. The conflict
presented in your scenerio is not between the mother's right-to-life and
that of the fetus's, but rather between the mother's wish to be
inconvenienced as little as possible, and the fetus's right-to-life.
Second, to the extent that your thinking constitutes an accurate
representation of pro-abortion thinking, I suggest that pro-abortion
advocates seem confused on this issue of rights. Are you able to
enumerate the rights a state would grant to mothers and not to fetuses?
If one of those rights is the right-to-life, on what basis should the
state not grant that right? I am asking you to help me understand the
historical, cultural, or philosophical underpinnings of the pro-abortion
notion that females be granted such absolute authority over another human
being.
One answer you might propose would be to assert that the fetus has no
"right-to-life", which in fact you do when you write:
"... you can claim that you are defending the 'right to life
of the fetus'; but I don't recognize that right. I consider
that a fiction, an invention of a religious minority, and it
is NO EXCUSE for the state to usurp control of wombs."
So, why is this a fiction? Scientifically, the fetus is a unique and
individual human being. Are pro-abortionists aware of some cultural,
historical, or philosophical understanding that would support the notion
that society has no interest in fetuses, only post-partum humans?
> This is not "ethical relativism". This is primacy of the individual
> over the state, purely liberal philosophy. The Magna Carta and the DoI
> support my side of this debate far more strongly than yours.
You may be right. The pro-abortion stance may probably be better
characterized as "situational ethics", although I'm not entirely convinced
that ethical relativism and situational ethics are not one and the same.
In any case, the pro-abortion stance is not, as you characterize it, the
"primacy of the individual over the state", the pro-abortion rationale is
precisely the primacy of one individual over that of another. Period.
|
| 20.458 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | LAGNAF | Thu Dec 29 1994 15:46 | 44 |
| ]First, their choices would lock the mothers into poverty,
]saddling them with burdens they can barely handle.
While admittedly many of the people facing this particular choice are
in poverty, it is fallacious to claim that having children or not
having children in the primary determinant of this situation. Indeed,
many women with a strong work ethic have children while in poverty and
work their way out; to pretend such women do not exist is far more
despicable than pretending that everyone who chooses to have a child is
making the right choice. As one of the progeny of those who would have
at one time been considered to be working poor, I am offended by your
suggestion that members of my family would have been better off aborted.
And guess what, they aren't working poor anymore, despite the horrible
and incapacitating burden of raising three children.
]They don't care about the futures of the children.
Neither do you, apparently. In your vision, there is no future for the
children of anyone not already wealthy. And you want to talk about
callous?!!
]The young mother, the poor mother, the unemployed mother, the hungry
]mother, the single mother -- the choice these people need is time.
Time may or may not heal all wounds. For many of these people who you
claim need nothing but time (and $400), there is no improvement to be
had. They are destined to wallow in poverty and squalor. Many don't
know any better.
Look, I am not about to claim that abortion is not the right answer
for some people in some situations. But to claim that people who
promote the choice of keeping the baby are callous and provide a facade
so overstates the case as to require a commensurate counterpoint.
The problems of the poor and poor women especially are hardly solved
by abortion. Repeat abortions are symptoms of far more serious problems
than not having any money. Problems that are difficult if not
impossible to solve. Issuing the blanket statement that a pro-life
message like "Life: what a beautiful choice" is callous and a facade
merely exposes your preconceptions and biases. The message is "if you
are pregnant and considering an abortion, think about the other choices
you have." Hardly the same thing as "never have an abortion; just have
the kid and everything will be fine," as you have incorrectly
characterized.
|
| 20.459 | Pregnancies that otherwise would not have been ... | BRITE::FYFE | Never tell a dragon your real name. | Thu Dec 29 1994 15:56 | 21 |
|
I was watching a program about fertility drugs and multiple births. My
impression was that the use of fertility drugs often results in multiple
eggs being released and fertilized. In cases of three or more viable embryos,
consideration is given to 'selective abortion' to reduce the number to 3 or
less.
The goal of these abortions is to provide an opportunity for the surviving
embryos/fetuses to have a normal and healthy gestation. It is well documented
that pregancies of 4 or more fetuses often result in miscarriage and when
they don't, the offspring are born prematurely, underwieght and with 1 or more
failings, usually affecting them for their entire life. Many of these children
die within the first year of life. Many have disorders which makes them
dependant for their entire lives.
I was curious as to the opinions of the pro-life persuation as to their feelings
on selective abortions for the purpose of providing the best oppotunities for
a fewer number of children.
Doug.
|
| 20.460 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 29 1994 16:12 | 10 |
| >I was watching a program about fertility drugs and multiple births. My
>impression was that the use of fertility drugs often results in multiple
>eggs being released and fertilized. In cases of three or more viable embryos,
>consideration is given to 'selective abortion' to reduce the number to 3 or
>less.
Careful monitoring of ovarian stimulation should make more-than-twin multiples
quite rare. Unfortunately, there are many clinics that don't do a good job.
With the best clinics, perhaps 2% of pregnancies are triplets, and quads
are a fraction of 1%.
|
| 20.461 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 29 1994 16:26 | 24 |
| >>Joe, I give that right to the citizen on the outside first.
>
> Right to life? But the one "outside" the womb already *IS*
> alive!
"Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness". Liberty and life are both what
I was speaking of, Joe. Life, insofar as carrying to term is more
risky to the life of the pregnant citizen than terminating the
pregnancy. I certainly consider both infringed if the government
restricts the pregnant citizen from exercising her liberty to treat a
life-threatening condition in the manner she chooses.
> The "rights" you have expressed that you are giving to the woman
> in favor of the right to life of the infant are:
Your list is a falsehood, Joe. I am amused that you attempt such a
fabrication when my note around .424 clearly includes the far more
fundamental concern I described just above. And you say *I* carefully
avoid saying something? Look to your own omissions! As for whether or
not the fetus has a right to life, I have very straightforwardly said,
(you must have missed it) that I consider that a fiction invented by a
religious minority.
DougO
|
| 20.462 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Thu Dec 29 1994 16:28 | 48 |
| I don't see the conflict of the right to life. It's more like the
right to not be inconvenienced vs. the baby's right to life. No
paradox, no conflict, the right to life outweighs the right not to be
inconvenienced (or threatened, if you insist that is is a factor).
The fact that it was a willful act that produced the baby to begin with
should silence the "right" not to be convenienced, as you refuse to
accept responsibility for your own actions.
This whole argument boils down to one issue. Playing God. (I can hear
the response already) 8^) . Why do I say this? Read on...
By taking the life of the unborn, we take an innocent human life.
Whether it is viable, thinking, feeling, or whatever, is not the issue.
It is a human life and it is being denied its chance at life for
relativistic reasons. Who are we to decide that this
child has no chance? Who are we to destroy life and calling it a
personal choice? Who are we to decide that there is no way we can
deal with the child?
By taking the life, we admit defeat. But worse than this, we believe
that God is unable to help. I find that amazing things can happen when
you have faith. God can provide, no matter how desparate things seem.
If you don't believe in God (then in my opinion), you are already
half-way defeated in life. This will not go over well, I'm sure, but
without faith you are doomed to fall back on man's rationalizations and
man's solutions. The problem with this is vividly demonstrated by our
programs designed to help the poor (welfare). Though we had the best
of intentions with these programs, we have not only harmed the poor
communities (in more ways than one), but have also harmed the economy
and those forced to pay for these programs. Man's solutions are doomed
to fail at some point, in some way. This is proven over and over and
over again.
I believe that if you depend on God, you will not be disappointed.
Can't afford/deal with/don't want that child? Trust God.
It isn't so much of blind trust (trusting God) as it is with a societal
mentality. We have taken God out of our public lives, and with Him our
dependence upon Him, and the mentality that nothing is too difficult
for us to handle with God's help.
(end religious tangent)
-steve
|
| 20.463 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Dec 29 1994 16:32 | 21 |
| >I was curious as to the opinions of the pro-life persuation as to their feelings
>on selective abortions for the purpose of providing the best oppotunities for
>a fewer number of children.
Multiple conceptions can be reduced under careful procedures.
In the absence of those procedures, the "required" abortions
to solve "problems" are no less irresponsible than using
abortion as a means of birth control to "solve problems".
In a similar way, test-tube fertiliztion and implantation usually
results in a larger number of fertilized eggs. One of the more
viable is chosen and implanted, and the others are either frozen
or discarded. I view the discarding of the "extras" as morally
no different from abortion.
One final note. While these are curious issues that raise
difficult dilemmas, we have to be careful not to allow these
fringe examples cloud the overall abortion issue. There may
be fuzzy and questionable situations in these cases, but in
most general abortion cases there is no question as to what
is happening. We can't lose sight of that.
|
| 20.464 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 29 1994 16:36 | 118 |
| Re .450:
> However, they are promoting a choice...that's the bottom line.
What makes that the bottom line? Choices don't exist in a vacuum;
there are consequences to them. The bottom line is the real world, and
the real world contradicts the commercial.
> First of all, I have utter contempt for the typical flower child
> attitude in society . . .
The what? The "flower child" image is a totally different concept from
issues of poverty engendering poverty.
> . . . that says because a child is born in poverty etc., they would
> be miserable and therefore abortion should be available because they
> wouldn't be happy.
It is a fact that many of these problems continue from generation to
generation. My argument doesn't require that climbing out of poverty
be impossible; it doesn't stipulate that every poor mother will have
suffering children. But that is certainly the average, and suffering
is what the wrong choice will cause. The exceptions don't negate the
suffering of the majority.
> Who made you God to decide that a child doesn't have the fighting
> chance to live and survive?
Unlike people who cannot think intelligently, I don't need a mythical
being to tell me there is misery in the world. This doesn't require an
act of faith: Just open your eyes to reality.
> Okay, the commercial can be perceived as a facade....but what are you
> doing to lower the number of abortions in this country?
Straw man number 1: Lowering the number of abortions is the primary goal.
Straw man number 2: If you aren't working to achieve the goal, your
argument against other efforts is wrong.
Both of the straw men implicit in your statement are false. But as it
happens, I put a lot of effort into trying to improve this world in
many ways, as I have documented repeatedly in this and other
conferences. So your attack is put forth in ignorance. Many readers
know I have spent large amounts of time pushing for the things I
believe in, things that will improve society for everybody.
> Besides, the commercial also communicates a glitter of hope.
Yes, it's like teasing a caged animal with food it cannot have.
> It may give the woman the ambition to focus her eyes on what might
> be, and not on herself.
Correction: It may deceive the woman with ambition before she has
first built the foundation on which a successful future can be built.
> She will never better herself . . .
I didn't write any such thing. I explicitly stated that with time,
many people COULD better their situations, and they should have that
time to build their futures. Did you read that part?
> Typical liberal mentality!
I'm not a liberal. Again you argue in ignorance.
> What gives you the right to set a paradigm in society that if you
> are in poverty, your child shouldn't have the right to fight for
> survival?
I did not set such a paradigm. Why do you misrepresent what I wrote?
> However, the underlying fact is that your an elitist!
You wrote that several times in your note, but you never explained it.
Each time you wrote it, you lied. Not once did you demonstrate how my
argument relied on a position of privilege. When I attacked the ad, I
did demonstrate that: I explained how the ad depicted lives of luxury,
which are at a discrepancy with the real-world average. These are
facts: Real-world average low, commercial images high. Those facts
prove my charge. What facts prove your charge of elitism? You said it
repeatedly, but can you back it up? No, you cannot. You lied.
> There are plenty of poor people who have healthy family
> structures...even single parent families.
I did not say there were not.
> You equate wealth or even simple financial stability with good
> families and good future.
No, I do not. My note contained no equation.
> What gives a child stability in life is good parental role models, a
> parent with character and integrity, a parent with a vision...
A child with good parental role models, parents with character and
integrity and vision and no food is a dead child.
> And most importantly, an object of spiritual faith in one's life.
Spiritual faith is an illusion that has caused the deaths of millions
of people.
> You may be willing to be blase about the condition of society but I
> am not!
Oh, really? So what have YOU done to improve society? How many times
have you run for office, written for publication, investigated and
researched current events, or lobbied your legislators?
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.465 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 29 1994 16:44 | 36 |
| Re .458:
>> They don't care about the futures of the children.
>
> Neither do you, apparently. In your vision, there is no future for the
> children of anyone not already wealthy.
Another lie. I did write of the futures of people whether poor,
unemployed, or whatever. Reread the closing paragraph.
> But to claim that people who promote the choice of keeping the baby
> are callous and provide a facade so overstates the case as to require a
> commensurate counterpoint.
They did provide a facade: the commercial.
> The problems of the poor and poor women especially are hardly solved
> by abortion.
Nowhere did I write that abortions would solve their problems.
> Issuing the blanket statement that a pro-life message like "Life:
> what a beautiful choice" . . .
I issued no such statement. Had the commercial said nothing but "Life:
what a beautiful choice", I would take no issue with it. But that is
not the bulk of the commercial. Most of the commercial IS a facade,
most of the commercial IS a depiction of things that are unrealistic
for all but a privileged minority.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.466 | | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Thu Dec 29 1994 16:47 | 5 |
| I find it more than a little ironic that the majority of the most
vehement pro-lifers are men while the majority of the pro-choice
folks are women, sheesh!!
|
| 20.467 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 29 1994 16:54 | 49 |
| re .457-
Max, its a shame you don't like the arguments offered; you disparage
them, calling them non-sequiter and unresponsve. You wish for us to
hearken to fundamental principles- so I'm to take it *you're* allowed
to cite the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta, but we are
not? That dog won't hunt, pal.
> First, the effects you ascribe to the fetus do not mortally effect the
> mother. More to the point, the effects they impose are temporal and most
> certainly have no effect on the mother's right-to-life.
Nonsense. Medically, the risks to the pregnant citizen's life are
increased by the condition of pregnancy and decreased by its
termination. You cannot predict with certainty that a given pregnancy
will not kill its host. The state is NOT empowered to force such a
risk upon anyone; to remove the choices of life-or-death medical
treatments to anyone.
> Are you able to enumerate the rights a state would grant to mothers
> and not to fetuses? If one of those rights is the right-to-life, on
> what basis should the state not grant that right?
It is precisely to muddy that obvious state imposition that making
abortions illegal would represent that you invent 'rights' for the
unborn that have never been recognized throughout the history of
jurisprudence- never have we treated the unborns with any of the rights
or privileges of the citizenry. Of course women have a right to life;
all women, not just pregnant ones. But when we examine how fetuses are
treated by law, we find no such rights. Pregnant women and their
fetuses can't use the carpool lane as two people. Pregnant women don't
get a tax deduction for the unborn as they do for born children.
Pregnant women are not counted as two in a census. In short, the
historical basis you seek to ameliorate the conflict you invent between
"competing rights" actually shows that no such rights have ever accrued
to the fetus.
> I am asking you to help me understand the historical, cultural, or
> philosophical underpinnings of the pro-abortion notion that females be
> granted such absolute authority over another human being.
If any are confused upon the point, it isn't those who would leave the
woman free to choose continuation of pregnancy or not. It is those who
would impose the long arm of the state into her life, into her liberty
to seek treatment of her choice, and who impart fantastic and unfounded
"rights" out of whole cloth to the unborn, never so recognized in our
civilisation, who are confused. Glad to help you see the light.
DougO
|
| 20.468 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Dec 29 1994 16:59 | 59 |
| .461
> "Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness". Liberty and life are both what
> I was speaking of, Joe.
So you are saying that all three are of equal importance?
Is one's "pursuit of happiness" more valuable than another's
life?
Is one's liberty more important than another's life? Especially
in the context of a term of pregnancy where the mother's liberty
might be IMPEDED (but not entirely lost), but to remove that
temporary impediment to the mother's liberty you are willing to
snuff out ALL the same rights of life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness for the baby, and not just for some temporary period
of time, but forever. After pregnancy the mother can restore her
life to what it was before the pregnancy. After abortion the baby
has nothing.
> Life, insofar as carrying to term is more
> risky to the life of the pregnant citizen than terminating the
> pregnancy.
You make it seem that pregnancy is always risky to the life
of the mother in some significant proportion of cases. You
know very well that that risk is the exception rather than
the rule. You misrepresent that risk. Just another "positioning
of the truth", I guess.
> I certainly consider both infringed if the government
> restricts the pregnant citizen from exercising her liberty to treat a
> life-threatening condition in the manner she chooses.
Pregnanct is ***NOT*** a life threatening condition in most
cases, and almost any pro-lifer will concede to abortion when
the pregnancy becomes life-threatening.
> Your list is a falsehood, Joe. I am amused that you attempt such a
> fabrication when my note around .424 clearly includes the far more
> fundamental concern I described just above.
Your "fundamental concern" is bogus and duly rejected.
> And you say *I* carefully
> avoid saying something? Look to your own omissions!
I say that you now carefully fabricate something that is worthy
of nothing more than omission.
> As for whether or
> not the fetus has a right to life, I have very straightforwardly said,
> (you must have missed it) that I consider that a fiction invented by a
> religious minority.
At least you admit it. (And yes, I missed it this time around,
though I know you've said the same in the past. My apologies.)
Your position is not middle-of-the-road, to say the least.
|
| 20.469 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Dec 29 1994 17:03 | 5 |
| Another 3,000,000,000,000 times infinity and we'll still boil this
argument down to one issue..
Is the fetus a life? And the onslaughts of yes and no along with the
WHYs will begin again...
|
| 20.470 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Dec 29 1994 17:10 | 20 |
| > Nonsense. Medically, the risks to the pregnant citizen's life are
> increased by the condition of pregnancy and decreased by its
> termination.
But to what degree? Sufficient enough that we can simply
terminate ANY pregnancy that comes along becasue of a relatively
low risk? It is cowardly to hide behind the misfortunes of a
few to promote such a travesty.
> You cannot predict with certainty that a given pregnancy
> will not kill its host.
You can with a very great degree of certainty.
> The state is NOT empowered to force such a
> risk upon anyone; to remove the choices of life-or-death medical
> treatments to anyone.
Life-or-death abortions would still be legally available under
ANY proposed abortion limitations.
|
| 20.471 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Dec 29 1994 17:19 | 4 |
| re .469
Well, Nancy, I choose to let God decide if it is life or not.
I'd rather err on the side of caution.
|
| 20.472 | Nope. I did not like it one bit. | WMOIS::FAFEL | Life is short. Play Dead. | Thu Dec 29 1994 17:21 | 20 |
| re. 462
Steve, your correct. It did not go over well. How dare you claim
anyone is "half-way defeated" in life just because they don't believe
in the same things as you. I do not believe in god. I do not believe he
exsits or that there is some "force" that has a hand in everything
everything I do. It does not mean I don't have faith. I do. In myself.
Faith in myself to provide for me and my family. I'm so dissapointed when I
see people put the lives of innocent children in the hands of something
that is not there. You as an adult have made the choice to put your
faith in god.
Who are you to speak for an unborn child?
Some may consider the choice of where to place one's faith just as
important as the choice of life or death.
Dave
|
| 20.473 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 29 1994 17:23 | 2 |
| Pregnant citizen? Is that to exclude pregnant foreigners? Or is that a
substitute for the inherently sexist "pregnant woman?"
|
| 20.474 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Thu Dec 29 1994 17:27 | 6 |
| RE: .472
Dave...Where have you been? Your the first person in a long time to
use rational thinking in regards to this topic, next to me of course.
...Tom (the godless one)
|
| 20.475 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 29 1994 17:31 | 26 |
| Reese:
What does that have to do with the price in China?
EDP:
Apparently, you have a communication issue, since both Levesque and I
got the same message out of what you wrote. I put you in the liberal
box and I apologize for that generalization. I have learned from some
of my fellow boxers that you can be a gun weilding conservative pro
choice individual. I do call you an elitist though because your
message conveyed that only those with any kind of financial stability
will be happy in life. In other words, put them out of their potential
misery because you have foreseen that impoverished individuals will be
unhappy...poppycock.
Thats like saying, end the life of as many gay people as possible
because they statistically will contract AIDS at a higher rate and will
suffer terribly. Situational ethics...that's what it boils down to.
I also get a chuckle when people equte faith with the death of
millions. Two individuals in the last 10 replies have outright stated
they don't believe in God, yet are the biggest proponents of abortion.
Sounds like you guys have the strawman in your back yard...not me!!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.476 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 29 1994 17:32 | 28 |
| >> "Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness". Liberty and life are
>> both what I was speaking of, Joe.
>
> So you are saying that all three are of equal importance?
The Declaration of Independence didn't rate among them, it merely said
that all are endowed with these inalienable rights. If you presume to
rate them you are doing so for the purpose of abrogating one in favor
of another, which contradicts the inalienable part. No, I'm not rating
them. You can make that mistake if you want to.
> You make it seem that pregnancy is always risky to the life
> of the mother in some significant proportion of cases.
*I* don't "make it seem"; the facts of the matter are that being
pregnant and carrying to term are, healthwise, riskier to life
than being pregnant and terminating. Medical fact.
> Pregnanct is ***NOT*** a life threatening condition in most cases,
It is more threatening tahn *not* being pregnant. Who gets to decide
how much risk is appropriate for a citizen to endure? Hint: if you're
for making abortions illegal, you are saying that the government gets
to decide how much risk is appropriate for a citizen to endure. That
answer is in flagrant violation of the Declaration of INdependence. A
truly free person makes such decisions for themself.
DougO
|
| 20.477 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | LAGNAF | Thu Dec 29 1994 17:39 | 11 |
| ]most of the commercial IS a depiction of things that are unrealistic
]for all but a privileged minority.
Nonsense. Absolutely, and totally false. You could hardly be more
wrong.
By FAR the vast majority of pregnancies result in happy, healthy
babies with a good shot at "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness." I defy you to prove otherwise. Is your vision of the US so
skewed that you think that more than 50% of the population lives in
poverty? Duh.
|
| 20.478 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Dec 29 1994 18:00 | 29 |
| > If you presume to
> rate them you are doing so for the purpose of abrogating one in favor
> of another, which contradicts the inalienable part. No, I'm not rating
> them.
Yes you are. You are saying that the right to liberty and
pursuit of happiness for the woman is more important than the
right to life for the baby.
> > Pregnanct is ***NOT*** a life threatening condition in most cases,
>
> It is more threatening tahn *not* being pregnant.
By how much? No, your answer is not good enough. You are preying
on the misfortunes of a statistical few to promote this idea.
What is the risk to life of being pregnant? Of having an abortion?
You seem to know the comparative values. Back them up here.
> Hint: if you're
> for making abortions illegal, you are saying that the government gets
> to decide how much risk is appropriate for a citizen to endure.
Hint: You are conveniently forgetting (or repositioning the
truth...) that any proposed restriction to abortions provides
for abortion in cases of risk to the mother's health.
answer is in flagrant violation of the Declaration of INdependence. A
truly free person makes such decisions for themself.
DougO
|
| 20.479 | | MPGS::MARKEY | AIBOHPHOBIA: Fear of Palindromes | Thu Dec 29 1994 18:05 | 9 |
| The argument about pregnancy being risky...
Consider that more "nonpregnant" woman die than "pregnant" ones.
I say, help prolong a woman's life today!!! :-) :-)
Wink. Wink.
-b
|
| 20.480 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Thu Dec 29 1994 18:33 | 59 |
| re: .472
Boy, that took a while...I was expecting response much sooner than
that. 8^)
You have every right not to believe in God...though this does not
change anything. If God exists (and obviously I believe He does), then
your belief that He doesn't exist won't change that fact.
My note takes the "Christian nation" slant, if you didn't notice (down,
Mr. Percival...I'm not trying to resurrect any old debates here 8^) ).
In the not too distant past, we were a predominantly Christian nation.
In fact, today, 90% of the population makes some claim to being
Christian (last poll I read...usual error ratio). If so, how can we
rationalize taking God out of our lives in this way (abortion).
Abortion is admitting defeat, period. You are saying that there is no
hope, no future (with child), no way out but to end the life of the
child. In effect, this predominantly Christian nation has resigned
itself to the opinion that God does NOT help anyone in need...he won't
help that struggling single mom who can't afford/can't emotionally deal
with that unborn child. I'll take blind faith to defeatism any day of
the week (though I don't consider belief in God a blind faith).
I have all the proof that I need that God exists...and it is mostly
personal experience. I find it disheartening that God's nation (we
used to call outselves that) resigns itself to humanistic relativism in
its policies and laws. I believe that it was this trust in God by
(most of) our FF that helped to create this nation and the amazing
document that is called the Constitution of the United States. I
believe that it was this trust, this faith, that lead us to become the
richest, most powerful nation on this earth. I also believe that just
as faith has its rewards, lack of faith and turning away from God will
have its penalties. These penalties are just now coming to light in
earnest, and are directly related to man making government his god and
problem solver...they are also directly related to the moral problems
we are having to deal with today (as society seems to think morals are
relative).
Everything is related in one way or another. It may seem ridiculous to
you for me to say lack of faith will lead to this nations ruin, but the
facts are piling up. As we throw off our historic morality, our
problems increase. Free love? Ain't free. Government charity? An
oxymoron. Freedom without responsibility? No such thing...lack of
responsibility will bring about limitations of freedoms.
Centralization of government powers to solve social problems? Hasn't
worked in the 60+ years we've circumvented the Constitution...how many
more years and how much more money will it take to realize that
government is not God...it really can't solve all our problems.
We used to rely on self with God's help (the majority, there have
always been atheists). Today, we don't even rely on ourselves, we rely
on government to meet our societal needs. It's sad, really.
I could go on, but I'll spare you the gory details. For many in
boxland, this is all pretty much a repeat anyway...I'm having a slow
day. 8^)
-steve
|
| 20.481 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 29 1994 19:23 | 28 |
| Re .469:
> Another 3,000,000,000,000 times infinity and we'll still boil this
> argument down to one issue..
>
> Is the fetus a life?
Baloney. There ARE other points of view. I've seen similarly
ill-informed people make this statement before. But in this case, you
make it in the midst of an ongoing argument which does NOT rest upon
that issue. To wit, the mother's right to control her own body may
take precedence over the fetus' right to life EVEN IF the fetus is
alive and is human and is sentient and is a full citizen.
Many people would agree that a person has a right to kill another
person in self-defense. Thus, even though the killed person is indeed
alive and a person, their right to life is not supreme. Similarly, the
fetus' right to life might not be supreme.
You can certainly dispute whether or not the fetus' right to life
prevails, but to deny that the issue exists is sheer ignorance.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.482 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 29 1994 19:30 | 22 |
| Re .475:
> . . . both Levesque and I got the same message out of what you wrote.
Which proves nothing more than that you share prejudices.
> I do call you an elitist though because your message conveyed that
> only those with any kind of financial stability will be happy in life.
First, I did not write any such thing. I wrote about _most_ and _many_
people; I said nothing about _all_ or _only_. Second, it my subsequent
replies, I EXPLICITLY stated that I had not written or meant any such
thing. So when you repeat this lie now, it is deliberate. In the
future, if you will represent my position, then have the decency to
give exact quotes of what you claim.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.483 | atheist? not. Skeptic, maybe. | WMOIS::FAFEL | Life is short. Play Dead. | Thu Dec 29 1994 19:32 | 35 |
| re: 480
Maybe we were at one time a "christian nation", but times change. In
the not too distant past woman were denied the right to have control
over their own bodies and resorted to dangerous methods of abortion.
I won't argue the percentage of your poll claiming 90% of the
population is christian, but what about the other 10% (that I feel I
must belong to) that can very easily rationalize taking god out of our
lives because he was never there to begin with. This isn't majority
rules.
Also, if this is a predominantly christian nation then why do you
believe that this nation has resigned itself to the opinion that god
does not help anyone in need? If thats the case then how do you expect
a woman to put her faith in a god that can't help her? I think the
defeatism you speak of is the same as the blind faith you have for your
god.
You seem to equate not having faith in god with not understanding one's
responsibilities. Please understand that just because I don't put my
faith in your god that does not mean I roam the earth with reckless
abandon and impregnate every woman I can in an attempt to shake you
from your faith with god. I'm responsible for my actions, however
the decisions I make may be different than yours.
You are correct. Government is not god. Also remember, God is not
Government. I would not let either one dictate what I can and can not
do to my body.
Also, I'm not an atheist. Why must everything have a title? If you
insist on giving me one then how about the one I already go by:
Dave
|
| 20.485 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 29 1994 19:42 | 10 |
| Dave:
The fetus is not part of the woman's body. It is a separate being
within it's host. As far as abortions being legal to stop unsafe
abortions....not my problem mon! You may think this is callous...call
it what you will. I also don't believe we should pass out
specified amounts of heroin to addicts because it is the safest way to
take the drug. It's a stupid line of reasoning.
-Jack
|
| 20.486 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 29 1994 19:43 | 36 |
| Re .477:
> By FAR the vast majority of pregnancies result in happy, healthy
> babies with a good shot at "life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness."
The commercial isn't aimed at the vast majority of pregnancies. It's
aimed at the pregnancies in which abortion is being considered.
Furthermore, the commercial does not depict just happy, healthy babies.
It depicts sickeningly sweet children (all by itself a rarity) dressed
(as children are rarely dressed) for careers that are either
prestigious or childhood fantasies (both rare). Where are the
ditch-diggers, the construction workers, the ironworkers, the nomadic
farm workers, the dropouts, the gang members, the alcoholics, and the
shooting victims? Where are the dirty diapers, the child crying at 3
a.m. with only one parent to trade sleep for care? Where are the
misbehaving children? Where are the bills, the dirty dishes, the dirty
clothes, the problems in school?
> Is your vision of the US so skewed that you think that more than 50%
> of the population lives in poverty?
Roughly 14% of the US population is in poverty. Does that mean the
rest live as the commercial shows? No, those just above poverty are
struggling to get by; another burden will shove them into poverty.
Above them are some people who can handle another child with some
sacrifices, and above them are the middle class. But even there few
children will attain on a regular basis even one of the characteristics
shown and listed above, let alone all three.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.487 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 29 1994 19:45 | 5 |
| Actually, they showed the commercial yesterday and it was stating to
look under Abortion Alternatives in the Yellow Pages. I didn't see any
children on the last ad.
-Jack
|
| 20.488 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 29 1994 19:47 | 15 |
| Re .487:
> Actually, they showed the commercial yesterday and it was stating to
> look under Abortion Alternatives in the Yellow Pages. I didn't see any
> children on the last ad.
That's not "the commercial". That's "a" commercial. It's not the one
I was writing about.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.489 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 29 1994 19:59 | 4 |
| The commercial I referred to was still done by the Edward Moss
Foundation.
-Jack
|
| 20.490 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | Barney IS NOT a nerd!! | Thu Dec 29 1994 20:10 | 5 |
| Bottom line folks...you're pooping all over the front lawn of America.
We don't appreciate it. Your 70's mentality is not wanted. Figure out
a better plan.
Thank you!
|
| 20.491 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 29 1994 20:19 | 26 |
| >> No, I'm not rating them.
>
> Yes you are. You are saying that the right to liberty and
> pursuit of happiness for the woman is more important than the
> right to life for the baby.
what baby? thats a fetus. and *you* are saying that right to life of
the woman is not sufficiently at risk to even merit mention. Too bad -
it is.
>>> Pregnanct is ***NOT*** a life threatening condition in most cases,
>>
>> It is more threatening tahn *not* being pregnant.
>
> By how much? No, your answer is not good enough.
Whaddaya mean, how much, or 'not good enough'? How much risk do you
allow the state to force *your* family to endure? If one course is
'relatively safe' and another is 'safer' would you accept a government
mandate to follow the one that is proven 'less safe'? Especially if
that government mandate was motivated by the religious beliefs of a
minority? Tell you what - I don't accept that kind of government
mandate. I'm surprised you think we should. Ooops, I forgot; you're
part of that religious minority.
DougO
|
| 20.492 | Still unresponsive | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 29 1994 20:26 | 134 |
| re .467
> Max, ...
Er, my initials are "mtp" - No big deal!
> ... its a shame you don't like the arguments offered; you disparage
> them, calling them non-sequiter and unresponsve.
I did not intend to disparage. My only intention was to point out that the
arguments you raised in .457 did not answer the question(s) I explicitly
posed in my original post. If you were to insist that they do answer the
questions, then the your points make no logical sense. I apologize if I
led you to believe that I was being disparaging. That was certainly not
my intent.
Moreover, my reply did not contend that the points you raised were not
valid, or worthy of consideration. In other contexts, your points would
probably be relevant. As for whether they constituted a reply to my orginal
posting, they simply did not go to the issue(s) I raised.
> You wish for us to
> hearken to fundamental principles- so I'm to take it *you're* allowed
> to cite the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta, but we are
> not? That dog won't hunt, pal.
In fact, I would be very appreciative if you would discuss how the
Declaration of Independence, or the Magna Carta, or any other written
expression of ethical or moral philosophy supports the notion that societies
have no interest in protecting pre-partum humans from the arbitrary
considerations of the mother.
> Nonsense. Medically, the risks to the pregnant citizen's life are
> increased by the condition of pregnancy and decreased by its
> termination.
Sorry, but you are uninformed on this subject. I do not mean to disparage
you, because it is possible that you do not intentionally mean to mislead.
In otherwords, you may really believe the myth that pregnancy constitutes
a statistically significant risk to the mother. As a matter of fact,
pregnant females are less likely to die (of any cause) than non-pregnant
ones of similar age and background. Said another way, a woman's risk of
dying is statistically reduced when she becomes pregnant. These
statistics are available from three sources: The U.S. census data
(general mortality rates by cause), the annual mortality and morbidity
statistics published by the U.S. Department of Public Health (esp.
pregnancy), and by the Centers for Disease control (infectious disease and
pregnancy - Turns out that pregnant females are less susceptible to
many types of infection). A trip to your local library is all that is
required. Where I live, our county library system makes these, and a number
of other databases, available on line.
If you are not inclined to plow thru these databases, or don't have the
medical or statistical background, go down to your local bookstore and buy
a little book called "The Book of Risks". Most of these findings are
published in this book and you can get the original source references and
dive in to your heart's content.
But stats are dry and boring and, without some theoretical framework to
give them meaning, can be less than compelling. So, for a description of
this framework, i.e., for an understanding of WHY pregnant females enjoy
lower mortality rates than the general population, I would invite you to
[re]read my original posting. This note discusses why these statistics
are what we would expect considering our evolutionary, historical, and
cultural history.
I believe where pro-abortionists become confused is their interpretation of
the relative risk of dying by carrying a fetus to term, versus having an
abortion. Statistically, carrying a fetus to term results in the death of
the mother in 7 out of 100,000 births. By contrast, therapeutic abortion
results in the death of the mother in 4 out of 100,000 abortions - On the
face of it, a statistically significant difference! However, these
stats are misleading: Since the vast majority of abortions occur before
the third trimester, and since the majority of life-threatening
complications occur at child-birth, when these statistics are adjusted for
pregnant-months, no statistical difference exists between carrying a fetus
to term and aborting it prior to the third trimester. Both are equally
risky (or equally safe).
> Are you able to enumerate the rights a state would grant to mothers
> and not to fetuses? If one of those rights is the right-to-life, on
> what basis should the state not grant that right?
> It is precisely to muddy that obvious state imposition that making
> abortions illegal would represent that you invent 'rights' for the
> unborn that have never been recognized throughout the history of
> jurisprudence- never have we treated the unborns with any of the rights
> or privileges of the citizenry.
This is simply not true. Again, you seem unburdened by a knowledge of
history. The most ancient code of law of which we are aware, the code of
Hammurabi and all other ancient codes (e.g., Hittite) of which I am aware,
have explicit protections for the unborn. In the code of Hammurabi,
abortion is punishable by death by impalement. Read my original note for
additional examples of how abortion has been proscribed throughout history,
and not just by Christians.
> Pregnant women and their fetuses can't use the carpool lane as two
> people. Pregnant women don't get a tax deduction for the unborn as they
> do for born children. Pregnant women are not counted as two in a census.
> In short, the historical basis you seek to ameliorate the conflict you
> invent between "competing rights" actually shows that no such rights have
> ever accrued to the fetus.
You are engaging is sophistry. The courts have interpreted laws like the
ones you cite, as expressions of economic value, and not precatory
statements of the extent to which a society values individual liberty. In
otherwords, the laws about carpool lanes, tax deductions, and whether the
U.S. census takers are obliged to count fetuses, are no more relevant to
the issue of individual freedom as the laws restricting 5 year olds from
driving on the public highways. Society is free to regulate the use of its
highways, tax and count its citizens as it deems necessary. No fundamental
rights are violated and no fundamental rights can be assumed by the
existence of these laws.
If you wish to argue law, a better basis would be to study the laws
dealing with surrogacy. In this field, significant statutory and case-law
exists prohibiting the sale of embryos, but not eggs and sperm. Selling
embryos is prohibited under the statutory law (and has been upheld in the
case law) because the sale of one human by another violates all sorts of
constitutional protections that are applied automatically to post-partum
humans.
My request still stands: I am asking you to help me understand the
historical, cultural, or philosophical underpinnings of the pro-abortion
notion that females be granted such absolute authority over another human
being. I am less interested in your personal opinions than I am
interested in what fundamental principles lead you to the inescapable
conclusion that females must have autonomous life-or-death purview of the
fetus she carries.
/mtp
|
| 20.493 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Dec 29 1994 20:34 | 40 |
| > what baby? thats a fetus. and *you* are saying that right to life of
> the woman is not sufficiently at risk to even merit mention. Too bad -
> it is.
It *is*? Or it might be... Are you claiming that there is
always a risk to the life of the mother in every (or even just
"many") pregnancies? Get real!
> Whaddaya mean, how much, or 'not good enough'?
What is the statistical risk to the life of the mother? Prety
straightforward question. How many pregnancies end in death, or
even in life-threatening situations? What is the NUMBER? Just
saying "it is" is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Prove your claim.
> How much risk do you
> allow the state to force *your* family to endure?
Again, you are conveniently "forgetting" that all proposals
for abortion limitation allow for abortion if the mother's
life is at risk.
Your "positioning of truth" calls for abortion for anyone because
someone else's life is at risk.
> allow the state to force *your* family to endure? If one course is
> 'relatively safe' and another is 'safer' would you accept a government
> mandate to follow the one that is proven 'less safe'?
How much "less safe"? And how "unsafe" is either choice?
> that government mandate was motivated by the religious beliefs of a
> minority? Tell you what - I don't accept that kind of government
> mandate. I'm surprised you think we should. Ooops, I forgot; you're
> part of that religious minority.
Ah. More "positional truth". Why just today several sets of
stats were mentioned to demonstrate that you are wrong. It must
be a "positional majority" in those stats, huh, Mr. Middle-of-
the-road?
|
| 20.494 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 29 1994 20:43 | 11 |
| > Why just today several sets of stats were mentioned to demonstrate
> that you are wrong.
perhaps you could attempt to explain how 4 deaths per 100K abortions is
*not* 'less risky' than 7 deaths per 100K deliveries? That was the
staistic posted, and it backed up what I said. Max interprets it
differently, of course, but he did admit to polemics, and will have to
be debated with heavier weaponry. You, however, don't even recognize
that the stistics he posted did back up what I said.
DougO
|
| 20.495 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Dec 29 1994 20:51 | 19 |
| .494
Notes collision, Doug. I wasn't referring to those stats when
I posted my entry because they were not yet posted when I started
typing.
I was referring to the stats that show that it is *NOT* a religious
minority that is pushing for abortion limitations. (You'll notice
that THAT is what I quoted when I made that statement. I'll let
this one go this time.)
However, regarding the stats you just referenced, I notice that
you are willing to accept that one sentence without accepting the
context in which it was presented. I expected nothing less from
you.
Still, just on face value, do you consider 7 in 100,000 to
be substantial enough to call pregnancy statistically
life-threatening?
|
| 20.496 | Please Reread my reply more carefully. | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 29 1994 20:54 | 6 |
| re: .494
I think you may have read .492 too quickly. I present and discuss why no
relative risk is sustained by pregnancy.
/mtp
|
| 20.497 | 'pregnant-months' - quite creative | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 29 1994 21:11 | 7 |
| mtp, your interpretation was noted, but as Joe was whining about stats
I wanted to point out the actual numbers. Sure, yours was a creative
handwave; but as I said before, I'll obviously need somewhat heavier
artillery to be 'responsive' to your polemics. Don't worry, I know you
don't think the numbers mean what they say.
DougO
|
| 20.498 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Dec 29 1994 21:17 | 6 |
| You didn't answer my question, Doug.
Do you think 7 out of 100,000 is significant enough to say
that pregnancy is a statistical risk to life.
Most of your argument today rests on that answer.
|
| 20.499 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Thu Dec 29 1994 21:31 | 3 |
| You didn't answer mine, Joe - is 7 of 100000 riskier than 4 of 100000?
DougO
|
| 20.500 | SNARF | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Dec 29 1994 21:44 | 1 |
| I'm tempted... tempted.. yeah why not! :-)
|
| 20.501 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Dec 29 1994 21:50 | 25 |
| > You didn't answer mine, Joe - is 7 of 100000 riskier than 4 of 100000?
As you have isolated them and presented them, yes.
(I put that sentence on a separate line so that you can more
easily take that one statement in isolation. You're welcome.)
Now, is 4 out of 100,000 risky? 7 out of 100,000?
But I'm also interested in hearing more, not only about .492's
additional treatment of the numbers, but also the claim that
pregnant women are less likely to die than non-pregnant women.
I notice you failed to address that point.
If you want government intervention to encourage the safest
state, perhaps you should be pushing for maximum pregnancies. :^)
And I don't recall anyone addressing the increased breast cancer
risks for women who have had abortions.
Finally, I don't recall ever questioning your claim that, on
the surface in raw numbers, .492 supports. I've been questioning
your "positioning of this truth" such that you make pregnancy
appear to be life-threatening. Both 7 out of 100K and 4 out
of 100K are relatively insignificant numbers. Do you disagree?
|
| 20.502 | Why a handwave? | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 29 1994 22:21 | 39 |
|
Why is the measure of pregnant-months a handwave? In anycase, the
pregnant-month is not my invention. The use of this particular term
specifically, and normalized-metrics, in general, is a more highly regarded
statistical measure because it provides for more accurate and meaningful
relative comparisons.
For normal pregnancies:
7 deaths 1 pregnancy
---------------------- x --------------- = 7 deaths / 900,000 months
100,000 normal preg. 9 months
For aborted pregnancies:
4 deaths 1 aborted preg.
---------------------- x ---------------- = 4 deaths / 500,000 months
100,000 aborted preg. 5 months
For normal pregnancies the risk is 7 deaths/900,000 months of normal pregnancy,
or 0.77 deaths per 100,000 months.
For aborted pregnancies the risk is 4 deaths/500,000 aborted pregnancies, or
0.80 deaths per 100,000 months. If you want to argue nits, having an abortion
increases the risk very, very slightly. Note that if average aborted pregnancy
term was lower, say 3 months, the increase goes up dramatically. Put another
way, by assuming that *ALL* aborted pregnancies are 5 months long (i.e., before
the third trimester) we give the pro-abortionists the benefit of the doubt.
If you are going to insist that women be granted life-or-death purview over
fetuses because they sustain a higher relative risk due to pregnancy, you'll
have to base your risk assessement on some set of statistics other than those of
the U.S. Public Health Department, the Centers for Disease control, or clinical
experience.
In anycase, I believe this issue to be a distraction. Even if abortion lessened
the risk to a pregnant woman, I still do not see the connection between the risk
imposed by pregnancy, freely undertaken, and the claim of the pro-abortionist
that women have autonomous life-or-death purview over a fetus.
|
| 20.503 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Dec 29 1994 22:42 | 13 |
| MTP -- It's a handwave because it doesn't fit the liberal
model.
Aside: To be fair I think you would have to adjust downward
a bit your 9 month number for the birth equation. Not all
pregnancies last 9 months. My wife averages less than 8.5
months for our 4, for instance, and none of ours were considered
preemies. Now maybe for each two-week-early birth there is
a corresponding 2-week-late one, but I doubt there would be
a counter-balancing overdue for a 3-month premature birth, for
instance. While I doubt that it would significantly lower
the 9-month number, you'd be better off addressing that than
being utterly discounted for ignoring it.
|
| 20.504 | Breast Cancer and pregnancy -- Be careful! | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 29 1994 22:50 | 29 |
| > And I don't recall anyone addressing the increased breast cancer
> risks for women who have had abortions.
I can address that. One of the professors associated with the study was on
my thesis committee in my former life, and I've been privileged to see some
of the raw data that went into the study (because I'm working on the
anti-abortion article referenced in my base note).
The findings of this study were, by most accounts, regarded as
interesting but inconclusive. In clinical research, a statistical study
of this kind can never be conclusory unless a physiological basis for the
increased protection can be supported empirically. In otherwords, theory
exists, but no data. Before medical conclusions can be drawn, clinicians
want to understand how the physiological, biochemical, and immunological
systems work to explain this effect.
Having said all this, these investigators were very thorough and very
careful. The study was credible because it was done carefully and the
investigators are highly regarded (at least in my opinion). The long and
short of it is that this study was part of the foundation for further
research. We'll just have to wait and see what the results of the
clinical (non-statistical) studies show us.
Personally, I am not inclined to use this observation one way or the
other because I (and others for whom I have great respect) do not yet
understand what's really going on.
/mtp
|
| 20.505 | NCI Summary | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Sun Jan 01 1995 19:58 | 134 |
| This is from the NCI gopher and summarizes the findings I presented in
the previous reply (.504). Much as I would like to ba able to use this
to support an anti-abortion stance, I would suggest that my
anti-abortion collegues NOT conclude that therapeutic abortion
increases the risk of breast cancer.
/mtp
CancerNet from the National Cancer Institute
******************************************************************************
* CANCER FACTS *
* National Cancer Institute *
* National Institutes of Health *
******************************************************************************
Abortion and Possible Risk for Breast Cancer: Analysis and Inconsistencies
A study reported in the Nov. 2 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute ("JNCI") on induced abortion and risk for breast cancer discusses
whether an association exists, but the findings are not conclusive. Further
research is needed to interpret the results. The research was independently
conducted by Janet Daling, Ph.D., Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center,
University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. [Note: The paper is titled
"Risk of breast cancer among young women: Relationship to induced abortion."
The authors are Janet R. Daling, Kathleen E. Malone, Lynda F. Voigt, Emily
White, and Noel S. Weiss, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center,
University of Washington, Seattle.]
The study suggests that women age 45 or younger who have had induced abortions
have a relative risk of 1.5 (50 percent increased risk) for breast cancer
compared to women who had been pregnant but never had an induced abortion.
In epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 are considered small
and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance,
statistical bias, or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not
evident. In an editorial accompanying the study, Lynn Rosenberg, Sc.D.,
Boston University School of Medicine, points out that a "difference in risk of
50 percent (relative risk of 1.5) is small in epidemiologic terms [human
population studies], and severely challenges our ability to distinguish
whether it reflects cause and effect or whether it simply reflects bias."
Rosenberg notes that "the overall results as well as the particulars are far
from conclusive, and it is difficult to see how they will be informative to
the public."
Daling and colleagues did not find a consistent pattern of increasing or
decreasing risk associated with age at abortion, as would be expected by many
scientists. [Risk was greater for women who had their first induced abortion
before age 18 (relative risk of 2.5) and for women who were 30 years of age or
older (relative risk of 2.1).] Furthermore, the risk did not vary by number
of abortions, whether abortion preceded or followed a full-term pregnancy, or
by length of time to diagnosis of breast cancer. One key point is that women
aged 45 or younger who had miscarriages were not found to be at increased risk
for breast cancer.
Taken together, the inconsistencies and scarcity of existing research do not
permit scientific conclusions.
In the Daling study, the researchers analyzed data on 845 white women who were
diagnosed with invasive or in situ breast cancer from 1983 to 1990 and 961
control subjects. All the women were born after 1944. Data were collected on
reproductive history, family history of breast and other cancers, and
lifestyle and other factors. The study population was from three counties in
Washington State. Only white women were included in the study because of the
small minority population in this area.
The researchers also found that risk for breast cancer was more enhanced for
women having an induced abortion prior to age 18 if their pregnancy was
interrupted during the 9-to-24-week period of gestation. However, this
finding was based on small numbers.
Studies published in the "JNCI" are peer-reviewed by scientists and represent
the views of the authors. Papers published in the journal do not necessarily
reflect the views held by NCI or any other component of the federal
government.
|
| 20.506 | pro-life, indeed | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Ecstacy | Mon Jan 02 1995 14:39 | 10 |
|
"John Salvi, we care about you. We love you. We support you."
and
"...his deeds were justified."
--Donald Spitz
Head of Pro-Life Virginia
^^^^^^^^
|
| 20.507 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Jan 02 1995 14:46 | 22 |
| My first note of '95 and look at where it has to end up . . .
re: Steve Leech
Please stop confusing the failed social programs of socialist
liberal Democratic establishments with "the solutions of man".
They are no more representative of "Mankind's" solutions than
are the conservative programs those of "God".
re: general
Prolly a good thing the 'box was down last Friday after John
Salvi went on his shooting spree in Brookline.
Question: Why is it that you don't see pro-choice folks going
around trying to glorify abortion, but you have idiot pro-life
thumpers walking around with placards saying "God Bless John
Salvi"?
Pretty scummy move if you ask me.
|
| 20.508 | | HAAG::HAAG | | Mon Jan 02 1995 14:54 | 8 |
| re -1
dano, its because the press encourages support for murderers of
innocents. of course, they wouldn't admit it directly but they do.
there was a grand total of 14 people who stood in front of silvas jail
cell and shouted support. yet those 14 made the 6 o'clock news on every
major news show. if cold blooded murderers were tried and hung the day
after, this kind of crap would disappear just about over night.
|
| 20.509 | | SUBPAC::JJENSEN | Jojo the Fishing Widow | Mon Jan 02 1995 15:03 | 5 |
| And the heads of pro-life groups, who denounced Salvi's
actions, got buried deep in newspaper reports with one-
sentence responses.
No bias? Ha!
|
| 20.510 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Keep it off my wave... | Mon Jan 02 1995 15:07 | 6 |
|
shock journalism. Regular papers are as bad as the tabloids....
|
| 20.511 | | MPGS::MARKEY | AIBOHPHOBIA: Fear of Palindromes | Mon Jan 02 1995 15:07 | 9 |
| No, I don't think the press supports the murder of innocents. The press
supports anything that makes their political point. And idjits who
think this guy did the right thing are exactly the point the press is
trying to make. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of these people
weren't "plants"... much like our own 'boxer who dressed up like a geek
and went to a Kennedy rally... (sorry, it slips my mind who that was
and without access to the old box, I can't go check.)
-b
|
| 20.512 | | MPGS::MARKEY | AIBOHPHOBIA: Fear of Palindromes | Mon Jan 02 1995 15:12 | 15 |
| One other point... this shooting was the tip of the iceberg. There
will be many more abortion clinic shootings. And then this will
spread to other "causes". People with various political and social
axes to grind will start popping up like weeds. This will, of
course, result in more and more gun restrictions, which of course,
will have no effect whatsoever.
As long as the victims are "civilian", the slaughter will continue.
Only when politicians and government employess become the targets
will there even be discussion of the death penalty, and it will,
of course, only apply in cases where one of them gets snuffed.
Welcome to 21st Century America...
-b
|
| 20.513 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Jan 02 1995 15:28 | 1 |
| That geek, er, 'boxer, were our Jack Martin, I do b'lieve.
|
| 20.514 | | WMOIS::FAFEL | Life is short. Play Dead. | Mon Jan 02 1995 16:50 | 7 |
| Do you get the feeling Salvi just might have lost it anyway? Regardless of
his opinion on abortion? He was bomb just waiting to blow. I think he
would have reacted the same way if he supported PETA or Amnesty
International or whatever. Obviously he was not concerned with the loss
of innocent lives. He just lost it.
Dave
|
| 20.515 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Jan 02 1995 17:33 | 7 |
| Local stories say Salvi was a wacko fanatic who was fired
from his job as a hairdresser in Portsmouth because he was
too vocal regarding his opinions and he offended customers.
Personally, I would have to conclude that anyone who goes
on a shooting spree is less than mentally balanced.
|
| 20.516 | | MPGS::MARKEY | AIBOHPHOBIA: Fear of Palindromes | Mon Jan 02 1995 17:35 | 8 |
| A hairdresser on a shooting spree?
Isn't that a bit of an over-reaction to being coiffe-impaired?
Most male hairdressers I know would be more inclined to
scratch your eyes out than shoot you... :-)
-b
|
| 20.517 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Mon Jan 02 1995 18:27 | 13 |
|
re .506
Mr. Spitz and his ilk should be in the slammer along with Mr. Salvi.
Jim
|
| 20.518 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 02 1995 19:27 | 10 |
| He seemed to be in a snit over lots of things.
Apparently he interrupted Christmas Eve Mass and attempted to preach his
own sermon, proclaiming "Don't believe them; all they want is your money."
Glob sez his friend John Christo refused to spend the night with him.
Maybe I should mail him my "I'M A MESS" button.
/john
|
| 20.519 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Jan 03 1995 09:49 | 13 |
| The only thing the press is interested in is driving a scoop whether
based on fact or not. Most of the established press are getting closer
and closer to tabloid-ism.
Salvi is nothing short of animal. A dangerous, useless life that has
taken lives that will effect many others (relatives and non-relatives
of the victims). The pro-lifers that take a position that he's a hero
are simply godless fanatics with know sense of what is right or wrong,
what human decency is or simple civility is.
He's a murderer and his supporters are the worst kind of hippocrates.
Chip
|
| 20.520 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Tue Jan 03 1995 11:42 | 14 |
| re: .507
No confusion...the social policies ARE representative of man's
solutions, and will be until they are rescinded (which is very unlikely
to happen in this or the next generation). Now, we all may not agree
with this "solution" to given problems, but that does not change the
fact that such solutions ARE in effect.
In any case, it was only an example, and does not take away from the
statement. Man's solutions have ever been faulty, in any case, as
there always seeps in an element of corruption.
-steve
|
| 20.521 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Tue Jan 03 1995 11:43 | 4 |
| re: .510
You got that right.
|
| 20.522 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jan 03 1995 12:09 | 18 |
| > of the victims). The pro-lifers that take a position that he's a hero
> are simply godless fanatics with know sense of what is right or wrong,
Well, the "godless " fanatics I saw were carrying an awful
lot of signs with quotes from a book characterized by
mens names followed by numbers separated by colons. They
apparently didn't consider themselves "godless".
re: Steve
So, are you contending that conservative policies are
"heaven sent", Steve. You know, you'd get a whole lot
more respect for your viewpoints from some quarters if
you didn't consistently attempt to rationalize them as
being alligned with some god or another. They actually
do have merit on their own grounds.
|
| 20.523 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Tue Jan 03 1995 14:16 | 13 |
| re: .522
I've never said conservative policies are "heaven sent", nor implied
this. There is no mistake that conservative policies are closer to my
religious beliefs than are liberal policies, but my support of them is
not necessarily based on this.
The fact that the conservative policies (in general) have more merit than
liberal ones; and the fact that conservative policies are closer to Biblical
concepts than liberal ones, is not lost on this noter, however.
-steve
|
| 20.524 | I'll probably get investigated by the FBI just for asking | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 14:23 | 6 |
| I have a call in to the U.S. Attorney's office to see if the protesters
who disrupted the prayer service at Ruggles Baptist Church yesterday are
going to be charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances [and
Churches] Act.
/john
|
| 20.525 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Tue Jan 03 1995 14:56 | 21 |
| RE: .414,.418
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner DougO... been on vaca and all...
Your label of ingorance and thumper are a bit premature... I am
guilty of omitting the word "eventually" from my reply, because you
well know that programs like this will spread...
You want them? By all means have them!!! You can put them on every
street corner in America for all I care! Just don't expect me to pay
for them is all... Simple no?
You want to contribute to paying a teacher to teach this stuff? Fine!
After the school bell rings at 3:00 or whenever... have them garner all
the volunteers and their parents to ante up...
Thumperism?? Who's the ignorant one now? You know nothing of my
motives!! They are strictly from a tax-payers standpoint...
I suppose DougO will call me thumper because I want to cut off the NEA
grants too!!
|
| 20.526 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jan 03 1995 15:34 | 13 |
| > I've never said conservative policies are "heaven sent", nor implied
> this. There is no mistake that conservative policies are closer to my
It must've been when you characterized liberal socialist policies
as the "solutions of man" that I concluded you felt that conservatism
was godsent. I think that's where the implication came about.
Liberal socialist policies fail on their own weaknesses, not
because they are lacking in divine inspiration. Likewise the
strength of conservative policies isn't due to any extranormal
testimonial. Even a godless heathen like I can appreciate the
value in conservatism.
|
| 20.527 | Pullleeeeese | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Jan 03 1995 15:36 | 6 |
| Re; .22 well ya know, the wolf with the sheep's clothing is still
a wolf. Those little numbers with those holy men's names next
to them must've blinded you. Or were you "visually" challenged
b-e-f-o-r-e this tragic event?
Chip
|
| 20.528 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Tue Jan 03 1995 15:37 | 2 |
| the only problem with conservative policies is that too damned many of
them are designed to conserve the wealth of the policymakers.
|
| 20.529 | | AIMHI::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Tue Jan 03 1995 15:56 | 8 |
| Local WMUR is having a field day with the Johnny S.! They have
interviewed everyone in his building including the super! They have
interviewed all the folks who are in aaaaalll of the abortion clinics!
WMUR is coaxing the idea of a metal detector in the clinics. Good
idea... But who is going to run em and enforce em when one of the wymin
refuse to comply? ;)
Welp.... back to knuckle dragging.......
|
| 20.530 | Letter to Paul Hill from Gary North | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:12 | 132 |
| (c) Gary North, 1994
The author hereby authorizes anyone to reproduce and distribute
this book by electronic, magnetic, or laser-optical means. Each
reader is hereby authorized to print out one copy for his own
use. Anyone wishing to reprint this book on paper must contact
the author for written permission. His address appears at the
end of this book.
* * * * * * * * *
September 29, 1994
Paul J. Hill
Escambia County Corrections Dept.
P. O. Box 17789
Pensacola, FL 32522
Dear Mr. Hill:
Sometime in the months following the murder of the
abortionist in Florida, Dr. Gunn, you sent me two position
papers. One was called, "Was the killing of Dr. Gunn Just?" You
added this parenthesis: "Rough draft, numerous revisions still
being made." Obviously, you have other things on your mind these
days besides continuing the revisions of your rough draft. I am
responding to this paper belatedly because you seem to have taken
your own suggestions seriously enough to shoot an abortionist,
kill his escort, and wound the escort's wife. That, at least, is
what you are accused of. A jury will decide.
The subtitle on your paper is called, "A Call to Defensive
Action." You also sent another paper titled, "`Defensive Action'
Is a Pro-Life Organization Proclaiming the Justice of Using All
Action Necessary to Protect Innocent Life."
I did not respond to your letter or to your papers. I
cannot find your letter in my files, but I did save your two
papers. I should have responded. Perhaps I might have persuaded
you that you were headed in a terrible direction. In all
likelihood, though, you would not have taken me seriously. I say
this because you were excommunicated by your church, and you did
not take that seriously. Your church asked only that you cease
speaking in public -- such as on the "Donahue" show -- in defense
of the right of anti-abortionists to kill abortionists. So,
there is no good reason for me to believe that you would have
taken anything seriously that I might have written. I do not
expect you to take this letter seriously. On the assumption,
however, that men can repent before they are cast into hell,
which is where you are headed if you do not repent. Let me
explain why.
Judicial Theology
I say that you are headed for hell because I speak
judicially. You wrote to me, presumably because I am associated
with the Christian Reconstruction movement. You are well aware
that we are noted for our judicial theology. You attended
classes taught by Dr. Greg Bahnsen in the late 1970's at Reformed
Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. In one of your
papers, you cite a book by R.J. Rushdoony. We do think
judicially and speak judicially. Ask a judicial theologian his
opinion, and you should expect a judicial answer.
The New Testament is clear: when a man is excommunicated
from his church, he is to be regarded by Christians as a heathen.
We are told specifically by John that we are not to wish such a
person Godspeed. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in
the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the
doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there
come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not
into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth
him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (II John 1:9-11).
The New Testament is equally clear that God honors lawful
excommunications. Jesus spoke to church officers: "Verily I say
unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven" (Matt. 18:18). So, I take your excommunication
seriously, even though you do not.
You were educated as a Calvinist in a Calvinist seminary.
What did Calvin say about excommunication? He cited Matthew
16:19. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven." Then he wrote that "the latter applies to the
discipline of excommunication which is entrusted to the church.
But the church binds him whom it excommunicates -- not that it
casts him into everlasting ruin and despair, but because it
condemns his life and morals, and already warns him of his
condemnation unless he should repent. . . . Therefore, that no
one may stubbornly despise the judgment of the church, or think
it immaterial that he has been condemned by the vote of the
believers, the Lord testifies that such judgment by believers is
nothing but the proclamation of his own sentence, and that
whatever they have done on earth is ratified in heaven."
When an excommunicate then goes out to create his own house
church and serve himself and his family the Lord's Supper, as you
did, this goes beyond mere excommunicate status; it goes to the
status of outright rebellion. Here is a man who is creating his
own church, his own world of supposed judicial authority. Here
is a man who is bringing the sacraments of the church into his
home, in the name of God, when he has been lawfully condemned by
the institutional church and told to repent. That act alone
judicially enables me to say that by every judicial standard the
Bible offers, you are going to hell. You are in open rebellion.
God does not honor those men who flagrantly rebel against His
church, set up a home church, and ordain themselves to
ministerial status.
You are accused of having shot to death two men and wounded
a woman. You have not denied these accusations. Witnesses say you
fired a shotgun several times at close range -- a weapon not
noted for its ability to inflict death on a discriminating basis.
The reports say that you ran. If correct, then you did not
act as a man of courage would have acted. You did not act as one
who believed in some elevated principle. You shot and ran. This
indicates to me that you knew in your heart that you act was,
biblically speaking, an act of murder rather than the God-
authorized defense of a just cause. A man defending a just cause
does not run. He commits his act of civil rebellion in the name
of a higher law and then submits himself to the sanctions of the
state for having violated state law. This is what the people of
Operation Rescue do. They stand in front of an abortion clinic,
to be beaten by the police, arrested, sent to jail, fined, and
suffer a loss of their income. They suffer the consequences of
their actions. They are people of courage.
|
| 20.531 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:12 | 95 |
| Murder, Defined Biblically
The sixth commandment reads, "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex.
20:13). The God who mandates this is also the God who ordered
the total annihilation of the Canaanites (Deut. 7:16), so this
verse cannot legitimately be interpreted as a defense of
pacifism.
What is murder, biblically speaking? It is the slaying of a
human being by someone who has not been authorized to do so as a
covenantal agent.
A member of the military can lawfully kill a designated
enemy during wartime. In Old Covenant Israel, the man eligible
to serve in God's holy army had to pay blood money to the
priesthood at the time of the army's numbering, just prior to
battle (Ex. 30:12-16). This was atonement money (v. 16). So
fearful is killing, even as a member of God's holy army, that God
mandated a special payment. While we no longer are required to
pay money to a priest, the implication is clear: killing is a
very serious matter.
A man can defend his household against an unauthorized
criminal invader (Ex. 22:2-3). He is the head of his household:
a covenantal office. This is not self-defense as such; it is the
defense of a legitimate sphere of authority, the home, by one
charged by God through the civil government to take defensive
action. But this right is never said to be universal in the
Bible; it is limited to the protection of one's family.
A man can participate in the execution of a criminal
convicted of a capital crime. "At the mouth of two witnesses, or
three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to
death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to
death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put
him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou
shalt put the evil away from among you" (Deut. 17:6-7).
In Old Covenant Israel, there was an office called the blood
avenger, which was the same as the kinsman-redeemer. This was
the man who was nearest of kin. When a man accidentally killed
another, he had to flee to a designated city of refuge. If the
blood avenger caught the suspect en route, or outside the walls
of that city, he was authorized by civil law to execute the
suspect (Num. 35). This office no longer exists because cities
of refuge were an aspect only of Mosaic Israel.
When a corporate crime was so great that God's negative
sanctions threatened the entire nation, the state could authorize
corporate executions. The example here is the national sin of
the golden calf. The Levites' lawful slaying of the 3,000 men
after the golden calf incident removed the corporate threat (Ex.
32:28). But they had specifically been called into action by
Moses, the God-inspired head of the civil government. Moses
deputized them prior to their judicial action.
Under holy warfare conditions, a Mosaic priest was
authorized to kill someone who was committing a moral infraction
so great that it would have brought bloodguiltiness on the entire
community. The primary example here is Phinehas' execution of
the copulating couple during the war with Midian. The visible
mark of the displeasure of God was the plague that had broken out
immediately prior to Phinehas' action. This plague stopped after
he executed the couple (Num. 25:6-14). The same was true of
Samuel's execution of Agag: he was a prophet, and it took place
under wartime conditions (I Sam. 15:33).
The point is, in each case, the distinguishing mark of the
right to execute an enemy of God was the holding of a covenantal
office: military, head of household, witness, deputy, or wartime
priest or prophet. That is, the authorization to execute a
transgressor under the Mosaic covenant was ordained by God and
revealed in His law.
To kill another deliberately is murder. The murderer is
outside God's covenant of salvation. "Envyings, murders,
drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you
before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do
such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21).
Christians are not to tolerate such people in their midst. "But
let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an
evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters" (I Pet. 4:15).
God will cast every unrepentant murderer into the lake of
fire: "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all
things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true
and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is
athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that
overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and
he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and
idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev.
21:5-8).
|
| 20.532 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:12 | 148 |
| The Fundamental Issue
I want to talk at this point about what I regard as the real
issue here. You will probably not admit that this is the real
issue. Those who are psychologically disposed toward
revolutionary violence, autonomous acts of rebellion, and
premeditated murder will probably also not believe that I am
balancing the judicial issues properly. Nevertheless, it is time
for someone in the camp of the theonomists to address the
judicial issues carefully and precisely. It is not that we have
completely been silent, but there is a division in the theonomic
camp, and since I am the one who has come out in favor of non-
violent resistance in my books, I guess I should be the one to
continue to defend the position.
The grim fact of the matter is this: abortion is a universal
practice. Estimates today indicate as many as fifty million
unborn infants are aborted annually, worldwide. In the United
States, something in the range of a million and a half pre-born
infants have been legally aborted every year since 1973. But
compared to the total number of abortions worldwide, the
abortions in the U.S. are a small proportion of the total.
It is not just that there are many abortions being conduced
worldwide today; it is that abortions by the millions have been
practiced over the history of man. It is such a common practice
and has been such a common practice that the original Hippocratic
Oath of the classical Greek world included a promise by the
would-be physician not to practice abortion. This clause was
taken out of the Hippocratic Oath in the United States during the
1970's. The lure of income was too great for the physicians, so
they removed that ancient traditional clause from the modern
version of the Hippocratic Oath. The point is this: abortion is
an ancient practice, and God has allowed it to go on without
bringing immediate judgement against those societies in which
abortion was practiced. Why should this be?
The main reason why God has tolerated abortion without
bringing judgment against societies that practice it is that
abortion has been illegal in most societies. In the language of
the pro-abortionists, abortion has generally been performed in
back alleys. This is where abortion should be performed if they
are performed. Back alleys are the perfect place for abortion.
They are concealed. They are difficult to seek out, for both
buyers of the service and as civil magistrates seeking to
suppress them. They are unsafe places, placing murderous mothers
under risk. Back alleys are where abortions belong.
The covenantal problem comes when societies legislate to
allow abortions to be practiced at a profit on Main Street. The
problem comes when abortionists can lawfully advertise in the
press for people to come in and buy an abortion. Main Street
abortions are what bring a society under the judgment of God.
Legalized abortions reveal a deep-seated lawlessness on the part
of the community.
The Guilt of the Community
In your defense of the killing of Dr. Gunn, you continually
refer to the "community." I always get suspicious when people
appeal to collectives in order to justify individual action. You
quote from Michael Bray's paper supporting Operation Rescue.
This is under the section, "Ethical Basis for Defensive Action."
Here is what Michael Bray said, according to you: "The fact is
that the guilt for the shedding of innocent blood remains upon
the citizenry until the punishment is exacted from the offender.
Blood guilt is purged only through punishment of the guilty. If
the crime goes unpunished, the community bears guilt for the
shedding of innocent blood. The community has a strong incentive
therefore, to seek justice in order to avoid the burden
(Deuteronomy 21:1-9)."
Deuteronomy 21:1-9 is a very important passage. Bray was
correct to cite it. So were you. But you have not understood
it. That passage deals with a dead body found in a field. The
victim has been murdered, but no one knows who committed it. The
elders of the city closest to the field come out to participate
in a sacrificial offering in order to remove the bloodguilt from
the city. They kill a heifer; the Levites then sacrifice it.
The text reads: "And all the elders of that city, that are next
unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that
is beheaded in the valley: And they shall answer and say, Our
hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.
Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast
redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's
charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. So shalt thou put
away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt
do that which is right in the sight of the LORD" (Deut. 21:6-9).
Michael Bray's citation of this passage was proper. There
was corporate blood guilt under the Mosaic Covenant, and the way
to escape God's corporate negative sanctions was for both the
priests and the civil magistrates to acknowledge before God that
they did not know who had slain this victim. They had to slay an
animal to atone for the unsolved crime. They were atoning not
only for the sin of murder but also for their own ignorance.
They washed their hands of the crime. They were making certain
that blood guilt did not extend to the society. They were
announcing publicly that they did not approve of this murder.
And because they did not approve of it, and they sacrificed
something valuable to prove they did not approve of it, God
brought them out from under corporate judgment.
We must think judicially about this passage. The intent of
the passage was to show God does not hold a community or a
society guilty for the acts of an individual that are immoral, if
the community takes appropriate actions to suppress the action.
That is, if the community passes laws against the practice, and
seeks to enforce these laws against the practice, and bring
sanctions against those who violate the law, then that society is
not brought under the judgment of God. The state is authorized
to bring sanctions against those individuals who commit such acts
against the law of God precisely because of the threat of God's
corporate sanctions. If the State does not take action in the
name of God, then God will take action in the name of God and
bring the sanctions against the whole society. This is the
teaching of Deuteronomy 28:15-66. This is the teaching of the
whole covenant pattern of Old Testament law.
Finally, if societies do not acknowledge this by seeking to
suppress illegal acts, God does bring judgment against them.
This is why God sent the prophets before the people and before
the kings: to warn them. By violating God's law, the people
risked bringing the entire society under the direct negative
sanctions of God. They risked captivity to Babylon, they risked
captivity to Assyria, they risked military invasion, they risked
being subordinate to Moab and Philistia and all the enemies
around them. God would bring his sanctions against them all,
corporately, if their ordained civil and ecclesiastical
representatives did not act humbly and confess their ignorance in
the face of an unsolved crime, and attempt as best they could to
bring sanctions against evil doers.
The point that Bray makes is correct. The community must
seek out justice. The community does have an incentive to bring
evil doers to justice, and if the community cannot locate the
evil doers, then the community has to admit that this is not
because the community approves of such actions that the
authorities do not bring sanctions against evil doers. Rather,
the authorities do not know who the evil doers are. They can't
find the evil doers, or the evil doers somehow have escaped the
nets of justice. This is the focus of the Deuteronomy passage.
But then you come along and say that the individual
Christian has the right before God to act in the name of the
community. In that statement, you have moved away from biblical
law into open revolution.
|
| 20.533 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:12 | 137 |
| The Question of Judicial Representation
In your paper, "Was the Killing of Dr. Gunn Just?" on page
4, you cite R. J. Rushdoony's 1971 book "The One and the Many."
You cite his discussion of the Trinity, in which he discusses the
Trinity as being equally one and equally many: the equal ultimacy
of both unity and diversity. As a philosophical concept, this is
a correct analysis of the meaning of the Trinity. But then you
apply it in a unique way. You write: "All of reality reflects
the nature of God and the equal ultimacy of the one and the many.
When applying this principle to our civic life one may ask, which
is more important, the leadership the individuals have elected
(the one) or the individuals that constitute the society (the
many)? The answer is that neither are more important, they are
equally ultimate." And then, in bold face, you add this:
"Therefore, both the individuals and their authorities have equal
ultimacy as to their responsibility to defend life."
Here you make the classic mistake of the revolutionary. You
move away from covenantal law to radical individualism. You go
in the direction of pure anarchism. You are an anarchist. Your
statement reveals anti-covenantal outlook.
The biblical position is that there must always be judicial
representation. Adam represented all of mankind before God in
the fall. Jesus Christ represented all of mankind as well as His
people before God in His death, resurrection, and ascension.
There must always be representation. Moses represented the civil
magistrates of Israel. Aaron represented the people as the high
priest of Israel.
There must always be judicial representation, and it is
established biblically through ordination. There are but three
covenantal institutions that God recognizes: Church, State, and
Family. Each of them is established by a vow taken before God.
A self maledictory oath and we say in our marriage vows, "'til
death do us part." In the Church, we are baptized, which
symbolizes going through the death and resurrection with Jesus
Christ. Death is always a possibility for covenant-breaking.
This death is announced through excommunication. In the State,
we take a vow, or at lease implicitly we do, to uphold the law.
We are brought under the sanctions of God if we unlawfully
violate an oath of subordination. The point is: there must be,
in every covenant, a representative. This representative is
ordained to his office.
The father represents his wife and his children before God
because he holds high covenantal office to which he has been
ordained. The minister represents the congregation because he
has been ordained. The civil magistrate represents the
covenanted nation because he has been elected or lawfully
appointed by those who have been elected. There is no lawful
covenantal office without ordination.
What you are talking about in your essay is the equal
ultimacy of both the individual and the ordained civil magistrate
in fighting crime. This position is utter nonsense biblically.
There cannot be equal ultimacy of those two, for one of them has
been ordained, and one of them has not. The officer has a
covenantal responsibility before God that is unique, but the
individual does not. The officer is oath-bound to enforce the
law, while the individual is oath-bound to obey it. One of them
is at the top of the hierarchy and is invested by God with the
power to exercise the sword, while the other is not.
Your theory of civil law does not reveal any trace of
judicial subordination. Your system of interpretation of
Rushdoony's passage is a violation of every principle of biblical
covenantal law because there is no hierarchy in your system.
Every covenant has to have a hierarchy. Every legal order has to
have a judge. Every ecclesiastical order has to have a minister.
But you obviously do not believe this. When you were
excommunicated, you set up your own home church in which you were
the self-ordained authority, by which you said you had the right
to administer the sacraments to your wife and your children. But
who ordained you? Who anointed you? No one. You were an
excommunicate at the time you ordained yourself.
You are an anarchist and a rebel. The problem is, there are
a lot of others just like you, with the same mind set, who are
equally armed and dangerous.
The secular anarchist says that he speaks for himself -- a
pure anarchist. He says, "There is no authority beyond me."
This is the doctrine of the divine right of the individual. The
divine right of the individual teaches that there is no lawful
court of appeal beyond him. This is the pure anarchist.
Most anarchists are not pure anarchists. You are not a pure
anarchist. You claim that you speak in the name of the
community. And presumably, you have two communities in mind: the
church of Jesus Christ, which excommunicated you, and the civil
government, which has locked you up and now threatens to execute
you. Yet you, as an unordained individual, claim that you
possessed the right to act for the community in the name of the
community. Either you spoke in the name of the church and the
state or else you spoke in the name of the broad-based community
as an whole. This is not clear in your essay.
Here is the judicial reality: no one ordained you to this
ecclesiastical position as spokesman; no one anointed you to this
civil position as spokesman. You ordained yourself, anointed
yourself, to speak both as priest and civil magistrate in issuing
your theological manifestos. Then you gunned down a man, gunned
down his escort, and wounded the escort's wife. And you did
this, you claim, not in the name of yourself simply as an
individual, but in the name of Jesus Christ. You did this, you
say, as a representative agent of Jesus Christ's kingdom, both
ecclesiastical and civil. Because you were once ordained and
issued a theological manifesto, you took up a shotgun and killed
them. Who ordained you? Who anointed you? The answer is: you
anointed you. You ordained you. You, in your supposed capacity
as an equally ultimate judge under God, ordained and anointed
yourself. Then you got your gun.
Not many people are trained to think judicially. Not many
are trained to think biblically. Even fewer are trained to think
covenantally. The problem is, you had a little theonomic
training, a little theological understanding, and a whole lot of
pride. You also had a shotgun. And so you combined what little
you knew of biblical law and what little you knew of theology
with your shotgun. The result is your incarceration.
Fortunately, your church had excommunicated you before you
grabbed your shotgun. The press has not been able to tar and
feather the Christian church, because the church exercised its
good judgment and declared you outside the jurisdiction of
Christ's ecclesiastical kingdom. It publicly announced that you
are going to hell unless you repent. That cleared the church of
any responsibility for you. This is an enormous blessing to the
church of Jesus Christ. If more churches would do this, there
would be less embarrassment for the church of Jesus Christ when
those who are excommunicated go out and practice exactly what
they preach. But churches do not excommunicate people very
often, and so churches get tarred and feathered by the press when
those under their jurisdiction do things much less violent than
what you did.
|
| 20.534 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:12 | 129 |
| Community Standards
Your problem is a theological one. But you did address a
real problem. The problem you addressed is the problem you would
not admit. The problem is that the American community agrees
with the Supreme Court of the United States. The general
American public agrees that abortion should be legal.
Maybe it does not agree that the third-trimester abortions
should be legal, but it is not going to throw out of office the
civil magistrates who enforce the Supreme Court's ruling. In
fact, the Supreme Court has authorized third-trimester abortion
and any other kind of abortion, but the public will not fight it.
A handful of people have fought it, but the public refuses. The
voting public will not vote out of office a man who is pro-
abortion. In fact, time and time again, the public re-elects
those people to office.
So, the fact of the matter is this: your problem is not that
Deuteronomy 21 is not being enforced just because it is an Old
Testament law. Your problem is that the basic presupposition of
that law is being manifested today. God is eventually going to
bring corporate judgment against a society that approves of the
slaying of the innocent. This is our problem. It is not some
local doctor down in Florida who was practicing abortions. The
problem is a majority of the community approved of the doctor in
Florida who was practicing the abortions.
I have already said that abortions have been going on for a
long time. Abortions have been universal. But God's wrath isn't
universal because most societies in the past have had laws
against abortion and have tried to stop the abortionists. So,
God acknowledged that they were doing the best they could. He
did not bring His judgment against those societies because they
were at least trying to stop this terrible practice. The problem
comes when communities decide that the murder of the innocent is
a convenience worth legislating. When societies make abortion
legal, God's wrath can be expected. And so I will put it in one
phrase. The problem is not abortion as such, the problem is
legalized abortion.
If you identify an individual abortionist as a murderer, you
are saying that he is guilty of a terrible sin. You are correct:
he is guilty of a terrible sin. Nevertheless, the Bible is
silent on the systematic practice of abortion. The governing
passage in Exodus 21 can be used and should be used to justify
laws against abortion, but it does not deliberately talk about
self-conscious abortion. It says that when two men are
struggling, and one of them strikes a pregnant woman and the
child is born, if the child is born dead, he should be executed.
>From the relatively narrow concept of abortion in this case, we
can make legitimate judicial applications. If, as an accident, a
woman has her child aborted, and this is a capital crime, then we
can legitimately conclude that if it is a self-conscious effort
to kill the woman's child, then abortion is still a capital
crime. We move from the narrow case law to the broader
application. This is the biblical judicial principle of "If
this, then how much more that."
But the reality is that there is no verse in the bible that
says directly that the practice of abortion is illegal. There is
no verse in the Bible comparable to the original clause of the
Hippocratic Oath forbidding abortion. There is nothing this
graphic; there is nothing this specific. But there is
undoubtedly a very clear passage, which you quote at least
indirectly through Michael Bray, regarding the blood guiltiness
of a society that does not wash its hands ritually of murder when
it cannot locate the murderer. The fundamental judicial
principle is clear: societies must enforce God's law and must
seek out, as best they can, the perpetrators of crimes, and bring
sanctions against convicted criminals. That is what is clear in
the text. The law against abortion is less clear.
I contend that the Christian's focus of legitimate concern
regarding the abortion law is the abortion law itself. The focus
of God's primary civil concern is not with the practice of
abortion as such, but rather with the moral character of the
people. He wants to see if they will pass laws against abortion
and enforce these laws against abortion. He wants to see if they
will legalize abortion. When they legalize abortion, they
subject themselves to God's corporate sanctions against
bloodguiltiness.
This covenantal concern is not the focus of your concern.
It is also not the primary focus of most pro-lifers. They are
concerned with stopping individual abortions. The more radical
their theology, the more they focus on the deaths of specific
infants at the hands of specific abortionists. This is not the
focus of the Bible.
I am not saying that abortions are right. I am saying that
the practice of abortion as such is not God's primary focus of
concern. It is the practice of legalized abortions that is the
focus of God's concern and wrath. When abortion is legalized,
this testifies to the depraved moral condition of the community.
It is the moral condition of the community that concerns God, not
the fact that this or that physician is practicing abortions.
God can bring judgment in eternity, and will, against those who
practice abortion and against the mothers who authorize it.
Abortion is a crime in God's eyes. But the focus of God's
concern is not with stopping the abortions by his
representatives' individual actions. The focus of God's concern
is to legislate against abortion and then to have the
representative ordained agents, that is, the civil magistrates,
take public action against the abortion. God's judicial focus,
in other words, is corporate and judicial. This is the focus of
God's concern in the question of abortion.
The local question -- whether or not babies are being killed
by specific abortionists -- is a secondary matter judicially. In
the eyes of God, the primary concern is corporate and judicial.
This is what we are supposed to learn from Deuteronomy 21:1-9.
This has not been understood well by the pro-life movement. And
surely, this was not understood by you.
The problem is the community. The community approves. Let
us not mince words: the United States electorate approves of
abortion on demand. It will not bring political sanctions
against those politicians who remain silent on abortion or who
actively promote abortions. The problem is in the hearts of the
people. This is our primary covenantal problem.
What can be done about abortion if the primary focus of
concern is not abortion but the legalization of abortion? What
has to be done is to change the minds of the people. Then,
second, what has to be done is to enact laws against abortion,
and to pass a constitutional amendment authorizing the law to
legislate against abortion. The matter is judicial. The matter
is civil-political.
|
| 20.535 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:12 | 126 |
| The Technology of Low-Cost Murder
Now come chemical abortifacients. This is what is going to
stop physicians from practicing abortion in the United States.
Price competition is the great threat to the local abortionist,
not some self-appointed revolutionary bringer of justice like
yourself. It is the fact that women will be able to walk into
some large store or local drug store and buy some pills --
"morning after" pills -- for $10.95 (or $39.95, on special, for a
giant, economy-size bottle), take those pills, and kill their own
infants. Price competition is the looming treat to the killer
physicians, not the pro-life movement.
When such products are finally for sale, the pro-life
movement will be forced to come to grips with the judicial
reality of abortion, namely, that is it is legal. At that point,
all of the pro-life posturing had better end. We will have fewer
picket lines in front of physicians' offices. It will do no good
to picket a physician if he has been driven out of the death
business because it is so cheap to get home-based abortion out of
a bottle. He is not going to be practicing abortions. Mothers
will be practicing abortion. It will do no good to go out and
shoot physicians. The advent of cheap abortifacients is when the
legalization of abortion visibly becomes the real problem, when
it becomes discount abortion, mass-produced abortion.
The problem is the legalization of abortion, not some killer
physician on the corner. The physician on the corner who is
practicing abortion is a symbol, and it is good to challenge the
symbol in the name of the real issue, which is the legalization
of abortion. But that local physician is not the main problem.
The big problem is that modern technology is going to find a way
to have dirt-cheap abortions and make millions of dollars doing
this. We are going to get mass-produced abortions. We will no
longer worry about a comparative handful of abortions: a million
and a half a year. We will not know how many deaths will be
administered. It may be twice as many; we will have no sure way
of knowing. What we know is that it will be so unbelievably easy
that the numbers of abortions will skyrocket. There is going to
be no way to stop it by picketing. Besides, we will not have
anyone specific to picket.
What are pro-lifers going to do? Organize picketing against
Wal-Mart when it sells 10,000 products? Are we likely to get
the buyers of 9,999 of those other products not to walk in the
door, just because the store sells one product which we don't
like. Do we think that such picketing is going to stop some
murderous mother or anyone else? Picketing will stop almost
nobody. We will not be able to target a particular practitioner
any more. There will not be a visible representative any more.
There will only be the society that wants the abortions and
millions of women who want abortions.
There are tens of millions of men and women who will not
vote to ban the sale of such a product. This is our problem. It
is a political problem resting on a specific moral foundation:
humanism. The problem is judicial. It is corporate. And
finally, when the physicians are driven out of business by mass
produced abortifacient, pro-lifers are going to face a new
reality. They are going to realize that it is not abortion as
such that is the problem. It is the problem of a society that
has legalized abortion.
An anti-abortion protester today may save a few lives on a
particular day. There may be a protest that saves a couple
lives, but there is still going to be a million and a half that
are not saved this year. There will be a million and a half who
are going to die, whether or not you protest. The protests are
symbolic. The protests are focusing on the evil of the act. But
if they are to be life-saving, the protests must be used to call
the whole society to its moral senses. The primary problem is
the whole society, not the abortionist around the corner. This
is a symbolic war which must be fought politically. When mass
produced, inexpensive, price-comparative abortifacients are
available on the shelves of Wal-Mart, most pro-lifers at last
will figure this out.
To picket an abortion clinic is legitimate. It is a public
way of saying, "We do not approve of what goes on in there. We
call upon God to give us time to organize, to seek out ways to
get abortion re-criminalized. We ask God not to bring His
negative corporate sanctions against us. We are doing our best."
It is also a way of scaring other physicians who would be-
come abortionists if there were not so much embarrassment
attached to the profession. The physician inside the clinic has a
seared conscience (I Tim. 4:2). His professional colleagues may
not. In any case, they fear the public exposure.
Picketing an abortion clinic rarely saves lives directly. It
saves lives indirectly. Picketing is for God's sake. It can some-
times save lives directly, but picketers should know the truth:
the act is more symbolic (representative before God and men) than
immediately corrective. The act is part of the process of con-
sciousness-raising and conscience-raising for the participants,
not a way to save lots of lives directly.
When cheap abortifacients are readily available, picketing
will no longer work. The standard confrontational tactics will no
longer work. The murderers will no longer be visible, nor will
the places of execution. When murder is done in the privacy of
the home, picketing will no longer serve many purposes, other
than picketing politicians and, perhaps, the manufacturers.
Picketing is a temporary tactic, not a long-term strategy.
But at least it has benefits. Murder does not.
When mothers perform in-home abortions, what will men like
you do? What good will a shotgun be? Will your imitators invade
homes and shoot down women they suspect of using morning-after
pills? And if your disciples do this, what will happen to those
unborn infants? Your disciples, not the mothers, will become the
murderers.
Your perfectionist, guilt-ridden tactic of self-ordained
judge-and-jury execution may make perverse sense to fanatics
today, before the technology of mass murder is on the shelves,
but the tactic clearly becomes self-defeating the day the new
technology arrives. This should tell you that your tactic is
wrong today. You obviously did not think through the implications
of your recommended plan of action. I hope that those who might
otherwise imitate you do think it through, before it is too late
for them and also for the hundreds of thousands of innocent
infants whose lives will be lost because of the political
reaction your tactic will produce in normal human beings. These
people vote. This is what your murderous perfectionism ignores.
|
| 20.536 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:13 | 162 |
| Voices of Virtue
But there will still be a few people like yourself: self-
appointed voices of virtue on Robespierre's model, who will not
accept this political frame of reference. They will move to the
next stage. Your position is really quite mild compared to what
may come. Your position is that you, as a self-ordained and
self-anointed man, have the lawful authority before God to gun
down one lone practitioner of abortions and his escort, and put a
couple of pellets in his wife while you are at it. That is a
mild-mannered position compared to what may come. The real hard-
core practitioners of revolutionary virtue are going to
understand the logic of your position. You really were not
consistent. People say that you finally became consistent with
your position, but they are incorrect. You were not consistent
with your position because the real position that is consistent
with what you are saying is to put bullets into Supreme Court
Justices. The real position you are advocating is to gun down
every legislator who will not vote against legalized abortions.
Your position is really revolutionary. Open revolution,
that is what you are calling for. Your "defensive action"
theology is aimed not only at some at local physician who is
going to kill two or three babies or ten babies today and more
tomorrow. The problem for your theology is the U.S. Supreme
Court, which has authorized the killing of a million and a half a
year. If the government is the problem ~ and it surely is the
problem ~ then what is the logic of your position? If you can
save a life by gunning down a local abortionist, how many lives
can you save if you gun down authorities who have legalized
abortion?
You gunned down an abortionist's private escort. What if
that bodyguard had been a policeman? What is the difference,
given your doctrine? You teach: (1) the individual's right to
gun down local abortionists; (2) the individual's right to gun
down their bodyguards; and (3) the equal ultimacy of the
individual and the civil magistrate in saving lives. So, kill
cops.
We saw such a plan in action in Colombia. The drug cartel
would gun down judges. They would gun down policemen that
opposed them. They understood that their problem was at the top,
not at the bottom, and so they offered rewards: $1500 to kill a
policeman. They offered more to shoot a judge.
This is where your position is heading. Someone will make
the jump which you have been unwilling to take. You shoot down a
local abortionist. The policeman arrests a local drug seller.
Will either action stop the action? The people at the top are
the problem, some follower of yours will conclude. He will see
the logic of your position: "If I have the right to gun down a
local abortionist, I have the right to gun down his accomplice.
If I can lawfully fire a shotgun and wound the escort's wife
because she is basically an accomplice, then I have a right to
gun down the ministers who excommunicate people for publicly
advising the shooting of abortionists. If I have the right to
gun down a practitioner, don't I have a right to gun down the
judge who has authorized the practice? Don't I have the right to
gun down the politician? Don't I have the right to gun down the
voter who has voted for the politician, who in fact is in favor
of abortion? Don't I have the right to gun down everybody who is
pro-abortion. Aren't they all responsible, and if they are, am I
responsible for stopping them in any way I can?"
That approach to justice is what the French Revolution
rested on. You are creating the legal basis of just such a
revolution. You are the self-appointed voice of virtue, and all
someone needs to put your theology to work is a guillotine or its
technological equivalent. One of your disciples will figure out
that the problem is not the guy on the corner who commits the
abortions; the problem is the entire society which has approved
and authorized and legislated the abortions. There is nothing in
your theology to call a halt to someone who takes your principle
of revolutionary violence and does his best to impose it. Here
is where your theology ends: on the guillotine. It ends with the
Robespierres of this world cutting off the heads of tens of
thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of the accomplices of evil.
That is where it autonomous, "equal ultimacy" revolution always
ends when it is not stamped out early. That is where your
position ends.
When the individual has the right to take up arms against
the local practitioner of evil, even when the practitioner has
been authorized by law to practice whatever it is, then the next
step has to be to take up arms against his representatives: the
judicial representatives of the people. Remember, the people
approve. The fundamental problem is the people and the hearts of
the people, not some profit-seeking physician around the corner.
The real problem, biblically speaking, is the hearts of the
people. How are we going to change the hearts of the people by
gunning down the physician on the corner?
Perfectionism and Unlimited Guilt
You ask in your essay on Dr. Gunn, "At what point do you
think it would be just to use force to protect innocent life?" I
ask in response: "At what point do you think it is no longer
legitimate to use force to protect innocent life?" (p. 8). You
seek to legitimize the theology of the lone-gunner for Jesus. I
seek to ward off the theology of the anarchist revolutionary
movement.
There are 50 million abortions conducted each year. Am I
responsible to pick up a gun and shoot any abortionist anywhere
on earth? Has God ordained me to cleanse the earth of
abortionists? Your theology sets no boundaries on the use of
violence. National borders have no judicial relevance for those
seeking to cleanse by force the world of abortion. Evil is evil,
wherever it is practiced. If the lone-gunner for Jesus has been
given equality with the civil magistrate in protecting the lives
of the unborn, this license cannot end at a national border. The
late Ayatollah Khomeini issued a death warrant with a $5 million
reward for the man who kills Salmon Rushdie. He did not place any
geographical restrictions on this death warrant, nor did he place
temporal boundaries. The death warrant is presumably still in
force, and Rushdie is still at risk.
Where are the judicial boundaries of responsibility? Where
are the judicial boundaries of violence? By removing the death
penalty from the State, your theology transfers it to the lone
gunner. What restricts him? His common sense? That is what your
essay appealed to: "Common sense tells the individual that he
should protect his neighbor from unjust harm" (p. 1). But how
clearly does common sense speak in history, and how carefully do
lone gunners with a sense of mission listen to it?
Your theology offers no judicial boundaries. It offers no
boundaries on the sense of guilt in the hearts of men. There are
unborn babies dying today, all over the world. Where does my
responsibility end?
The unbounded perfectionism of your theology leads to
intense guilt and the deviant behavior such guilt can produce. I
am not guilty for my refusal to kill abortionists. I have not
been authorized by God to kill abortionists. Abortionists are not
under my God-given authority. They have not invaded an area of
responsibility for which I am responsible to the point of being
authorized to kill them. But I am guilty if I do nothing
politically to reverse the legalization of abortion. That
authority has been given to me.
Yours is a vigilante theology. Where in the Bible does God
authorize the vigilante? Where in the Bible is the vigilante
authorized to conduct a trial and execute its verdict?
The political reaction against vigilantism will likely
prolong the legalization of abortion. Your vigilante theology, if
believed and acted upon, will prolong the legalized slaughter of
the innocents. Your personal perfectionism and your guilt-driven
vigilantism may well result in the deaths of more babies than
your victim could have performed in a lifetime. To delay the re-
criminalization of abortion by just one week would allow the
slaughter of almost 29,000 innocent lives in the U.S. Your act
will probably delay it much longer than a week.
When it comes to responsibility for the deaths of the inno-
cent, you are a guilty man. The blood of far more than an
abortionist and his escort is on your hands, especially if you
are declared innocent. If you are declared innocent, you will
have imitators.
|
| 20.537 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:13 | 107 |
| Non-Violent Resistance
I am in favor of non-violence and non-violence resistance.
I have written two books about it: "Trespassing for Dear Life"
and "When Justice Is Aborted." Gandhi won, not because he used
violence, but because he used non-violence, and his opponents
used violence against him. The strategy of non-violence works
because it calls forth the worst manifestations of the evil in
the hearts of those against whom the non-violent protest is
aimed. The public can see the police clubbing the protestors.
They can see them breaking their arms dragging them out, throwing
them into paddy wagons, putting them into jail for months at a
time. The tactic's action is the reaction: public revulsion.
The strategy of non-violent resistance is premised on these
facts: (1) the public as a whole is doing the wrong thing; (2)
the public is allowing the government to do the wrong thing in
the name of the public; and (3) the public's mind can be changed
if non-violent tactics reveal that those who enforce the law have
to do terrible things against righteous people who are standing
up for principle.
The difference between non-violent resistance and violent
resistance is very great. Non-violent resistance says that we
must take a public stand against a public evil and suffer the
consequences. Non-violent resistance says that those magistrates
who represent the people as a whole are going to do evil things
in public if what they have been authorized to do is essentially
evil. Non-violent resistance against legalized abortion is aimed
at calling the public to its collective senses. But if the
public no longer has collective senses, and if the public in its
heart is murderous, then non-violent resistance is not going to
work directly. Non-violent resistant is going to call down the
wrath of God on the society.
What you forgot, and what violent resisters want to forget,
is that there is a God in this process, and He does act in
history to bring His sanctions. You were not authorized by God
to represent the public. You were authorized by God to do non-
violent things and suffer the consequences personally. You were
authorized by God to stand in the gap and get your head beaten
in, maybe on videotape, to be broadcast at the six o'clock news.
You were authorized to get the public infuriated against the
agents who bashed you head in. That is what you were entitled to
do. But you were not entitled to gun somebody down. God allows
the sword to be used only by someone who is ordained to do it.
"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." So says Romans 12:19.
Romans 13 says that the state is authorized, as a minister of God
(v. 4), to act as God's lawful agent of vengeance. If he brings
vengeance against evil doers, then God does not have to, and He
will not bring vengeance in history against the society as a
whole for authorizing a civil magistrate to do evil.
There is a biblical hierarchy of vengeance. God is at the
top, and the civil magistrate is under him. You and any other
private citizen are not part of this hierarchy. That is why it
says, "vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." You forgot that.
Those with a revolutionary bent in their psychology will also
forget that.
What you are accused of was not only against civil law, it
was against God's law. What you recommend is not only against
civil law, it is against God's law. Individuals do not have the
right under biblical law to bring violence in the name of the
community. They have not been ordained to do it, and they are
not part of God's lawful, ordained hierarchy of vengeance.
Your position would bring bloodshed to all of society.
There are no judicial limits on your position ~ no boundaries
around those who will be at risk from the self-ordained
vengeance-bringers with their shotguns and their weapons of
violence. Your position cannot be limited judicially to the
abortionists around the corner. Logically, it must go beyond
that. It must go to the civil magistrate who is the legal
bodyguard of the abortionist on the corner. It must move from
the civil magistrate to the judge who has authorized this
protection, and must finally move from the judge who has
authorized it to the public which approves of it. There are no
limits on the bloodshed and the violence in your system. There
are no limits because there is no hierarchy. There is no civil
court of appeals. There is no hierarchy of vengeance in your
system. It is each man bringing judgment on the others in his
capacity as a self-ordained magistrate. You ordained yourself to
serve the Lord's Supper as a minister of God in the church, and
you ordained yourself to gun down individuals as a civil
magistrate. You possessed neither authority.
If we had biblical law, you would be tried and, if
convicted, executed by the witnesses who testify against you.
You would have no possibility of appeal. You would be delivered
into God's supreme court. The only reason you will probably not
be executed is because we live in a society that does not believe
in biblical law. The only thing that will save your earthly life
is the corrupt legal system that would not prosecute your victim,
the abortionist. The only thing that is going to give you time
to repent is the moral and judicial corruption of the American
legal system. The legal system you thought you could replace
will probably not do what God says should be done with you.
That is the great irony here. You are going to be able to
think about what you did and, by the grace of God, repent of what
you have written and what you have done, only because this is a
corrupt society. You will be given time that you do not deserve
before God because this society pays very little attention to
God. The society that legalized abortion is the society that is
probably going to let you get off the hook compared to what
biblical law absolutely requires be done with you.
|
| 20.538 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:13 | 133 |
| Caught in a Crossfire
I write to you, not because I really expect you to repent.
I write to you because you are a representative of others who are
afflicted by the same revolutionary mentality. I write also to
the churches that may have men and even women who think like you
inside their own congregations. I would warn every church that
has someone like you voicing such opinions publicly to
excommunicate that person immediately. Because if people like
Paul J. Hill go out to wreak their private vengeance -- their
self- ordained, self-anointed vengeance -- against others in this
society, and the church has not publicly excommunicated such
people in advance, then the church of Jesus Christ will be tarred
and feathered by the press for not having had the courage to deal
with these law-breakers.
It is time for the churches to think judicially. It is time
to bring an end to the theology of individual license and
individual ordination. It is time to issue a warning against all
the self-ordained civil magistrates with their shotguns and all
the self-anointed home church, family-church ministers who are
serving the Lord's Supper to their families.
This should not be regarded as a letter favoring abortion.
It should surely not be regarded as a letter favoring legalized
abortion. It should not be regarded by the public as being
against non-violent resistance against abortion and legalized
abortion. It is a letter which must be understood as a call to
return to biblical law, a biblical doctrine of the covenant, and
a concept of lawful order. It is a call to return to the
doctrine of hierarchy and sanctions. I pray that this call will
be taken seriously, for if it is not taken seriously, we are
going to enter into a period in which vengeance is appropriated
by individuals who are in rebellion against man and God, who are
going to spread lawlessness on an individual basis into a society
that is already committed to a rebellion against biblical law and
against Christian principles. Godly people will be caught in the
crossfire. The crossfire will be between the secular humanists
who pay no attention to God's law, and therefore legalize
abortion, and the self-anointed, self-ordained bringers of
private justice who pay no attention to civil law or church law
and who, on their own autonomous authority, are going to gun down
the beneficiaries of the secular humanist order.
We are caught between the collectivized corporate evil of
humanist civil law and the anarchistic autonomous evil of self-
ordained revolutionaries. We are caught, in other words, in a
crossfire between the autonomy-claiming one and the many. That
is not where I want to be and where I want the church to be. The
church had better begin taking steps to cleanse from its midst
judicially all those who call for violence against individuals in
the name of the community, when in fact in our present community,
the community stands against God and against God's law. It does
no good to take up the sword privately against representatives of
an evil community or against the beneficiaries of an evil
community. God's judgment threatens the entire evil community.
The problem is not the abortionist around the corner. The
problem is the hearts of the people. The hearts of the people
can be changed by prayer and perhaps by personally costly
symbolic resistance. But the hearts of the people cannot be
changed by gunning down the abortionist around the corner. That
will set the hearts of the people in their wicked ways. Nothing
will change for the better; it will only get worse. More babies
will die. Then the judgment of God really will come.
This is a political fight, a judicial fight, but not a
military fight. It is not a fight to "save one life today." It
is a fight to keep the judgment of God from coming on the entire
society. That is the meaning of Deuteronomy 21:1-9. We must
take those verses seriously.
Conclusion
Your statements to the press and your arrogant demeanor
indicate that you are now engaged in creating a media image: a
man who does not fear men because he fears God more. In fact,
you do not fear God at all -- not the God who has revealed
Himself in the Bible as the eternal foe of all murderers. Jesus
warned: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able
to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy
both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:28). You have despised the
limits that God has placed on vengeance (Rom. 13:1-7). You have
forgotten His warning: He shall bring vengeance (Rom. 12:19). He
ordains some men to bring vengeance in His name. He did not
ordain you to such an office. On the contrary, He has ordained
your prosecutors, your jury, and your judge. They have the
authority and, if you are convicted, the responsibility of
delivering you speedily you into God's heavenly court. Your
sentence there, apart from your public repentance in history, is
sure: "Guilty as charged!" Why? Because you refused to plead
guilty God's earthly court.
The blood of tens of thousands of innocent infants whose
lives will not be spared because of the predictable political
revulsion against your public testimony will be on your hands.
Do what you can to wash it off while you can. Change your public
testimony before the trial begins. Change your public demeanor
from strutting arrogance to heartbroken apology. Above all,
repudiate your murderous tactic as expressed in your essays. If
you don't, you are eternally doomed.
You asked months ago me to comment on your essays. I have
now done so.
You were quoted in the "New York Times" (July 31, 1994) as
having announced: "My role is a prophetic role. . . ." A prophet
in the Old Covenant publicly identified transgressions that were
so great that God threatened the society with corporate negative
sanctions. The office of prophet disappeared when God ceased to
give men totally accurate knowledge of the immediate future. But
a prophetic role still exists: identifying public evils and
forecasting the kinds of judgments that God brings against such
public evils. In this respect, I have served you in a prophetic
manner. But I am not alone. Your church warned you
prophetically by excommunicating you. You ignored this warning.
The state warned you prophetically by passing laws against mur-
der. You ignored this warning. I am now warning you. I suggest
that you do not ignore this warning.
Very truly yours,
Gary North
* * * * * * * * *
Copies of Gary North's book, "When Justice Is Aborted:
Biblical Standards for Non-Violent Resistance," are available for
$8.95 from Dominion Press, P. O. Box 7999, Tyler, TX 75711.
|
| 20.539 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:33 | 3 |
| re: .526
I think you're reading too much into that note. 8^)
|
| 20.540 | Media-made "mainstream" | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 03 1995 16:57 | 14 |
| .506> --Donald Spitz
> Head of Pro-Life Virginia
^^^^^^^^
Never heard of this group. A few weeks ago there was a similar
statement by a group called (if I remember correctly) Pro-Life
New York. Same deal. You'd have to suspect that if the bulk
of the pro-life movement haven't heard about a particular group
that is supposed to be associated with them, that the group is
not very representative of the movement...
(Not to say that I imply that *I* respresent "the bulk of the
pro-life movement", but I'd be willing to bet that MOST pro-lifers
hadn't heard of this group until this Spitz guy made the quote...)
|
| 20.541 | | USAT05::BENSON | | Tue Jan 03 1995 17:04 | 4 |
|
What a treatise! North is a man of God and a brilliant theologian.
jeff
|
| 20.542 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jan 03 1995 17:06 | 10 |
| > In Old Covenant Israel, the man eligible
>to serve in God's holy army had to pay blood money to the
>priesthood at the time of the army's numbering, just prior to
>battle (Ex. 30:12-16). This was atonement money (v. 16). So
>fearful is killing, even as a member of God's holy army, that God
>mandated a special payment. While we no longer are required to
>pay money to a priest, the implication is clear: killing is a
>very serious matter.
John, the half shekel has nothing to do with army service.
|
| 20.543 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 17:06 | 6 |
| "Pro-Life Virginia" has twenty-five members, led by this Spitz preacher who
teaches a particularly nasty new heresy called "blood atonement" which denies
the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. That long letter to Paul
Hill was to a large extent an argument against this heresy.
/john
|
| 20.544 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Ecstacy | Tue Jan 03 1995 17:11 | 3 |
|
Well then. Perhaps the name "Pro-Life" should be trademarked and
licensed.
|
| 20.545 | For protection from the dangerous task of taking a census | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 17:13 | 9 |
| >
>John, the half shekel has nothing to do with army service.
>
Correct. There are certainly other holes in Gary North's arguments.
But I hope, nonetheless, that he has done a good job of discrediting
the theological arguments of Hill and Spitz.
/john
|
| 20.546 | re .544 Anyone can call themselves what they want. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 03 1995 17:13 | 1 |
| Perhaps. Just like "Christian".
|
| 20.548 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jan 03 1995 17:16 | 3 |
| The half shekel served two purposes. It served as a census (since it was
normally forbidden to count people directly), and it raised money for
public offerings (sacrifices).
|
| 20.547 | slightly edited and reposted | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Tue Jan 03 1995 17:18 | 12 |
| >> In Old Covenant Israel, the man eligible
>> to serve in God's holy army had to pay blood money
the ancient romans had to pay for the privilege of being in the army,
too. something about something you got free not being valued; hence,
only the moneyed class valued rome enough to fight for it. false but
fervently believed even after marius enlisted an army from the census
capiti, with which he then proceeded to defeat jugurtha.
> John, the half shekel has nothing to do with army service.
gerald, please explain the half shekel.
|
| 20.549 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Tue Jan 03 1995 17:21 | 4 |
| .548
census - thus the insistence on exactly a half shekel per person, no
more and no less, else it'd be impossible to count heads. i like it.
|
| 20.550 | | AIMHI::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Tue Jan 03 1995 17:47 | 1 |
| ...is this like helter shekel?:)
|
| 20.551 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 03 1995 20:46 | 481 |
| AUTHOR: Mark Tushnet
TITLE: "The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey"
DATE: 1986
PUBLICATION: Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition
ORGANIZATION:
KEYWORDS: Roe v. Wade, Abortion on Demand, Doe v. Bolton
FILENAME: AbortionOnDemand
CONTRIBUTOR: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
SUMMARY: A great legal summary that explains how the 1973 Abortion cases
(_Roe vs. Wade_ and _Doe vs. Bolton_) legalized abortion on
demand for the full nine months of pregnancy in the United
States. This file aslo documents some of how the national media
has correctly and incorrectly reported this fact.
SEE ALSO: LegislationHistory AmericanHolocaust ScaliaDissent
RusselHittenger PaAbortionControl ItsTooLate
NOTES: pp. 162
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many probably realize that despite media statements to the contrary the Supreme
Court's 1973 abortion decisions legalized abortion on demand for the full nine
months of pregnancy. The following, which I found while browsing usenet,
provides documentation of that fact which can be useful for anyone who
discusses pro-life issues. -- Marty Helgesen
=========================================================================
<<Copied from alt.best.of.internet Header trimmed.>>
From: dsh@bga.com (Douglas Holtsinger)
Subject: Roe v. Wade is abortion on demand throughout pregnancy (Re: The Post Vi
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Date: 9 May 1994 15:10:43 -0500
----
Mark Tushnet, "The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey",
Abortion, Medicine, and the Law, Third Edition, 1986,
pp. 162
"The final stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade occurs after the
fetus becomes viable[4]. After viability, the state could regulate
or prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in appropriate
medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of the woman.
This standard must be read, however, in light of the Court's
decision the same day in Doe v. Bolton, that clinical judgement
``may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional,
psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the
well-being of the patient[5]. Thus, the Court nominally allowed
the state to prohibit post-viability abortions except in apparently
limited cases, but it actually defined the limitation in a way
that bars the state from prohibiting such abortions if physicians
are willing to perform them.
In a later case the Court sustained a statute defining viability
as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the
womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6].
This definition allows the state to regulate the decision to have
an abortion, a decision made while the fetus is in the womb,
on the basis of what must at that time be a prediction about what
will happen after the fetus is removed from the womb. The uncertainty
of this prediction might lead physicians to refrain from performing
abortions if, as Roe seemed to suggest, states could readily
prohibit post-viability abortions. The Court thus stressed that
viability was essentially a medical judgement, and invalidated a
law making physicians criminally liable for performing abortions
when the fetus ``is viable'' or when there is ``sufficient reason
to believe that the fetus may be viable''[7]. The threat of
criminal liability in the face of the uncertainty associated
with viability determinations unacceptably burdened the abortion
decision.
In the same case the Court held unconstitutionally vague a
provision requiring that physicians use the abortion technique
making fetal survival most likely, so long as no other technique
was necessary to protect the woman's health or life. These decisions
severely restrict what the state may do to protect the potential
life of the fetus even after viability, when Roe v. Wade holds
that the state's interest in protecting potential life is compelling.
[...] In sum, the Court has substantially restricted the kinds of
regulations a state may adopt to protect potential life by requiring
that abortions be allowed where necessary to protect the woman's
life or health and then by giving ``health'' a broad definition."
[4] 410 U.S. at 163-164
[5] 410 U.S. 179 (1973)
[6] Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth,
428 U.S. 52, 63--65 (1976)
[7] Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979)
----
Schulte v. Douglas, 567 F.Supp. at 526 (1981)
C. "Sound medical judgment"
[3] All three challenged sections of the Nebraska abortion laws
premise conduct upon the exercise of "sound medical judgment of the
attending physician." This phrase is used in reference to the viability
determination required by [section] 28-329, the choice of abortion
procedure required by [section] 28-330, and the treatment of a child
aborted alive required by [section] 28-331. The plaintiffs argue that
the sections, by the use of this phrase, contain a fatal ambiguity in
that none specifies whether "sound medical judgment of the attending
physician" describes a purely subjective standard or whether it describes
a mixed subjective and objective standard. If, as the plaintiffs urge,
the phrase "sound medical judgement of the attending physician" means
that someone other than the attending physician shall determine whether
the attending physician's judgment was "sound," the sections expose a
physician to potential criminal liability for a medical decision which,
under some unknown, undefined medical standard, was erroneous.
I am unpersuaded by the plaintiffs' argument. As I stated in the
June 22, 1981, memorandum granting preliminary relief:
"'Sound medical judgment' does not mean that the physician's judgment
is susceptible to some other person's review to determine its soundness
from a medical standpoint. The phrase is no more objectiue than the
phrase 'best clinical judgment,' which was approved in Doe v. Bolton,
410 U.S. 179, 191-192 [93 S.Ct. 739, 747, 35 L.Ed.2d 201] (1973). The
adjectives are more an urging to the physician's subjectiue judgment
than a warning of an objective overseeing by another. As judgment of
a physician should be--is expected to be in all of his or her profes-
sional undertakings--medical, rather than personal, so it should be
sound, rather than flippant or thoughtless. The judgment, in the final
analysis, is to be the judgment 'of the attending physician' and of no
one else. 'Sound medical judgment of the attending physician' gives
the physican 'the room he needs to make his best medical judgment,'
the term used in Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 397 [99 S.Ct. at
686]."
Id., at p. 3
See, also, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 165, 93 S.Ct. at 732, using the
phrases "appropriate medical judgment" and "professional judgment;"
and Charles v. Carey, 627 F.2d 772, 787 (C.A. 7th Cir.1980), holding
that an Illinois abortion statute's requirement that a physician
determine "in his best judgment" that an abortion is necessary was
not unconstitutionally vague for purposes of a motion for preliminary
injunction.
----
"New Constitutional and Penal Theory in Spanish Abortion Law",
Richard Stith, J.D., Ph.D, in _Abortion, Medicine, and the Law_,
Edited by J. Douglas Butler and David F. Walbert, Facts on File,
1992, pg. 382.
"Abortions destructive of the fetus must be permitted, even
just before birth, if they promote what the [Supreme] Court
calls ``health'' but which it defines broadly to include
virtually every significant reason a woman might have for
a third trimester abortion. [59]
[59] Roe's companion case, which should be ``read together''
with the former (according to Roe at 165), defines ``health''
to be related to ``all factors ... relevant to the well-being
of the patient'', Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).
The _Thornburgh_ Supreme Court opinion, id., does not refer
to this definition, but the Court of Appeals did so in the
decision under review. That decision states ``It is clear
from the Supreme Court cases that `health' is to be broadly
defined. As the Court stated in _Doe_, the factors relating
to health include those that are `physical, emotional, psycho-
logical, familial, [as well as] the woman's age' [quoting
from _Doe_].'' The court of appeals goes on to say that a
law which punished postviability abortions which were done
to avoid the ``potential psychological or emotional impact
on the mother of the unborn child's survival'' would be
clearly unconstitutional; 737 F.2d 283, 299 (1984)."
----
Excerpt from the oral arguments presented by Kathryn Kolbert,
counsel for the ACLU, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Source: The New York Times, April 23, 1992
"Ms. Kolbert: Our position is that Roe, in establishing a trimester
framework, in establishing strict scrutiny, and in also establishing
that the rights of women and the health interests of women always take
precedent over the state's interest in potential life. Those hallmarks
of Roe are central to this case, and are central to continuing
recognition of the right as fundamental. Should the Court abandon
that --
Justice O'Connor: But did the Court hold that, even after the
viability of the fetus in Roe?
Ms. Kolbert: What the Court --
Justice O'Connor: Do you think that was a correct characterization
of Roe's holding that you just gave, that the woman's interest always
takes precedence? Is that true under Roe, in the latter stages of
pregnancy?
Ms. Kolbert: Your Honor, under Roe, after the point of viability,
that is the point when the fetus is capable of survival, the state
is free to prohibit abortion but only so long as it is necessary,
only so long as the woman's health interests and life interests are
not at stake.
That is, potential fetal life is a recognized value, is a recognized
state interest after the point of viability; but when in conflict,
when the woman's health interest is in conflict with those state
interests and potential life, those women's interest, the women's
interest in health take precedent."
----
"Summary and Analysis of State Laws Relating to Abortion",
Barbara Kaiser, Harriet F. Pilpel, and Eve W. Paul,
in Family Planning, Contraception, Voluntary Sterilization
and Abortion: An Analysis of Laws and Policies in the United
States, Each State and Jurisdiction.
A Report of the Office for Family Planning
Health Services Administration
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
1978
Prepared by the Alan Guttmacher Institute
"The landmark events in establishing the basic law governing abortion
in the United States were the January 1973 decisions of the United
States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade[1] and Doe v. Bolton[2]. [...]
The Roe and Doe decisions have these results: [...]
(3) After the fetus is viable, a State may regulate in its interest,
even to the extent of prohibiting abortion unless to save the life
or health (including the mental health) of the woman. [...]
Roe and Doe held the right to abortion to be a fundamental right,
but the decisions also involved the medical profession in the
decision-making process. A corollary is that a woman's decision
to exercise her rights is in part dependent on the availability
of health institutions and professionals willing to perform
abortions."
----
B.B. Sendor, "Medical Responsibility for Fetal Survival under Roe and Doe",
10 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 444,465 (1975)
...
Even during viability, when the state may proscribe certain abortions
because of a ``compelling'' interest in potential life, it may not
do so when abortion ``is necessary, in appropriate medical judgement,
for the preservation of the life or health of the mother[18].''
In Doe, the Court stated that the term ``health'' should be given
a broad reading:
[T]he medical judgement may be exercised in light of all factors--
physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's
age--relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these
factors may relate to health. This allows the attending
physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgement.
And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the
disadvantage, of the pregnant woman[19].
In short, Roe and Doe give the woman (1) a privacy interest that
outweighs any rights which may be asserted on behalf of the fetus
up to the point of viability, and (2) a broadly defined health
interest which prevails over any interest asserted on behalf of
the fetus throughout the term of pregnancy."
----
"In Doe v. Bolton, 410 US 179, 35 L Ed 2d 201, 93 S Ct 739,
procedural requirements contained in one of the modern
abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this
one, of course, are to be read together[67]."
Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 184 (1973)
----
82 Yale Law Journal at 921 (1973), John Hart Ely, "The Wages of
Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade"
[...] At the point at which the fetus becomes viable[17] the
interest in protecting it becomes compelling[18], and therefore
from that point on the state can prohibit abortions except--and
this limitation is also apparently a constitutional command,
though it receives no justification in the opinion--when they
are necessary to protect maternal life or health[19].
[19] 93 S. Ct. at 732 [...] This holding--that even after
viability the mother's life or health (which presumably is to
be defined very broadly indeed, so as to include what many
might regard as the mother's convenience, see 93 S. Ct. at
755 (Burger, C.J., concurring); United States v. Vuitch,
402 U.S. 62 (1971), must, as a matter of constitutional law,
take precedence over what the Court seems prepared to grant
at this point has become the fetus's life, see p. 924 infra--
seems to me at least as controversial as its holding respecting
the period prior to viability."
----
"I agree that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
the abortion statutes of Georgia and Texas impermissibly limit
the performance of abortions necessary to protect the health of
pregnant women, using the term health in its broadest medical
context."
Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 185 (1973)
----
"The vicissitudes of life produce pregnancies which may be unwanted,
or which may impair ``health'' in the broad Vuitch sense of the
term, of which may imperil the life of the mother, or which in
the full setting of the case may create such suffering, dislocations,
misery, or tragedy as to make an early abortion the only civilized
step to take. These hardships may be properly embraced in the
``health'' factor of the mother as appraised by a person of
insight. Or they may be part of a broader medical judgement
based upon what is ``appropriate'' in a given case, though
perhaps not ``necessary'' in a strict sense."
Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d at 190 (1973)
----
_A Lawyer Looks at Abortion_, Lynn D. Wardle and Mary Anne Q. Wood,
Brigham Young University Press, 1982, pp. 137--138.
"The Supreme Court has defined health in some contexts to include ``all
factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's
age--relevant to the well-being of the patient[50]''. If the post-
viability abortion is performed because it is ``necessary'' to avoid
the burdens that pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood would place
on a woman's emotional and psychological health, could not her doctor
assume that it would be better if a method were chosen and every step
taken during the abortion itself to insure that the fetus did not
survive[51]?
The prospect of a physician or a pregnant woman choosing a method of
abortion more likely to kill the fetus, or of a physician taking steps
during the abortion to insure the death of the fetus, for the sake of
the woman's psychological and emotional comfort, seems to reduce the
state's interest in potential life to meaningless proportions. Under
such circumstances, the Supreme Court's invitation to states to
regulate abortions after viability except when the abortion is necessary
to preserve the life or health of a pregnant woman becomes a matter of
the ``life or health'' exception swallowing the ``compelling state
interest'' rule. Yet, the Court's decision in Colautti that the woman's
health must prevail over the life and health of the fetus, augmented
by the Court's broad definition of health, would appear to lend support
to such a result[52]. A narrower definition of ``health'' in the
context of choosing abortion methods and of the physician's duty of
care to the fetus is obviously necessary to raise the state's interest
in potential life above the level of mere exhortation and powerless
concern.
In summary, the Colautti decision is problematic in its reliance on
the viability standard and on the physician's judgment in determining
viability. The Court's refusal to give an obvious and easy constitutional
interpretation to the Pennsylvania statute is troubling. Finally, the
invalidation of the standard-of-care provision, in conjunction with
the Court's broad definition of health, seems to inhibit meaningful
advancement of a state's compelling interest in potential life."
----
18 American Criminal Law Review at 603,604 (1981), Rosamond A. Barber,
"Criminal Liability of Physicians: An Encroachment of the Abortion Right?"
"Less than half of the states have availed themselves of Roe's
permission to regulate the availability of an abortion after
viability. Seventeen states prohibit all postviability abortions
unless necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Four more states proscribe abortions after a specific date unless
the physician finds the abortion necessary for the woman's life
or health. North Carolina dates this prohibition at twenty
weeks; Massachusetts, Nevada, and South Dakota impose it at
twenty-four weeks. New York prohibits abortion after the
twenty-fourth week unless the procedure is necessary to save
the life of the pregnant woman. Since the state's right to
regulate or proscribe abortions does not attach until the point
of fetal viability, these statutes define the latest date at
which a fetus becomes viable. Performance of an abortion after
the statutory limit that is not required for the preservation
of maternal life and health subjects the physician to prosecution.
The constitutionality of several of these statutes is questionable.
First, to specify the point of viability rather than leaving the
determination to the physician may be beyond the power of state
legislatures. Second, New York's statute appears to be unconstitutional
because it prevents postviability abortions necessary for the
mother's health, directing contradicting Roe's mandate that
abortions must be available where necessary for the life or
health of the mother. Third, many states allow the physician
to perform a postviability abortion only to prevent ``permanent
impairment,'' ``imminent peril,'' or other variously described
threats to the woman's health[130]. Because they require a
condition more severe than Roe's broad definition of health,
these statutes unconstitutionally infringe on the abortion right."
[130] Ind. Code Ann. 35-1-58.5-2 (``substantial permanent
impairment'') ; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 40:1299.35.4 (``permanent
impairment'') ; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 112 12M (West Supp. 1979)
(``substantial risk of grave impairment''); Neb. Rev. Stat.
28-329 (1978) (``imminent peril ... substantially endangers'');
N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-45.1 (Supp. 1979) (``substantial risk ...
gravely impair''); N.D. Cent. Code 14-02.1-03 (Interim Supp.
1979) (``substantial risk of grave impairment''); Utah Code Ann.
76-7-302 (1978) (``serious and permanent damage''); Wyo.
Stat. 35-6-102 (1977) (``imminent peril ... substantially
endangers'').
----
"Roe provides that the State, because of its legitimate interest
in potential life, may regulate and even forbid abortions after
a fetus becomes viable, ``except when it is necessary to
preserve the life or health of the mother.'' Roe, 410 U.S.
at 164, 93 S.Ct. at 732. The first sentence of ... [a section
of the Louisiana abortion statute] while appearing to follow
the guidelines set forth in Roe, uses the phrase ``to prevent
permanent impairment to her health.'' This is not the same
standard articulated in Roe, preservation of maternal
health. [...] The Court finds that the requirement of
permanent impairment impermissibly restricts the meaning
of Roe."
Margaret S. v. Edwards, 488 F. Supp. at 196 (1980)
----
Abortion: The Dreaded Complication, PART II
Originally appearing in The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 2, 1981
by Liz Jeffries and Rick Edmonds
Reprinted in The Congressional Record, April 21, 1986, S 4621
"According to a 1979 survey by Jeanie Rosoff of Planned
Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, 30 states have laws regu-
lating third-trimester abortions. Some of these laws prohibit or
strictly limit abortions after the fetus has reached viability.
Some require doctors to try to save abortion live-born babies.
Only a few states have both types of laws.
In addition, a number of these laws have been found unconstitu-
tional. Others obviously would be, in light of Supreme Court
rulings. Virtually all the state laws would be subject to consti-
tutional challenge if used as the basis of prosecution against an
individual doctor."
----
"When the Supreme Court issued Roe, initial news accounts emphasized
the part of the ruling that said a woman would be allowed to have
an abortion without restriction during the first three months of
pregnancy, when more than 90% of the country's 1.6 million annual
abortions are done, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute,
a special affiliate of Planned Parenthood that does research on
abortion and familiy planning.
Even now, 17 years later, some in the media write about Roe in
terms that suggest it legalized abortion only during that first
trimester; the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Milwaukee
Journal and Louisville Courier-Journal, among others have all
mischaracterized Roe that way within the last year (although
they have also characterized the decision correctly at times)."
"Bias seeps into news on abortion", by David Shaw, The Los
Angeles Times, July 1, 1990.
Also in The Congressional Record, October 9, 1990 S 14814
----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This resource file is made available by the editors and contributors
to _The ProLife News_, which is a a free, twice-monthly email
publication. To receive a sample copy or to subscribe, or to receive
a list of all of the available Pro Life resource files available in
the ProLife News Archives, please send a email message to the editor:
<plnews-mod@prolife.netcentral.net>.
In all cases, except where explicitly stated, one should assume that
the copyright to this file is owned by the author and/or sponsoring
organization. Copying of this material is free for non-commercial
use, provided that the contents (including this notice) remain intact.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 20.552 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | aspiring peasant | Tue Jan 03 1995 20:54 | 16 |
| from the News Briefs rathole.......
Joe, You have selectively omitted the last part of the paragraph you
used for your accusation. But you knew that. I am aware the media is
hyping Hill, Salvi, and their supporters because it's violent, devisive
and it sells. It still does not detract from a person being able to
hold pro-life beliefs while committing murder and terrorism for the
cause. Mainstream pro-lifers may denounce these acts as reprehensible
and rightfully so. Never the less, I can see how the perperators of
violent acts would be able to justify them for the cause. Just as
there is a point which I would be willing to trade another life for the
life of a loved one under certain, threatening circumstances. Like it
or not, the pro-life movement has components of civil disobedience and
violence.
Brian
|
| 20.553 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 03 1995 21:13 | 45 |
| > It still does not detract from a person being able to
> hold pro-life beliefs while committing murder and terrorism for the
> cause.
If the cause were pro (or anti) gun, your point would be valid.
In this case the cause is pro LIFE, and taking one LIFE to save
others -- especially in the cold-blooded manner done in these
instances -- is counter to the cause.
Sorry. Maybe it's a case of semantics and I am as unwilling to
accept your interpretation as you are unwilling to accept mine.
Perhaps we just need to chalk it up to that and agree to disagree.
> Never the less, I can see how the perperators of
> violent acts would be able to justify them for the cause.
Most acts can be "justified". I agree with you and can see
their justification too. That doesn't mean I have to accept it.
> Just as
> there is a point which I would be willing to trade another life for the
> life of a loved one under certain, threatening circumstances.
Sorry. I still disagree with the parallel. I don't see Salvi's
actions as falling under any "certain, threatening circumstances."
> Like it
> or not, the pro-life movement has components of civil disobedience and
> violence.
Ironically, I agree with this. I've said the same thing about
certain liberal movements, but my beef was that they did not
seem to try to distance themselves from the elements within
their movements that were generally reprehensible.
All I'm doing (as is the vast majority of the pro-life movement)
is making it clear that we *ARE* distancing ourselves from this
particular element. You can now choose to believe all of us
who are doing so, or the media as they are portraying this. You
see, we've seen plenty of statements from the likes of "Pro-Life
Virginia" because they make good press. But where are the
statements opposing this action from the likes of the National
Right To Life Committee, or the various Christian religious
leaders, or Focus on the Family, even Operation Rescue -- all
of whom have come out strongly against it?
|
| 20.554 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jan 04 1995 13:11 | 3 |
| >AUTHOR: Mark Tushnet
Does he own alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.tushes?
|
| 20.555 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Jan 06 1995 01:36 | 13 |
|
I believe, based on the statement released by one Mr. John Salvi today,
assuming that it was read on Howie Carr's show verbatim, that Mr. Salvi
has demonstrated that he is not a well man. Still deserves the chair,
but not a well man.
Jim
|
| 20.556 | Not well indeed | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jan 06 1995 01:48 | 11 |
| Not well? You're far too charitable, Jim.
Sez he'll become a Catholic Priest of he's acquitted, he does.
Wants an interview with Babba Wawa.
Wants the death penalty if convicted.
Waxes eloquent on the persecution of Catholics.
|
| 20.557 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 06 1995 11:38 | 83 |
| Wow, this guy really is "differently clued". Here is his statement:
- I am a resident of the state of New Hampshire.
- If convicted of the charges I am accussed of I wish to recieve the
Death Penalty
- After procedings are through I wish to have an interview with Barbara
Walters within the year.
- I will not release all information until that interview
- If I am not proven guilty upon release I will become a catholic priest
- This is not an admission of guilt. However it is a statement about the
persecution which the catholic people face. The catholic people are being
persecuted in the workplace as well as in a whole. There are leaders in
Government both Local, state and Federal which are well aware of the
abuse taking place.
Welfare laws are set up to assist a certain group of people but does not
benifit all U.S. ciizens if they need assistance. None of the catholic
people would loose thier homes if welfare laws where reformed. Why should
a woman without a husband be able to collect if a couple who is married
and needs assistance cant get help. These wellfare laws seek to break up
the family unit.
What the catholic church needs to do is to start printing a currency so
that individuals who work and make minimum wage can have a supplement to
thier incomes so that thier families will have what they need. We're
talking about making sure the catholic people have the basic necessities
in life. That would be a roof over-thier heads, food, clothing and a little
bit more job security.
Things appear as though they where all well and fine but things are not.
Young couples who do not recieve assistance cannot afford the necessities
in life. Not everyone can have the "Top Position" but that does not mean
that the less fortunate should be forced to settle for minimum wage without
wellfare compensation.
There is a movement in society which seeks the distruction of the church.
One method these individuals use is to buy up companies, corporations, and
businesses after which putting themselves out of business and or laying off
catholic employees. This layoff procedure for catholics occurs to a great
extent in the U.S. school systems, police departments, fire depts. etc.
The catholic church is being floored financially.
Why do the free masons persecute the catholic people? Because thier good
at it. The catholci church is dealing with a group of people who are
intelligent, mean, nasty and judicious. These individuals run society and
have a good system for themselves but seek to keep the catholic church from
printing a currentcy and having the same system. In a nut shell if you
can't collect you're a little bit screwed. You may do well but will your
children. Just because you are well employed does that mean that your
children will have a secured future. If the catholic church had a wellfare
system each member would be assured a desent life.
Power is a funny thing one man is very powerful yes or no. A man has the
power you give him. If 20 million people stand when one man says stand and
if 20 million people sit when one man says sit then the catholic church will
have what they need a currency. Think about giving a pope that kind of power.
The catholic church is a government within a government only it does not
print money as most governments do. What makes sense about asking a
congregation for 10% of thier income's when you could save the people by
offering them 40% of an average income to compensate an insuficient wage.
The catholic church needs to start realizing that depressions are not
corrolated to a time perioud but have to do with lack of christian leadership.
Why should thier be a depression every 60 years or a war? can this be
prevented? to a great extent yes. We as a people need to turn our minds
away from individual thinking and more to the church as a whole, the country
as a whole. It would take brain cells on behalf of the catholic people to
do it. Wake up people and smell success in a church which is not successful.
Take tips from the masons and masonic temple on how to live good and have the
things you need. Do what they do so as to be successful.
Written from Norfold City Jail on 1/4/95 after refusing to eat tampered food
for 4 days.
- Day one at Norfolk city Jail i recieved Ham In 2 pieces of wonder bread that
had been tampered with. I ate it anyway although I could hardly get it down.
(the ham smelt like oranges)
- The next morning I was served breakfast which consisted of 2 eggs scrambled
one piece of toast and gritts that turned my stomach and I began to get sick.
The grits appeared to have semen in them ... I ate the grits anyway however
it turned my stomach and I began to get sick.
By the time supper rolled around I was sick, the guards then surved me
chicken with Rice and I ate it as well. four hours later I fell asleep, by
about 1:30 at night I began vomiting severelly for approxematelly 10 hours.
As well as vomiting I also had diarrea, blury vision and terrible intestinal
pain.
- I was placed in a cell with no cold water and I was deprived of a cup.
- At this point I refused to eat any more and I have not eaten in the past
4 days.
- Dr. shephard of the Norfolk county correctional performed a physical on me
and took blood and urine samples to analize so as to verify the means of
tampering.
|
| 20.558 | | USAT05::BENSON | | Fri Jan 06 1995 11:59 | 7 |
|
poor man.
but he does provide some pretty good rationale for persecuting others:
because you're good at it! I like that ;)
jeff
|
| 20.559 | | BOXORN::HAYS | I think we are toast. Remember the jam? | Fri Jan 06 1995 12:03 | 2 |
|
And he sure had a lot of cash for someone with no income.
|
| 20.560 | | MAIL1::CRANE | | Fri Jan 06 1995 12:10 | 2 |
| They are trying to tie him to a group in Va. from notes and cash found
on him. They (the Gvmt) is trying to tie this into a conspiracy.
|
| 20.561 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | get on with it, baby | Fri Jan 06 1995 12:36 | 2 |
| He doesn't understand the first thing about being Catholic. Give him
the death penalty. In fact, it's a pity he wasn't killed in a shootout.
|
| 20.562 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Jan 06 1995 12:49 | 9 |
| I am really amazed at all the people who seem to care more about fetii
than this living being. My ideal punishment for him would be life
without parole, and pictures and recordings from the families of the
victims about the kind of people they are. Death is too easy a way out
for this person, and will only make of him a martyr for other disturbed
people who care more about womb to cradle life, as opposed to breathing
humans.
meg
|
| 20.563 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Jan 06 1995 12:49 | 4 |
| -.1 momentus... i wholeheartedly support this position and will
billy weld in his quest.
Chip
|
| 20.564 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Jan 06 1995 12:55 | 1 |
| <- not quick enough... agreement wuth .561!
|
| 20.565 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jan 06 1995 13:18 | 5 |
| > In fact, it's a pity he wasn't killed in a shootout.
Yes, but there's usually another problem inherent in shootouts. I don't
think I'd want to wish for that in any event.
|
| 20.566 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Fri Jan 06 1995 13:27 | 9 |
|
RE: .565
>Yes, but there's usually another problem inherent in shootouts.
Yeah Jack.... the cops might actually hit the guy!!!
:)
|
| 20.567 | More like what I had in mind | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jan 06 1995 13:33 | 3 |
| Well, likely some cops or innocent bystanders mightn't get away unscathed
as well, Andy. This guy isn't worth that.
|
| 20.568 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Ecstacy | Fri Jan 06 1995 14:04 | 3 |
|
Um, John, I hope that was typed in with HIS actual spellings and
punctuation, not YOURS 8^).
|
| 20.569 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jan 06 1995 14:11 | 3 |
| The way I heard it, when he spoke of his adulterated grits, he got a bit
coarser than that.
|
| 20.570 | Eye-opener. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Fri Jan 06 1995 14:41 | 4 |
|
What a twinkie ! It is astonishing what walks around America.
bb
|
| 20.571 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 06 1995 15:01 | 21 |
| >The way I heard it, when he spoke of his adulterated grits, he got a bit
>coarser than that.
Coarser? A pun?
Well, the source I typed from did have "..." at that point, so maybe it
was worse.
The government is going to try to get around the fact that Massachusetts
has no death penalty and that the FACE bill did not provide for a death
penalty by using a new federal law, part of the crime bill, which makes
committing a murder in the course of any other felony a capital crime.
It would appear that almost all murder prosecution will now be picked up by
the Feds, at least when the state murder charges do not provide sufficient
penalties to satisfy the blood lust of the population.
Those of us who oppose the death penalty appear to have lost the battle
nationwide at this point, even in states where the penalty remains opposed.
/john
|
| 20.572 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jan 06 1995 15:18 | 2 |
| Why was Salvi flown from Norfolk to Worcester? There are at least half-a-dozen
nonstops to Boston. Was it for security reasons?
|
| 20.573 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | Twenty Seven days & counting... | Fri Jan 06 1995 15:21 | 10 |
|
I believe he was scheduled for a psychiatric evaluation at
U-Mass in Worcester....I may be wrong, but that's the story
I got from my M.I.L. who works in the Trauma center there.
Terrie
|
| 20.574 | Can't resist, it's too easy. | SUBPAC::JJENSEN | Jojo the Fishing Widow | Fri Jan 06 1995 15:32 | 1 |
| Flying him to Worcester is part of the punishment.
|
| 20.575 | spent 4 years there, and it's a punishment | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | get on with it, baby | Fri Jan 06 1995 15:51 | 1 |
| I agree with Jojo. :-)
|
| 20.576 | | PCBUOA::LEFEBVRE | PCBU Asia/Pacific Marketing | Fri Jan 06 1995 16:05 | 7 |
| <<< Note 20.575 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "get on with it, baby" >>>
> -< spent 4 years there, and it's a punishment >-
Freshman year at WPI?
Mark.
|
| 20.577 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 06 1995 16:06 | 14 |
| .562> Death is too easy a way out
> for this person, and will only make of him a martyr for other disturbed
> people who care more about womb to cradle life, as opposed to breathing
> humans.
As death (of the fetus) is too easy a way out for parents seeking
an abortion.
I agree with you on your martyr statement.
I wonder, though, if his call for the death penalty isn't a
stab a a little reverse psychology. I wonder if he really
fears it, and figures that calling for it will make us pull
back and deny him that wish.
|
| 20.578 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Fri Jan 06 1995 16:18 | 13 |
| What I find amazing is this. I see alot of individuals stating how
dimented this individual is for what he had done. What people seem to
fail in communicating is that the victims of this shooting, in essence,
are no less into thuggery than this individual is.
Think about it...one thug shooting another thug. I know it sounds
heartless and harsh and all that...but as you look upon this individual
with scorn, let me ask you something. What gives you the God given
right to judge this guy when you're ethics are always in question?
Remember, Hitler never broke any laws either!!
-Jack
|
| 20.579 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Jan 06 1995 16:22 | 7 |
| murder is illegal, J. abortion is not. if it's not our right to
judge this jerk it's not your right to judge the clinics. you
can't stand on that position without looking hypocritical.
thump on dear boy, but somewhere else, please
Chip
|
| 20.580 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Fri Jan 06 1995 16:34 | 13 |
| Chip, what the hell are you talking about? And where did thumping come
into this? Chip, I think you have a paranoia here that needs to be
looked into.
Yeah, duh...no kidding abortion is legal..that was my point when I
stated that Hitler never broke the law. What I was saying before you
broke into your religion paranoia was that a prolifer can condemn the
shooting but it would be sort of remiss for a prolifer not to see this
as one thug shooting another thug.
Hope this helps!
-Jack
|
| 20.581 | y | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Jan 06 1995 16:37 | 35 |
| re: .578
Well, not only does it sound heartless and harsh, it sounds
like you're looking down your nose at someone and thinking
it's a pretty long view.
People do work to earn a living. Would you quit working for
Digital if they were found to be involved in an acitivity or
cause which you did not support? Lose your benefits and your
health insurance for you and your family? Perhaps these people
needed the work. You have no way of knowing that now.
People who work at abortion clinics providing LEGAL reproductive
services for women are no more "thugs" than the person who shoots
an intruder, or the victim or domestic violence that shoots their
abuser. There are circumstances under the law which allow these
behaviors. If your beef is with the law, then the place you
should be is the State House, not the abortion clinic, and you may
go there knowing I'll be right behind you fighting to keep choice
legal :-).
Salvi made an unprovoked attack on innocent people. This is
not a circumstance provided for under the law. If we could
all go out and shoot people who did things we didn't agree with,
the average life span in this country would be a lot shorter.
You simply don't change the law by shooting everyone who doesn't
agree with you. He broke the law, he should be punished accordingly.
All that these incidents serve to do is make anti-abortion activists
look like terrorists, even though the majority are not. Instead of
writing signs, you would be far better off writing letters to your
Congresscritters.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.582 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Jan 06 1995 16:41 | 10 |
| Jack, you are truely an amazing example of short term memory
impairment. What do base the vicitim's "thuggery" against. The
laws of man or laws of God. Read your note and get a grip.
Duh, you stated that you know abortion is illegal. That leaves
two possibles 1) God's law 2) yours (ha)
Pick one or make somehting up soon. You statements are a joke.
Chip
|
| 20.583 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 06 1995 16:50 | 4 |
| re .581
Abortion is not a "reproductive service". I think that
"anti-reproductive service" would be a better term.
|
| 20.584 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Fri Jan 06 1995 16:52 | 60 |
| Re: Note 20.581
SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." 35 lines 6-JAN-1995 13:37
>> Well, not only does it sound heartless and harsh, it sounds
>> like you're looking down your nose at someone and thinking
>> it's a pretty long view.
No, actually I'm playing devils advocate here. I believe this kid went beyond
what was constitutionally allowed and in keeping with my views, should have
his own life taken from him.
>> People do work to earn a living. Would you quit working for
>> Digital if they were found to be involved in an acitivity or
>> cause which you did not support? Lose your benefits and your
>> health insurance for you and your family? Perhaps these people
>> needed the work. You have no way of knowing that now.
This I find rather interesting. Did you know there were three big companies
in Germany who put in bids for installing gas chambers at three of the
main concentration camps. Dachau, Auswich (sp) and Treblinka. What a dark
way of supporting a german industry and german families for that matter. It
is referred to as blood money.
>> People who work at abortion clinics providing LEGAL reproductive
>> services for women are no more "thugs" than the person who shoots
>> an intruder, or the victim or domestic violence that shoots their
>> abuser.
It stands to reason in my mind, that if Planned Parenthood is really as
virtuous as people seem to think, then they are as bad a marketing company as
we are. They still have a poor image, even years after their Nazi founder
Margaret Sanger passed away. It seems the best way for them to gain support is
to clear their name and get a better image.
>> There are circumstances under the law which allow these
>> behaviors. If your beef is with the law, then the place you
>> should be is the State House, not the abortion clinic, and you may
>> go there knowing I'll be right behind you fighting to keep choice
>> legal :-).
Agreed but also keep in mind the abolitionists tried this and ultimately
the result was still a half million American sons marched to their death.
>> Salvi made an unprovoked attack on innocent people.
Depends on your definition of innocent. As I said, under what government
says is law they were innocent. To the thug, they are just another thug!
>> This is
>> not a circumstance provided for under the law. If we could
>> all go out and shoot people who did things we didn't agree with,
>> the average life span in this country would be a lot shorter.
>> You simply don't change the law by shooting everyone who doesn't
>> agree with you. He broke the law, he should be punished accordingly.
Agreed but I don't think the intent is to change the law so much as to scare
people into attrition.
-Jack
|
| 20.585 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:00 | 26 |
| >> Jack, you are truely an amazing example of short term memory
>> impairment. What do base the vicitim's "thuggery" against. The
>> laws of man or laws of God. Read your note and get a grip.
Oh...so an atheist cannot be pro life eh?! You limit the choices to
man's law or Gods law but there is also the notion of living by ones
own personal convictions. Not every man died in the civil war yelling,
"We Have God on Our Side!" I never mentioned God here. I just happen
to believe in the poor little kid having his/her own choice...you
don't.
>> Duh, you stated that you know abortion is illegal. That leaves
>> two possibles 1) God's law 2) yours (ha)
No..It would be governments law or my personal convictions. The bible
doesn't really address abortion as an issue. I just happen to believe
it is killing and don't believe the woman's rights extend to the power
you want them to have.
>> Pick one or make somehting up soon. You statements are a joke.
Chip, Did I ever say I felt that way? What I said...once again...was
that if a prolifer REEEAAAALLLYY believes the fetus is a person being
put to death, then the abortionist is a thug....correct? It would only
make sense. So in actuality...we have a thug (Salvi) shooting other
thugs (Planned Parenthood). Got it?!
|
| 20.586 | | MPGS::MARKEY | I most definitely think I might | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:07 | 14 |
| Look, I tend toward the conservative end of the spectrum which
includes my stand on abortion, but I thinks it's _really_ a
stretch to equate Salvi and his victims. In fact, I think it
borders on cruel. Wasn't one of the victims a receptionist?
Wow. What a vile thing to do for a living. Greet people and
direct them to the person their looking for... I have to say
that I even find the hint that somehow these people "deserved"
this to be against any standard of morality I could apply:
religious or otherwise. Jack, in all honesty, I think you
may have struck a serious blow in the opinion poles for
the prolife camp... I know you put a rather big dent in
my opinion anyway.
-b
|
| 20.587 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | get on with it, baby | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:10 | 3 |
| re: .586
exactly.
|
| 20.588 | | MPGS::MARKEY | I most definitely think I might | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:12 | 8 |
| RE: .587
I just hope my point wasn't lost by the horrible butchering job I did
with the spelling there... geesh. I'm usually better than that! :-)
Lesse... poll, they're... for starters. :-)
-b
|
| 20.589 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:20 | 23 |
| .578
> Think about it...one thug shooting another thug.
jack, jack...
not everyone agrees with you that abortion is the murder of a person.
but you knew that.
this aft i listened to the head of the xian coalition for something or
other spouting about it's an appropriate exercise of free speech to say
that abortion is murder but it's not appropriate to advocate any
violence whatever in the abortion arena. what he didn't seem able to
understand, even when the question was put to him, is that calling
abortion murder is in fact advocating violence, in that society
reserves the right to punish murderers; hence, abortionists, if
murderers, should be punished by society. since they aren't, wackos
like salvi take it upon themselves to exact justice.
nor did he even blink when he was asked why, since he believes free
speech's purpose is to be provocative, free speech, e.g., advocating
violence, isn't tolerated at the meetings of his organization. ya
gotta love them good ol' double standards.
|
| 20.590 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:22 | 6 |
| well, Jack, thanks for answering. it's your position. then by
pure statement of personal positions, we disagree.
I'm outa here. Have a good weekend!
Chip
|
| 20.591 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | get on with it, baby | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:23 | 4 |
| >that calling abortion murder is in fact advocating violence
Nonsense. We convict murderers and that isn't a call for people to
take it upon themselves to exact punishment.
|
| 20.592 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:33 | 16 |
| -b:
Oh relax, I was just bringing up the argument for discussion that's
all. The receptionist worked there because she firmly believed in
women's rights, I understand that. Of course Oliver North's secretary
was put before the judiciary committee but she was just following the
bosses instructions too...but I digress, afterall, Irangate isn't
politically correct like this one.
Don't judge the prolife camp by what I say...I speak for myself. My
actual stand on this is, in all honesty, I disavow myself of any
actions a thug takes, whatever side of the spectrum they're on. At the
same time I also believe that thugs play the thug game at their own
risk, regardless of the side they are on.
-Jack
|
| 20.593 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:43 | 21 |
| .591
>> that calling abortion murder is in fact advocating violence
>
> Nonsense. We convict murderers and that isn't a call for people to
> take it upon themselves to exact punishment.
it's a call, often (as in the just-concluded case of paul hill and the
to-be-tried case of john salvi), for society to commit violence to the
person of the convict, unto death. as the consequence of murder. so i
repeat, naming abortionists as murderers is calling for society to exact
the punishment it customarily metes out to murderers, and since society
is at present disinclined as a body to do so, people like hill and
salvi do it in loco societatis. hill even pleaded justifiable
homicide, fer petesake.
if pro-life xians believed their faith, they would leave judgment to
the lord god. once having found that clinic staff and patients will
not hear the message they bring, all true believing xians should follow
the specific injunction of jesus, who said to shake the dust of such a
place from one's sandals and leave.
|
| 20.594 | | HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS | | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:46 | 18 |
| <<< Note 20.557 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>Wow, this guy really is "differently clued". Here is his statement:
>- I am a resident of the state of New Hampshire.
>- If convicted of the charges I am accussed of I wish to recieve the
> Death Penalty
>- After procedings are through I wish to have an interview with Barbara
> Walters within the year.
>- I will not release all information until that interview
>- If I am not proven guilty upon release I will become a catholic priest
>- This is not an admission of guilt. However it is a statement about the
>persecution which the catholic people face. The catholic people are being
>persecuted in the workplace as well as in a whole. There are leaders in
>Government both Local, state and Federal which are well aware of the
>abuse taking place.
I think this guy co-authored the VAMPIRE 2000 story, too.
|
| 20.595 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:49 | 109 |
| So where'd this guy get over a thousand bucks? People talking about
blood money may wish they hadn't brought up the phrase.
DougO
-----
AP 5 Jan 95 21:09 EST V0101
Copyright 1995. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
BOSTON (AP) -- He drove more than 500 miles, bypassing 180 abortion
clinics, before zeroing in on one of the few open on New Year's Eve --
a clinic long the target of radical anti-abortion activists.
He was marginally employed and failed even to pick up his last
paycheck. Yet when he was arrested, police found over $1,000 in cash
on him.
He is described as a disturbed loner, an outsider to the anti-abortion
movement. Yet police reportedly found a receipt from a Massachusetts
anti-abortion group and the name and number of a Virginia activist who
has advocated the killing of abortion doctors.
While anti-abortion groups deny any connection to John Salvi III -- who
is charged with killing two women at two Massachusetts abortion
clinics and shooting up a third in Norfolk, Va. -- the investigation
has raised suspicions of a conspiracy.
"Why he went to Norfolk is a key aspect of the investigation," a senior
federal official in Washington said on condition of anonymity.
Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which
advises abortion clinics on security, said Salvi passed more than 180
clinics on his alleged flight down the East Coast. She said only a
half dozen of those clinics were open on Saturday.
"He not only found a clinic opened on New Year's Eve, but he found one
with an anti-abortion demonstration going on attended by people who
advocate violence against doctors," she said. "It could be by chance,
but it strains credibility."
Salvi was flown back to Massachusetts on Thursday after Virginia
officials held off prosecuting him in the attack on Norfolk's
Hillcrest Clinic.
Salvi faces two state murder charges in the Dec. 30 attack on two
Brookline, Mass., abortion clinics that left two women dead and five
wounded.
In addition to the murder charges, a grand jury in Boston indicted him
Wednesday on two federal firearms charges carrying up to 10 years in
prison each.
On Thursday, Salvi's attorney released a rambling six-page statement
that talked of persecution against Catholics, urged the Church to
institute its own welfare system and listed a menu of jail food he
said was tainted.
Salvi, 22, has been portrayed as an unstable loner, a student
hairdresser who never picked up his last paycheck, a rabid opponent of
abortion with no links to the anti-abortion movement.
But when arrested by Virginia authorities, Salvi had $1,277.04 in his
pocket. Investigators who searched his truck found anti-abortion
literature, four highway maps and a receipt from "Mass. Citizens in
Life."
Also, the FBI told Norma Aresti, director of the Summit Medical Center
in Hartford, Conn., that her abortion clinic was on a list found in
Salvi's possession. The clinic, another target of anti-abortion
protesters, had increased security after the Massachusetts attacks and
was open Saturday.
Frances Hogan, executive vice president of Massachusetts Citizens for
Life, the state's largest anti-abortion group, said she had no idea
what the receipt may be.
"We have looked this fellow up on our records and we don't have him as
a donor and we do not have him as a member," she said. "I do not know
what the receipt could be for."
The Boston Globe reported Thursday that a police search of Salvi's
Hampton, N.H., apartment turned up the name and number of Donald
Spitz, director of Pro-Life Virginia, an anti-abortion group that has
tried to close the Norfolk clinic.
Spitz said Thursday that he never heard of Salvi before last week. He
also questioned if the name and number found in Salvi's apartment was
printed on anti-abortion literature.
"There is no conspiracy," he said. "It's a fabrication of the pro-abort
mind and the Justice Department is chomping at the bit to do their
bidding."
Spitz, a Baptist minister, along with David Crane and the Rev. Michael
Bray of Bowie, Md., signed a petition endorsing the belief that the
killing of abortion doctors is justifiable in defense of the unborn.
The petition was originally circulated by Paul Hill, convicted last
year of murdering an abortion doctor and his bodyguard in Pensacola,
Fla. After those shootings, a federal task force was set up to
investigate the possibility of a national conspiracy behind abortion
clinic violence.
Spitz and Crane have led protests against the Norfolk clinic; Bray was
convicted in a 1984 firebombing of the clinic.
Spitz said he arrived at the Norfolk clinic shortly after the shooting.
"I don't know his motivation," he said of Salvi. "If his intention and
acts were to save innocent babies, they were righteous acts."
|
| 20.596 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:53 | 7 |
| Jack Martin,
You've truely outdone yourself in referring to Salvi's collective
victims as "thugs". Isn't it clear to you that he hadn't a clue as
to what were the actual responsibilities or involvements of the umpteen
people he shot before the bullets hit them? Another case of "brain off",
Jack?
|
| 20.597 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:56 | 5 |
| Maybe he got the money from "Pro-Life Virginia" or whatever
group it was that spoke out in favor of his killings.
That group has already shown us that it isn't really pro-life,
but rather just anti-abortion.
|
| 20.598 | | MAIL1::CRANE | | Fri Jan 06 1995 17:59 | 2 |
| Plase keep in mind that David Crane is no relation to me...just thought
I stick this in here while its still early.
|
| 20.599 | | MPGS::MARKEY | I most definitely think I might | Fri Jan 06 1995 18:00 | 22 |
| Jack,
Sorry for responding so firmly then when you were only "devil's
advocating" (although, is that something you're actually capable
of? :-)
Now for something completely different... what I've seen of
this Salvi guy suggests serious imbalance. All this stuff
about wanting to die if he's found guilty and wanting to become
a priest if he's found not guilty and wanting an interview
with Bah Bah Wah Wah... this may be a setup to prepare an
insanity defense, but somehow I doubt it. His belief in the
cause of prolife just made it easier for him to choose where
he "went off." If it wasn't for the abortion cause, this guy
would have gone off somewhere else. Maybe in protest to the
cost of coffee beans or something... pick whatever. To try
to make sense of Salvi in any context is impossible. Don't
try to equate what he did with the larger issue of abortion,
because that would imply that what he did had some sense
to it... it didn't.
-b
|
| 20.600 | | AIMHI::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Fri Jan 06 1995 18:23 | 20 |
| >> You've truely outdone yourself in referring to Salvi's collective
>> victims as "thugs". Isn't it clear to you that he hadn't a clue as
>> to what were the actual responsibilities or involvements of the umpteen
>> people he shot before the bullets hit them? Another case of "brain
>> off",
No, I was just being a realist, exposing what America has come to. It
seems to me that so many oppose abortion as birth control, yet you and
I know that most abortions are done for just that purpose. Like I
said, if an ARDENT prolifer really believes the fetus is being
murdered, then the same must come to grips with their own reality that
the abortionist is a thug. Further, any supporter of abortion is also
a thug. This is the mind set of those who approve of violence.
If those in the clinic are in fact thugs, then I happen to believe they
are misguided thugs...just like the Hitler youth, or a kamakazi pilot.
They knowest not who they dance with. Notice I started the paragraph
with "IF".
-Jack
|
| 20.601 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Jan 07 1995 21:20 | 337 |
| The Atmosphere of Violence
by
Landon Cox
January 4th, 1995
---
Copyright (C) 1995 Landon Cox
Permission is granted to redistribute this document in electronic,
magnetic, or hardcopy form for non-commercial purposes as long as this
copyright and credit message is included and the document is
redistributed in its entirety.
---
If your neighborhood was terrorized by a gun-slinging madman, what
would your response be? If that madman killed people you live and
work around, what would your response be? If you were the pastor of a
church in that neighborhood, what would your response be? Would it
matter if that madman targeted abortionists and their clients? Would it
change how you responded? Who, or what, is actually creating this
"atmosphere of violence" around abortion clinics?
I had the chance to find some answers to these questions since the
Brookline neighborhood John Salvi turned into a shooting gallery
happens to be the same neighborhood where I attended church for four
years. Ruggles Baptist Church's pastor, Larry Showalter, was kind
enough to give me an inside look at what happened and what the
community's response was - particularly the prolife community.
Larry has driven down Beacon Street thousands of times - past Preterm,
past Planned Parenthood, past the persistent remnant of protesters and
sidewalk counselors. The atmosphere on the morning John Salvi
allegedly drove his truck down Beacon Street intent on inflicting death
was no different than it had been any other day of the over 10 years
Larry has pastored Ruggles. Larry's home is about a 100 yards from
Preterm and Ruggles is a couple hundred yards from Planned
Parenthood.
Within hours of the Brookline shootings, John Ensore, pastor of
Dorchester Christian Fellowship and founder of A Woman's Concern
crisis pregnancy center in Dorchester, called Larry about the shootings.
One of the first things John said over the phone was "It makes me want
to go to a dumpster and throw up." With sentiment this raw and still
swirling within hours of the heinous crime, it was time to discuss the
community's response.
John wanted to call an all-day prayer meeting the next day to pray for
the friends and family of those killed or wounded but it was obvious
that this would result in a media circus and the prayer meeting plans
were scaled back to a two hour time - 3 to 5pm on New Years Day. The
proximity of Ruggles to the site of the shootings made it the obvious
venue and Larry agreed to host this prayer meeting.
Though not intended as a high visibility event, the Boston Globe and
Boston Herald daily newspapers, as well as several mainstream Boston
radio stations got wind and reported the time and place where the
meeting was to be held. The saber rattling began in earnest. Later the
Boston Globe referred to the event as an anti-abortion rally, but the
Herald accurately reported it was to be a prayer meeting. So, despite
attempts to focus this prayer meeting, some in the media were still
intent on misrepresenting its purpose.
By 2pm on New Years Day, reporters were already getting ready for
some action and were ringing the door bells of the Ruggles office from
the Beacon Street entrance. Regardless of how low-key the meeting
was intended to be or the fact that the focus was on prayer for the
families, it was obvious that it was shaping up to be an "event" due to
the overblown coverage it was receiving. The fact that the meeting got
announced to all of Boston and was so close in time to the clinic
shootings led the prayer leaders to inform the Boston police of the
developing brew.
The media was not allowed within the sanctuary during the service and
it wasn't until near the end of the time that a single reporter with a
35mm camera was allowed in. Larry said the media swarm was
overwhelming. The foyer of the church was packed to the gills with
video cameras and reporters along with three policemen in uniform.
The media would have detracted significantly from the focus of the
meeting had they been let into the sanctuary, but Larry commented that
people from the media were respectful and did not disturb the service
while in the foyer.
Shortly after the service began, the approximately 80 people inside
could hear demonstrators outside the church yelling "Murderers!,
Murderers!" Larry estimated about half of those prolifers who attended
the service were Catholic and the others from various Protestant
denominations. Many were Operation Rescue supporters and a
Massachusetts Operation Rescue leader who has spent some time in jail
for civil disobedience, Bill Cotter, also attended.
The demonstrators outside of Ruggles came and left after they got what
they wanted, media coverage. After yelling "Murderer!" they made their
way into the foyer of the church and began unfurling a banner which I
was unable to get the full text of but which included a phrase referring
to "women as incubators." They didn't raise their voices or create a
direct disturbance of the worship service. The group they were with
was named something like "Refuse and Resist" or "Resist and Refuse."
I was unable to verify the exact name. Both the Herald and the Globe
reported the leaders of this demonstration were from out of state - one
said New York and one Atlanta.
One would have to assume that the amendment to the Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) bill, which designates that
disruption of a worship service is a felony, was the overriding reason
why the demonstrators were mum inside the church. The tactics and
knowledge of the law used by the demonstrators suggests they were
being led by seasoned pro-abortion activists and weren't a simple
Brookline-based, grass-roots reaction to the shootings. Therefore, it's
unlikely that the demonstrator's sentiment is representative of the
majority of pro-choice advocates. Once the group unfurled the banner,
the three police in the foyer ushered them out and they left without
further incident.
Is a Prayer Meeting a Prolife Rally?
So what actually went on in this so-called anti-abortion rally that would
raise accusations of murder from those outside? Prayer and scripture
reading. Everyone who attended got a copy of the 10 commandments.
John Ensore was the primary leader of the service. Larry read from
Deuteronomy about the need to fear God. David Hill, pastor of Tree of
Life City Church, read passages from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes on the
blessings which come from fearing God. Several pastors traded time
teaching on different commandments all within the context of fearing
God. John Ensore led in praying through the first four commandments
and a Catholic priest, Father Michael Macnamara, covered the final six
and also spoke to those gathered. And there was prayer, led by the
pastors, for the families of the victims that they would receive comfort,
justice, and resolution. In addition, some who were attending the
service also prayed in a similar vein.
In summary, this meeting was not about seeking confrontation and
controversy. It was about prayer for the families and reaffirming life on
Beacon Street. It was about healing.
Prolifers - Murderers?
Imagine for an instant that John Salvi, instead of shooting up abortion
clinics, shot up a school yard full of kids. Imagine, local church
leaders, being sickened and completely disheartened by the whole
episode, calling together a prayer meeting for those parents and friends
of the kids shot as well as to try to start the healing process. Would you
expect a group of people standing outside this prayer meeting yelling
"Murderers?" Hardly.
Though the church's response would have been the same in either case,
a school yard shooting or abortion clinic shooting, the response of the
people outside the church is much different.
It's likely the Operation Rescue folks attending were the ones to whom
the "murderer" epithets were hurled, but as in many demonstrations it's
difficult to discriminate the specific target. As the moderator for a
prolife electronic Internet mailing list, I've seen an obvious attempt to
link anyone with pro-life views to the abortion clinic murders of recent
months. The link is fuzzy and always has to do somehow with creating
an atmosphere of violence. If you believe abortion is wrong and even
support demonstrations against the practice of abortion, you are linked
with, and in some cases I've experienced, directly pegged with the
responsibility of the murder itself.
The attempt to link all prolifers with clinic violence ignores many
important questions including "Is there a difference between someone
who is `anti-abortion' and some who is `pro-life'?"
Prolife vs. Anti-Abortion
Larry commented that John Salvi was anti-abortion, no doubt, but he
was not pro-life. How can one make such a statement? It's easy when
you consider the manner in which Salvi allegedly carried out his
executions.
After the Preterm attack he was seen running down Beacon Street. He
then turned and fired random shots back towards the building down the
sidewalk. On that sidewalk were pro-life demonstrators and sidewalk
counselors. One sidewalk counselor's car was hit by a stray Salvi
bullet. Thankfully no further injuries outside the clinic were reported.
Salvi shot indiscriminately killing peripheral employees and not the
actual abortionists. It's likely there were clients in the clinics for
reasons other than abortion and yet he recklessly fired away. But this
begs the question.
If he was actually discriminating in his execution, like Paul Hill in
Pensacola, am I saying that it is then somehow defensible? No. Both
acts rained death on people in those clinics. Neither act promoted life
and in both cases both men have set back, if not irreparably damaged,
the pro-life movement politically.
Gary North, in a letter written to Paul Hill after the Pensacola murders,
made the point that delaying the recriminalization of abortion by a
single week "allows the slaughter of almost 29,000 innocent lives in the
U.S." Together John Salvi and Paul Hill have heaped on years of delay.
Thanks a lot Paul and John. You're dismissed. If you thought long and
hard, Paul and John, could you come up with a more effective way to
defeat the cause for which you sacrificed your life? This is the bitter,
caustic irony of their murderous actions.
Salvi is anti-abortion but he was intent on death. This is not a
characteristic which describes a true prolifer and is the distinction
between someone who is just anti-abortion and someone who is pro-
life.
Real Contributors to the Atmosphere of Violence
Given the gut-wrenching repulsion brought on by the sheer magnitude
of the murders coupled with the extensive political damage and
therefore significant delay those murders have caused the prolife
movement, it's inconceivable to me that there are protesters with the gall
to call people who are genuinely sickened by the whole affair,
"murderers." To think such things is the zenith of a crass and cynical
mind.
The people hurling charges of murder are the people who left little
souvenirs in Ruggles' back pews - chicken eggs scrawled with the
message "fetus for breakfast." It's the pinnacle of disrespect for the
families of those killed and the media is right there stirring the boiling
pot and positively beaming the perpetrators of this bent morality into
thousands of homes.
How can we expect to find common ground if the meaning and gesture
of a simple prayer meeting called to grieve and pray for the victims'
families is trampled on by the callousness and depravity of false
accusers? Such a prayer meeting is as appropriate for pro-abortion and
pro-choice people as it is pro-life. Is there anything that will change the
mind of those who believe espousing a prolife view is contributing to
the atmosphere of violence? This is an open question and open letter to
those who believe such things. What will it take? What expression is
valid?
Prolife people have made sincere attempts to combat an atmosphere of
violence. Despite these attempts, press releases from pro-life
organizations are snuffed out as cheap media ploys and prayer meetings
are nothing more than a huddle of murderers in a vast, conspiring army,
receiving ever more bloody marching orders.
Isn't there a distinction between a John Salvi and a volunteer doing
yeoman's work finding a scared woman in an unplanned pregnancy the
food, shelter, and protection she needs at the most vulnerable time in
her life? Isn't there a distinction between those who would practice
and promote non-violent direct action and legitimate forms of political
activism and a Paul Hill? When this distinction is recognized, then
there is possibility for common ground.
Does Civil Disobedience Lead to an Atmosphere of Violence?
If the emotion of clinic murders and visions of Operation Rescue
demonstrators shrouds the distinction I'm trying to communicate,
consider the civil rights movement in the 60's. Peaceful demonstrations
as well as acts of civil disobedience had a role and purpose. It's the
difference in approach between Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.
No doubt there are those who support Malcolm X or the Black Panthers
but denounce abortion murderers - it seems like an entirely inconsistent
position. Regardless, how many times did Martin Luther King get
arrested for civil disobedience and non-violent direct action? Yet, his
name is not associated with murder nor is he pegged with the
responsibility for the unrest and violence of the 60's.
No one would call Martin Luther King Jr. a murderer because he fought
for his convictions through non-violent direct action. Nor should a true
pro-lifer need to deflect accusations of murderer because she speaks out
against abortion and follows through with non-violent direct action
using tactics no different in substance than those MLK used.
The Judicial Pressure Cooker
Charles Colson has pointed out that the problem in today's struggle
over the abortion issue is that one side has been locked out of the
political process by the judicial activism of the Supreme Court. Just as
blacks were locked out of the political process, prolifers are also
blocked and pressure builds. Colson states, "Some people, like Paul
Hill in Florida, are being driven over the edge because they think the
abortion debate is closed to peaceful change. And they've got a point.
Ever since _Roe v. Wade_ in 1973, and particularly the _Casey v.
Planned Parenthood_ case in 1992, federal judges have slammed the
door to political reforms advocated by pro-lifers. And today, even
Republican leaders are talking about abandoning their parties long-
standing commitment to a human life amendment."
Oppressing one side with raw judicial power leads to the rise of two
kinds of people represented by Martin Luther King and Malcolm X and
the Black Panthers. In his book "Why We Can't Wait", Martin Luther
King Jr. in referring to the atrocities of segregation states, "...There
comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no
longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair."
For a Paul Hill or John Salvi, the cup ran over sooner than later. There
must be a way to address this issue politically and not judicially by
contorted Supreme Court decisions. Until then, violence will ensue
and there's nothing more that true prolifers can do to control the Paul
Hills and John Salvis than Martin Luther King Jr. could do to control
Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. It's almost axiomatic that people
convinced that violence will solve the problem will resort to violence
and are beyond controlling influences - even the God they profess to
honor.
Chuck Colson also commented on January 4th after the Salvi shootings
"When somebody walks into a Post Office and shoots several people, as
happened several times last year, federal agents aren't dispatched to
every Post Office in the country. But if cracked pots like John Salvi
can prompt that kind of response at abortion clinics, there will be an
open invitation to every nut with a gun to come out shooting. And if
that happens, blame somebody. But don't blame the pro-life
movement."
So there are many factors contributing to the atmosphere of violence -
not the least of which is the Supreme Court and the Clinton
Administration's response to clinic shootings. I'm not saying that it's
right or justifiable, I'm just acknowledging the existence of these
factors.
Stand Your Ground
If you are a pro-choice reader, you may be somewhat embarrassed by the
demonstrators outside of Ruggles and claim they don't represent the
mainstream pro-choice sentiment. That's well and good and I hope
that's the case. However, if I were to ask you to control them, you'd
have no better way to do that than I would have to catch a John Salvi
before he goes berserk. Yet it's the latter that the true prolife movement
is being asked and demanded to do by pro-choice activists. And if we
fail to complete the mission, we're branded "murderers."
The demonstrators seared an image by their murderous epithets and
"fetus for breakfast" souvenirs and took with them hope of resolution.
In the meantime, efforts to heal will continue. I encourage the true
prolife reader to not be discouraged by the waves of false accusations
and press forward on healing activities, regardless of how they're
perceived by those bent on cynical demonstrations, and continue the
work that exposes the truth behind abortion. Perhaps in this way, true
prolifers can find a way to demonstrate their commitment to life.
---
Copyright (C) 1995 Landon Cox
Permission is granted to redistribute this document in electronic,
magnetic, or hardcopy form for non-commercial purposes as long as this
copyright and credit message is included and the document is
redistributed in its entirety.
---
|
| 20.602 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Pentium: Intel's Blew-Chip Special | Sat Jan 07 1995 21:24 | 5 |
| 337 lines, John? No way I want to read all that... Could you net it
out for us pls?
(well OK, not for "us" but for "me"?)
|
| 20.603 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Warm Moist Rogering | Sun Jan 08 1995 03:28 | 2 |
|
It was rather interesting and even-handed.
|
| 20.604 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Jan 09 1995 10:10 | 12 |
| Let me try and help here... Not everyone who supports choice
believes in abortion. My guess is that a very small fraction
of those supporting choice would support abortion as a method
of birth control. Terminating pregnancy can be a decision driven
by a medical situation.
To even "generically" suggest that these people are thugs is
irresponsible and unfounded by any fact.
Jack, you may feel better to know that my leg is feeling well yanked.
Chip
|
| 20.605 | When did you start this practice??? :-) | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Jan 09 1995 12:16 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.600 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| No, I was just being a realist, exposing what America has come to.
Jack, a classic line from you... really! :-)
|
| 20.606 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 09 1995 14:05 | 17 |
| No, I just find that alot of Americans today don't have the balz to
live by their convictions. Chip, you echo this sentiment
greatly...somehow trying to eek out some sense of nobility with this
"Most Americans abhor abortions but wouldn't stand in the way......crap
crap crap, etc." I have stood by and continue to stand by the idea
that America is largely made up of people who continue to put 5 lbs. of
veal in a 2 lb. bag. Fence sitters if you will. You are looking for this
grey area where you can feel comfortable in both camps but it just isn't
working.
Okay Chip, you speak of the inpropriety of abortion as a mode of birth
control yet you know as well as I do that most abortions are for that
very reason. If you think abortion for BC is so bad yet you are all
for the individual right of choice in this matter, then what in your
view excuses the abortionist from being a thug??
-Jack
|
| 20.607 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Jan 09 1995 14:20 | 21 |
| -.1 I couldn't agree more with your observation on the lack of
character displayed bu "a lot" of Americnas. I have a lot
of trouble with the word thug, but if that's your opinion
and definition of the clinical staff, then so be it.
I don't take the "fence sitter" excuse for people who support
choice, but don't support abortion. That would include people
who support the sale of alcohol but do not imbibe, people who
support freedom of speech but don't wish to listen to KKK/Neo-
Nazi garbage, etc, etc... It's a simple idea and philosophy to
grasp.
The conviction, however, that I believe we're in dispute over is
the simple fact that I have a strong conviction that people have
certain inalienable rights. I may not always agree with some choice
people make to use or exploit those rights, but by God, it is their
right. That, does not make me noble., but it doesn't make me a
fence sitter. If you knew me, you'd know I don't lack courage or
conviction, and you'd never doubt my (let's say) steel.
Chip
|
| 20.608 | I can already hear the response | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Jan 09 1995 14:33 | 3 |
| Chip,
Shame on you, making sense like that to Jack.
|
| 20.609 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 09 1995 14:57 | 24 |
| Chip:
Believe me, alienable rights are something I adhere to
strongly...especially in the area of discretionary decisions like
buying alcohol, even ending your own life if you so choose.
I just happen to be of the belief that inalienable rights extend to all
human beings and this is where guys like Jack, DougO et al and I lock
horns. By your thought processes, you are trying to justify the lack
of rights to a segment of humankind, simply because of reasons like
inconvenience, etc. I stand with you on the rape/incest/life threat
issue and that's it. I fight for a womans right to abortion in these
cases. But sorry, I don't believe in societal passiveness or
acceptance to end the life of another if they don't have any say over
it.
Chip, apparently I made my point about abortionists who abort for BC
reasons as thugs...even though you don't term them that way, I hope I
communicated to you why others would see it that way. I don't see them
as thugs in the sense of premeditation. I see alot of them as a bunch
of confused individuals, like the Hitler youth, who simply haven't a
clue as to what they're doing.
-Jack
|
| 20.610 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Warm Moist Rogering | Mon Jan 09 1995 15:07 | 3 |
|
Just because a person doesn't agree with you doesn't mean s/he doesn't
have a clue about what s/he is doing.
|
| 20.611 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Jan 09 1995 15:11 | 4 |
|
Well spoken Deb.
|
| 20.612 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 09 1995 15:51 | 23 |
| That's why I mentioned the Hitler youth. In their eyes, they disagreed
with you, yet they also were exonnerated by their government, their
peers, and their conscience. Yet history has proven that what they
followed was wrong.
The Hitler youth were propogandized in school that Jews were vermon.
They were conditioned by their mores to believe as they did, just as
our society is doing the same. The statement "Abortion is an
unfortunate thing but..." by the prochoice side is in itself a
condemning statement of where the prochoice heart is. I refer to it as
situational ethics. It is known to be a bad thing, yet it is
sanctioned by the society at large. Well...exactly, so why would you
expect the Hitler youth to be any more of a thug than clinic personnel?
They both:
1. Act in accordance with the wishes of the government.
2. Acted under the mores or established ethics of the society.
3. Felt that their victims weren't afforded rights.
4. Fought for the betterment of their nationalism/women's rights
5. Acted in a way approved by their society.
-Jack
|
| 20.613 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Jan 09 1995 15:52 | 18 |
| > horns. By your thought processes, you are trying to justify the lack
> of rights to a segment of humankind, simply because of reasons like
> inconvenience, etc. I stand with you on the rape/incest/life threat
"Yeah, them uppitty [ro], they actually wanna drink from our water
fountains, eat at our lunch counters, use our *bathrooms*. So its too
*inconveeeenient* to use their own, huh?"
"Uppity women, actually wanna control their own wombs, too
*inconveeeenient* to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term!"
Jack, if you can't see the civil rights parallels, I'm quite
comfortable its your own blindness. What you call an inconvenience is
a matter of profoundest human dignity, the right to control what one
does with one's body. You can continue to misrepresent our arguments
as above, but don't imagine you'll get away with it.
DougO
|
| 20.614 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 09 1995 16:03 | 3 |
| > Jack, if you can't see the civil rights parallels,
When you are ready to give us a valid one, let us know.
|
| 20.615 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 09 1995 16:05 | 12 |
| The _real_ civil rights parallel, DougO, is in favor of the unborn child.
The woman who terminates her child's life is not just controlling her own body.
The _real_ civil rights parallel:
Jews are a lower class being. Killing them is OK.
Black slaves are not fully human. Killing them is OK.
Unborn children are not fully human. Killing them is OK.
I know you can see the parallel, Doug, because I know you're not blind.
/john
|
| 20.616 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 09 1995 16:08 | 8 |
| Bottom line DougO is that your way of thinking promotes death while my
way of thinking promotes inconvenience. Bottom line I guess is that I
don't believe in womens autonomy in this issue and you don't believe
in the baby's right to breathe. So who do you think is the bad apple
here? Give you a hint...it's the guy that is promoting death, not the
guy promoting inconveeeenience!
-Jack
|
| 20.617 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Jan 09 1995 16:58 | 9 |
| John, Jack, et al conveniently skirt the fact that it's illegal
to kill Jews, Blacks, whites, greens, yellows... Right ot wrong,
the gov't does not include the fetus in this category.
So, in my eyes you've made no legitimate civil parallel. What you've
essentially done is try to pass your religous beliefs off as equal
to all law. Nice try, No Sale!
Chip
|
| 20.618 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:02 | 12 |
| >The _real_ civil rights parallel:
>
> Jews are a lower class being. Killing them is OK.
> Black slaves are not fully human. Killing them is OK.
> Unborn children are not fully human. Killing them is OK.
Jews and blacks aren't parasites. Unwanted fetuses are. Some of us
can see that the difference infringes upon the obvious civil rights of
pregnant women. If such a one does not want to suffer such parasitism
it is her right to be rid of it. So much for your "parallel".
DougO
|
| 20.619 | parasite?!!! so sad!!! | USAT05::BENSON | | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:03 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.620 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:08 | 1 |
| Doug, what would you do with born people who *are* parasites?
|
| 20.621 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:09 | 4 |
| sorry DougO, but i gotta distance myself from the "parasite" remark
no matter how literally you meant it.
Chip
|
| 20.622 | Seek help | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:11 | 3 |
|
RE: .618
|
| 20.623 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:17 | 8 |
| but Feotii are parasites. They depend on a host to live and thrive.
Should the host cease to live, so does the fetus. foetii are effected
by what the host does/doesn't ingest, by exposure to chemicals that the
host is exposed to and the growth of a fetus is directly related to the
nutritional status of the host.
Parasite might have emotional connotations to some, but it is a true
fact of development.
|
| 20.624 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:19 | 5 |
| so, without hesitation, you can equate feotii with (say) body lice?
i don't think so tim...
Chip
|
| 20.625 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:20 | 8 |
|
No wonder this world is in such a mess...
|
| 20.626 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:23 | 5 |
| Go ahead, Chip, distance yourself. The word bothers some. The civil
rights encroachments when the facts are ignored bother me more, though,
so I use the word with deliberation.
DougO
|
| 20.627 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:24 | 9 |
| that dougo uses the "parasite" argument does not mean that he endorses
it. he merely (and correctly) reports on the beliefs of some people
who happen not to want to be so burdened. biologically, a fetus does
satisfy the description of a parasite. morally, that's a different
story - isn't it nice that we have so many people ready to force their
morals on someone else?
in some cases, such a parasite fails to disengage that support
requirement even after moving away from home. :-)
|
| 20.629 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:30 | 1 |
| Well, there is a foetor about to happen in the john here......
|
| 20.628 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:30 | 5 |
| 20.630 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:40 | 21 |
| Chip:
You're just trying to piss me off aren't you. For the last time, will
you please stop dragging religion into this! I already explained there
are atheists who are pro choice.
If you read correctly, you will see that I have stuck strictly to
historical accounts. Hitler youth were misguided people. Much of the
South in the 17/1800's were either misguided into believing blacks were
subhuman. Fetuses apparently are subhuman according to what is being
discussed here.
And Dick, yes, I will continue to push my morality on society if that's
what you want to call it. And you know what, if society ever tries to
euthanise you against your will, I will hide you in my attic also
(right next to Mary Michael if need be). As far as parasites, ok, use
the term if you'd like. There are plenty of senior citizens who are
parasites in this country and there are also alot of democrats who are
parasites...so what's your point?
-Jack
|
| 20.631 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:41 | 1 |
| I meant there are atheists who are pro life!
|
| 20.632 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:43 | 6 |
| What ever happened to:
Notes> delete
Notes> reply/last
<edit>
<ctrlZ>
|
| 20.633 | Continuing the human rights parallel... | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:44 | 5 |
| > but fetuses are parasites.
That's just what Hitler's propaganda organization said about the Jews.
/john
|
| 20.634 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:48 | 1 |
| They didn't have biology backing them up, though....
|
| 20.635 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:49 | 17 |
| .630
> And Dick, yes, I will continue to push my morality on society if that's
> what you want to call it.
that's so wonderfully generous and open-minded of you. i'm touched.
the right to choose for oneself is the cornerstone of our bill of
rights, yet you seek to subvert the portions of that right with which
you disagree. sad, very sad.
> And you know what, if society ever tries to
> euthanise you against your will, I will hide you in my attic also
oh, goody. fwiw, when your zealot pals come for you for disagreeing
with their particular pretty picture of things, i'll hide you alongside
the others in MY attic. fwiw, i have a bigger attic. trust me on this
one.
|
| 20.636 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:53 | 5 |
| Well fine then...at least you and I are safe.
You have failed to convince people your right to privacy supercedes
a parasites right to live. Do you believe the fetus as a parasite is
equal in stature to a parasite that causes bubonic plague?
|
| 20.637 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:55 | 3 |
| re: "My attic is bigger"
Maybe I'd RATHER stuff you into a tiny crawl space though! :^)
|
| 20.638 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Jan 09 1995 17:57 | 16 |
|
Actually, I think the best thing for the pro-life movement is for more
people to express their opinions as DougO did and call the babies
"parasites"...
Have the clinics change their names to, say, "Parasite Control Station
No. XXX"...
Have the general population see and hear the mindset...
Prediction.... In the near future, you will hear and see a new
euphemism for people who are now considered "vegetables" and/or
"brain-dead"... It'll be an "oh so cute term" so no-one will be
offended... Sorta like... "harvest"...
|
| 20.639 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:08 | 24 |
| 20.640 | Bad science. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:22 | 19 |
|
Biology doesn't back up the parasite argument either. In ecology,
there are numerous kinds of "commensals". Ordinarily only those which
debilitate the host by design are classified as parasites. If BOTH
are debilitated, they are competitors. If ONE benefits, and the other
is a don't-care (such as remoras taking a free ride on a shark), they
are called benefitters. If BOTH commensals benefit, they are called
symbionts.
Since the only genetic purpose of biological entities is reproduction,
the young are never technically parasites, even when they kill and eat
the parent. That is what the parent is designed for, and the parent
deliberately seeks out this result.
In ecological terms, individuals do not count. All that matters is
the success or failure of the genes. So children who kill and eat
their parents are working for teir parents genetic benefit.
bb
|
| 20.641 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:27 | 10 |
| but some abortions, notably those that terminate fetuses that will be
born with contrasurvival genetic characteristics, can be argued to be
aimed at the survival of the genes, too. consider that if a woman is
busy carrying to term an ancephalic fetus, she cannot be carrying one
that DOES have a brain. abort and give her a chance to conceive anew
for the survival of the species.
it has been argued that species continue to improve until they reach
the point at which they have the technology to keep their defectives
alive and, worse, breeding. we're there, folks.
|
| 20.642 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:36 | 6 |
| Dick:
I fail to see how you can justify such a Paradox in your mind. It
seems you would pick the lesser of two evils, yet you are so hell bent
on the latter rather than the former. Are million of lives really
worth the right to privacy???
|
| 20.643 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:37 | 20 |
| 87.38 SMUFR::BINDER
> until there is agreement in the scientific/medical community that a
> fetus is a human PERSON, and until there are laws so stating, a fetus
> HAS NO RIGHT TO LIFE, no more than a dog or a horse.
"PERSONhood" is more a legal issue than a scientific one. You
even say so with "and until there are laws so stating". In
reality, there is quite a bit of scientific agreement that the
fetus is HUMAN LIFE.
> most "right to life" types are far more concerned with a fetus's right
> to life than they are with the right to life of a born breathing child.
The rest of this absolutely *IS* an unfair broadbrushing that
is totally out of character with a typical Dick Binder posting.
Top it off with the non sequitur about Bosnia and Bangladesh,
and the conclusion of "hypocrites" based on your strawman,
and I'm just surprised that you're not ashamed of posting it.
Maybe you will be tomorrow once the cobwebs clear.
|
| 20.644 | repulsive but logical | USAT05::BENSON | | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:40 | 8 |
|
.641 - benders,
finally, your mechanism proving evolution - our voluntary destruction
of our "defective" children so subsequent genetically good children
might be conceived.
jeff
|
| 20.645 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:43 | 6 |
| Dick,
How come when a pregnant woman gets shot the accused stands trial for
1st degree murder (mom) and involuntary manslaughter (fetus) ?
|
| 20.646 | | NETRIX::thomas | The Code Warrior | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:43 | 10 |
| For what it's worth:
Abortion became illegal in most of US with the rise of the medical establishment
in the mid to late 1800's. Before then it was a widely accepted and legal
practice.
It's interesting in that you could consider the abortion debate to be today's
equivalent of the abolishment of slavery. (Think Harper's Ferry and other
bloody "terrorist" actions by the more violent anti-slavery fanatics).
|
| 20.647 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:47 | 5 |
|
Hiler's Germany had stringent laws against abortion. it also wasn't a
pro-choice state regarding others' rights as well.
meg
|
| 20.648 | Binder has a point. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:55 | 19 |
|
What Binder says has merit in the ecological sense - it is certainly
true that animals and plants which under certain circumstances
kill off or even eat their young are easy to find, and that they
adopt this strategy almost always because in their particular niche,
the strategy confers genetic benefit. There is no morality in nature.
The hyena rips the guts out of its living prey and laughs. If the
winter comes early, the bird abandons its eggs because this is the best
plan of a bad lot, in terms of survival of its line. The bird may also
sacrifice itself to save its young, because only reproductive success
counts.
I've expressed my own views on the current abortion controversy
before, so no need to repeat those. But those who attempt to derive
models for their own behavior by watching animals seem to me misguided,
and those who use scientific words like "parasite" ought to be strict
about it or they lose credibility. A fetus is NOT a parasite.
bb
|
| 20.649 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 18:58 | 19 |
| .642
> I fail to see how you can justify such a Paradox in your mind.
jack, you keep thinking i subscribe to positions like the "abort for
the good of the species" one. where did i say that i do? i do not,
any more than i favor abortion at all. i said, in what i thought was a
clear way, "it has been argued that..."
> Are million of lives really
> worth the right to privacy???
which is worth more in your mind, the life of a four-year-old child or
the life of a first-trimester fetus? i can answer that one for you:
neither. which is why my money goes to feed starving children - i
can't save the world; i can't give to every cause, either monetarily or
of my time - so i've made a choice. i am saving the lives of far more
muman beings than is anyone who chooses to work against abortion and
devotes to that cause the same time and money that i devote to mine.
|
| 20.650 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:01 | 7 |
| .643
> non sequitur
see .649. human life is human life, joe. you pick your battles, i
pick mine. obtw, yes, i do, when asked, counsel against abortion. i
just don't wave it as a flag so i can feel good about myself.
|
| 20.651 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:05 | 9 |
| .644
> mechanism proving evolution
lovely bit of casuistry there, jeff, but its lead-balloon quotient is
very high.
we prevent the natural mechanisms for winnowing of our genes. as i
said, it's been argued that this is a bad thing.
|
| 20.652 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:05 | 3 |
| .645
nobody ever said laws are consistent or logical.
|
| 20.653 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:22 | 24 |
| .650
> human life is human life, joe.
Super! So why is a pre-born human any less-deserving than
a 4-year-old?
> you pick your battles, i pick mine.
Fine. So while you and others like you choose to deride the
defense of the pre-born, it seems that SOMEBODY has to come
to their support. I'll fill that niche.
And it's rather presumptuous of you to assume that someone
who supports pro-life arguments here gives their money or
time directly to those causes, just as it is presumptuous
to assume that their time/talent/treasure support of pro-life
causes means such support excludes support of other causes.
> obtw, yes, i do, when asked, counsel against abortion. i
> just don't wave it as a flag so i can feel good about myself.
No, maybe you don't. It appears that you save that self-worth
flag waving for your Sally Struthers kids instead.
|
| 20.654 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:31 | 10 |
| .653
> presumptuous
which is why i qualified heavily after andy pointed out the
unaccustomed breadth of the brush i picked up today.
> sally struthers
is she boinkable?
|
| 20.655 | | MPGS::MARKEY | I most definitely think I might | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:38 | 7 |
| >is she boinkable?
Most definitely no. When she was on All In The Family, she might have
qualified for a WMR on an off day, but now she's a bovine hucksteress
of the most annoying qualities...
-b
|
| 20.656 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:39 | 4 |
| > now she's a bovine hucksteress
and here i've missed seeing her go to seed. wonderful what you miss
when your teevee spends most of its time switched to channel 1.
|
| 20.657 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:45 | 2 |
| She had an ad in the coupon section of the Sunday paper selling
her correspondence school college degrees.
|
| 20.658 | she's a menace to society, like the drug user | USAT05::BENSON | | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:46 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.659 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:46 | 3 |
| Dick, I don't watch TV atall, and I know know she's a bovine huckstress.
I see her selling correspondence courses in brain surgery in the Sunday paper.
She weighs more than Archy now.
|
| 20.660 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 09 1995 19:51 | 1 |
| correspondence courses in brain surgery does sound like a know know.
|
| 20.661 | Appalled | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Jan 09 1995 20:16 | 42 |
| set/scarcasm=high:
RE: Jack & John principally:
Well, I'm not interested in convincing any of you who
consider yourselves pro-life to become pro-choice. I have
no time to waste on a losing battle, which, by the way,
is what trying to convice me to be pro-life would be.
However, I do notice a lot of you who are pro-life, are
also anti-welfare, anti-birth control, and anti-work and
training programs for dependent mothers with children.
I also see a lot of blame falling on the woman's shoulder's,
which, unless there have been some massive advances in
fertizilation I've missed, seems a bit unfair. If these
"unborn children" are so darned important to you, why don't
you want to take care of them after they're brought into
the world? Are you really so hypocritical that you want
the mother (only the mother it appears, the father doesn't
seem to need to be anywhere NEAR as responsible for some
strange reason) to be responsible for her choices, and then,
after she has accepted she has to raise this child, you take
away any help she may be able to get to make a better life
for herself and her child? I'm sorry, I don't find that
a particularly "Christ-like" notion. It would appear you
are a bit heavy on the punishment and more than a little
light on the forgiveness.
I imagine that works well, provided you always end up on
the right side of the stick. I thought I remembered something
about self-righteousness, but, aw heck, must have been a
different Bible.....
set scarcasm/normal:
I am continually amazed that there are pro-life people who
truely believe they are saving people, when in fact all they
are doing is devaluing all life in the process.
Mary-Michael
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.662 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 09 1995 20:27 | 23 |
| re .661
You're barking up the wrong tree, kiddo, if you're addressing me.
You know full well if you've been reading SOAPBOX or WOMANNOTES for any
amount of time that I have supported private charities which provide
housing and training for mothers with unexpected pregnancies, and that
my support has included not only dollars donated but work on site.
Remember the work day at "Friends of the Unborn" which I organized.
Funny, not one single reader of either of these two conferences was
willing to come and help us paint this facility which helps to give
women the choice for life.
There have been detailed articles in the last few editions of the Boston
Globe on some of the work that Catholic Charities in Boston has been
doing on improving adoption chances for minority children and other
ways of providing the choice for life.
Cardinal Law has invited pro-choice activists to join with him in this
important work.
/john
|
| 20.663 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 09 1995 20:29 | 9 |
| Oh, and my Pro-Life group is meeting a week from Wednesday to plan its
next community project to help mothers.
Can I count on your support? You could help us buy supplies, rather
than blathering that we do nothing.
Thank you very much.
/john
|
| 20.664 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of WarmMoistRogering | Mon Jan 09 1995 20:48 | 3 |
|
I don't remember a work day at "Friends of the Unborn". When and where
was it posted? I woulda gone.
|
| 20.665 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Jan 09 1995 21:01 | 4 |
|
will it happen???
|
| 20.666 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Jan 09 1995 21:01 | 4 |
|
aborted snarf!!!
|
| 20.667 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Mon Jan 09 1995 21:01 | 7 |
| <<< Note 20.666 by BIGQ::SILVA "Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box!" >>>
aborted snarf!!!
|
| 20.668 | | TORREY::SKELLY_JO | | Mon Jan 09 1995 23:09 | 15 |
| RE:20.609 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
>I stand with you on the rape/incest/life threat
>issue and that's it. I fight for a womans right to abortion in these
>cases. But sorry, I don't believe in societal passiveness or
>acceptance to end the life of another if they don't have any say over
>it.
I don't understand your position. If the fetus is fully human, then what
difference does the cause (rape/incest) of conception matter? If you would
allow it to be terminated for such reasons, then it would seem you admit it
has no inherent human rights. What then causes it to acquire such rights
when the conception doesn't involve one of these conditions?
John
|
| 20.669 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Jan 10 1995 02:26 | 48 |
| re: .662
Thanks, but I don't tend to support pro-life activities.
Organizations like Catholic Charities can help, but many have
already stated they are not in a position to provide for the
flood of individuals who would be in need of assistance once
federally funded programs are discontinued. This really amounts
to kicking the box out from under a woman after she has had
the child. I don't believe this is fair, and I haven't seen
anyone yet address this adequately. It is selfish to believe
that no one should ever require a helping hand simply because
you yourself (speaking hypothetically, not personally) have
never been in a position to need one.
I also do not believe that this is totally an issue of
the unborn. Women having "choice" implies that women are
intelligent enough to weigh the options and come to the
best decision, in many cases without the input of the male
involved, for whatever reason. Some people aren't yet
willing to accept the fact that women believe they should
have this kind of autonomy and that they can handle it
very well, thank you. So, you may see them rally around
the "pro-life" movement, but it is not the child they
are really worried about. They are more concerned about
the fact that women have control of their live and their bodies,
and are in a position finanically and emotionally to make
their own life choices. It is partly a control issue, and
the pro-life platform provides many options to allow them to
exercise control over women.
I would also like to point out, while the Hilter analogies are
flying fast and furious in here, that Hilter forced women to bear
children against their will to bolster the "Aryan Race."
Is that what we are coming to? Is this the "choice"
you advocate?
Mary-Michael
PS: I do not "blather". I do, however, get upset occasionlly
when I am repeatedly referred to as a "thug" and a "Nazi"
by people who have no idea of what my life is like, and
haven't walked one step in my shoes, never mind one mile.
MMS
|
| 20.670 | Could he have matured some over the holidays? | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jan 10 1995 02:46 | 4 |
| re: .666 & .667, Glen
I saw it, Glen. Wonder if it'll look the same in the morning.
|
| 20.671 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Jan 10 1995 09:06 | 3 |
| Re; .628 stuff it blunder...
Chip
|
| 20.672 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Jan 10 1995 09:10 | 9 |
| Re; .630 Jack, you can stretch and twist that posture for every
known position or situation on the planet since recorded time.
I really didn't feel like I was "dragging" religion into it.
It simply is one of the mainstream elements involved in the
question so it simply can't be ignored out of convenience for
one's argument.
Chip
|
| 20.673 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Pentium: Intel's Blew-Chip Special | Tue Jan 10 1995 09:48 | 5 |
| Personally I feel that anti-choice folx are just looking for
socially-sanctioned ways to express their alienation from society.
This happens to be one where they can make noise & feel righteous,
while raising hell & making trouble. Simple really.
|
| 20.674 | | CSOA1::LEECH | annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum | Tue Jan 10 1995 12:10 | 7 |
| re: .669
Yeah, but Hitler also legalized and promoted abortion for the other
races, did he not?
-steve
|
| 20.675 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 10 1995 12:16 | 17 |
| >
> Thanks, but I don't tend to support pro-life activities.
>
Now wait a minute. You don't support women in crisis? You don't
support education for young women who are in unexpected pregnancies
so that they can take care of their children?
Pro-life people do. Don't ever again claim that they don't.
You think supporting women in crisis is just a "pro-life" activity and
not the responsibility of everyone who wants women to have a choice?
What would you rather they do? Abort the child? I see. You're not
"pro-choice" -- you are pro-abortion, pro-death, pro-destruction.
/john
|
| 20.676 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Jan 10 1995 12:19 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.673 by LJSRV2::KALIKOW "Pentium: Intel's Blew-Chip Special" >>>
| Personally I feel that anti-choice folx
Dr Dan.... it's Pro-Life folx. What are ya tryin to do, start a war in
here???? :-)
|
| 20.677 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 10 1995 12:21 | 65 |
| >>Re: Note 20.661
>>SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." 42 lines 9-JAN-1995 17:16
Mary, I can understand your dusgust with my POV but I really think your making
some hasty generalizations here. By the way Mr. Kalikow, that was the most
humerous entry I've seen from you!!
>> However, I do notice a lot of you who are pro-life, are
>> also anti-welfare, anti-birth control, and anti-work and
>> training programs for dependent mothers with children.
This is important as it is a pet peave of mine. I am deeply against the
current welfare SYSTEM because, as we now see, a thirty year experiment that
fosters dependence and totally devalues human life. Mary Michael, as Milton
Freedman once said, if government gets involved in a social cause, you can
count on it getting worse. As far as birth control, I am a very strong
advocate of birth control. What I am against is the gospel according to
Jocelyn teaching our children the value of masturbating et al. I have other
plans on teaching my children. She is taking MY choice away. As far as the
other, I am definitely for this provided it is done in a realistic and
productive way. Mary Michael, you will find most of my anamosity is toward
the governments incompetence, not unwed teenagers! I find this argument on
your behalf to be based on emotion.
>> I also see a lot of blame falling on the woman's shoulder's,
>> which, unless there have been some massive advances in
>> fertizilation I've missed, seems a bit unfair. If these
>> "unborn children" are so darned important to you, why don't
>> you want to take care of them after they're brought into
>> the world?
Good question. You have proven my point by your statement above that the
devaluation of a person is rampant here. I agree with you on the blame issue.
But remember, NOW and other groups have excluded men from the choice issue and
hence the onus is now on the woman. This is the result of poor communication
brought forth by feminism. I think there needs to be a change of mindset.
>> after she has accepted she has to raise this child, you take
>> away any help she may be able to get to make a better life
>> for herself and her child? I'm sorry, I don't find that
>> a particularly "Christ-like" notion. It would appear you
>> are a bit heavy on the punishment and more than a little
>> light on the forgiveness.
Ahhh, religious manipulation and patronization. As I have said Mary Michael,
many times in fact, I believe the local church (the sum of all religious
institutions) have relinquished alot of the responsibility to uncle Sam. I
find this to be un Christlike indeed. However, I AM NOT heavy on the
punishment at all...not even pointing a finger. Keeping a child is a scary
and adult decision for a young girl to make! I just have problems with
government incompetence that's all. This is why I find people like Ted
Kennedy evil.
>> I am continually amazed that there are pro-life people who
>> truely believe they are saving people, when in fact all they
>> are doing is devaluing all life in the process.
Aw, you know better than this. Mary Michael, you have been sold a bill of
goods. Ted Kennedy et al see you as a bunch of pathetic lost sheep. But be
that as it may, I am truly amazed that after 30 years of a failed social
experiment you still haven't grasped the notion that government isn't the
answer. Go into downtown Boston some night and look at some of the street
people...welcome to life devalued a la LBJ and company!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.678 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 10 1995 12:36 | 28 |
| > I don't understand your position. If the fetus is fully human, then
> what difference does the cause (rape/incest) of conception matter? If
> you would allow it to be terminated for such reasons, then it would seem you
> admit it has no inherent human rights. What then causes it to acquire such
> rights when the conception doesn't involve one of these conditions?
John, this is one of the few paradoxes I deal with. I guess I too
succumb to situational ethics at times. However, I have never denied
this belief. My pro life stance has always been in the context of
birth control.
I see groups like PP taking advantage of the poor and the ignorant.
From some of the personal testimony in here, I would say they have done
some very good things and are quite capable of doing the same. This
is what I get annoyed at though...when a group like Planned Parenthood
exploits t ignorant and the misinformed. I don't believe groups like
this tell the whole story...this ties in with the next paragraph...
Mary Michael, I can appreciate your honesty but I was really shocked to
see your reply to John. You proved to me that you are NOT really pro
choice...otherwise, you wouldn't have been so close minded to women in
crisis, John's ministry. I perceive the brainwashing by Planned
Parenthood, NOW, and other neo feminist organizations carry as much
weight as the "brainwashing" the church does!!
-Jack
|
| 20.679 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Jan 10 1995 13:18 | 28 |
| re: .677
Jack, if you went to the railyard in the 1930s you would
have seen the products of failed capitalism - the hobos.
I believe a famous person once said, "the poor you will
always have with you." Homeless people are a strawman in
this debate, since in a capitalist society there is a strata
in which there will always be people at the bottom and people
at the top.
In saying I do not tend to support pro-life activities, I mean
activities specifically sponsored by pro-life organizations. I
do support women having all choices available, including the choice
to keep her child and raise it herself, or to have the child put
up for adoption. I do not advocate abortion as a form of birth
control, and to be perfectly honest, would not counsel anyone
to go into such a procedure lightly without understand the
lifetime of psychological scarring that can occur. In being
selective in the options available, I do not believe pro-life
supports all choices, and I do not believe the pro-life movement
suports women since they do not allow them the dignity of
making their choices from all options available.
I wrote more, however, it got eaten by the network. Will
try again later.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.680 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Jan 10 1995 13:24 | 25 |
| jack,
have you ever been around a pp clinic, (other than "sidewalk
counseling" or screaming at people through bullhorns about their
ancestory, habits and probably destination?)
Prevention of unplanned pregnancies is a big part of their agenda, as
are other "minor" reproductive health issues, like cancer screening,
STD testing, treatment, and prevention, and in some cases, prenatal
care through the first trimester while women are attempting to get
through the waiting lists at obstetrician or midwives' offices.
Abortion is really a small part of what PP does. They also refer to
local adoption agencies, help women with the paperwork for WIC and AFDC
if needed, and also refer people to the DA's local Child support
Enforcement Unit. They also refer to the local Women's Resource Agency
for displaced homemakers, the Domestic violence Prevention Center, and
serve as a bulletin board for other women's suport groups in town.
The "crisis" pregnancy center in town, does ONLY pregnancy testing,
anti-abortion counseling, and referrals to life support, or adoption
agencies, and information on AFDC and WIC.
Tell me which has more interest in life, and born, breathing women.
meg
|
| 20.681 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Tue Jan 10 1995 15:15 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.679 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
| I wrote more, however, it got eaten by the network. Will try again later.
Mary-Michael, if you were kicked out by THIS network, just go into any
notesfile, to any note and type rep/last. Of course if it was your own network,
then yer screwed.... unless you do a recover, which I find leaves a lot of
garbage in there.....
|
| 20.682 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 10 1995 16:35 | 10 |
| > In saying I do not tend to support pro-life activities, I mean
> activities specifically sponsored by pro-life organizations.
I just wonder how my entry would have been received had I said,
"In saying I do not tend to support women's activities, I mean
activities specifically sponsored by women's organizations."
That's about as discriminatory a statement as can be made,
regardless of the type of organization shunned.
|
| 20.683 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Tue Jan 10 1995 16:42 | 14 |
|
>> "In saying I do not tend to support women's activities, I mean
>> activities specifically sponsored by women's organizations."
>> That's about as discriminatory a statement as can be made,
>> regardless of the type of organization shunned.
how 'bout this?:
"In saying I do not tend to support neo-nazi activities, I mean
activities specifically sponsored by neo-nazi organizations."
discriminatory? you betcha. so what?
|
| 20.684 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 10 1995 16:43 | 29 |
| .680
> Prevention of unplanned pregnancies is a big part of their agenda, as
> are other "minor" reproductive health issues, like cancer screening,
> STD testing, treatment, and prevention, and in some cases, prenatal
> care through the first trimester while women are attempting to get
> through the waiting lists at obstetrician or midwives' offices.
> Abortion is really a small part of what PP does.
You know, I've been curious about this. It has been said in
this topic and elsewhere that "Abortion is really a small part
of what PP does."
Is it? How can I know this? I am as hesitant to rely on the
say-so of a pro-choice source as you would be of my disagreement
with the statement.
Recently PP has been airing radio ads about their services. They
start off with two women talking, one thinks she is pregnant. The
other woman recommends that she visit planned parenthood. "It's
your CHOICE." (Emphasis not mine.) The ad then goes on to list
what they do -- including birth control counseling, medical
services, etc. They never mention the word abortion. (To me
it's like an Amway salesman not telling you he's selling Amway...)
I'm really curious as to what portion of their business is really
things other than abortion-related services, and would really
appreciate some specific numbers showing the breakdown of all
their services.
|
| 20.685 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Jan 10 1995 16:51 | 1 |
| a larger part of PP's activities is now simply surviving.
|
| 20.686 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 10 1995 16:54 | 21 |
| re .683
Not the same at all. .679's reply left open the indication
that she would support pro-life activities not sponsored by
pro-life organizations. She said that in response to reaction
to her statement that she doesn't support pro-life activities
in general. If that were true, that would support .675's
contention that she would therefore be pro-death. So she
tempered the statement by saying that the pro-life activities
she supports would be those not sponsored by pro-life groups
in particular. *THAT* is what is discriminatory.
Using "neo-nazi activities" is a weak example at best, because
most people would not support evil activities whether they
were sponsored by evil groups or not. Specifically I would
not support a pro-abortion activity at all, regardless of the
sponsor.
To me there is a big difference between saying, "I will not
support something. Period." and, "I will not support
something if (general group of people) sponsors it."
|
| 20.687 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Tue Jan 10 1995 17:07 | 12 |
|
okay, joe, i see what you're saying now. it was this:
>> That's about as discriminatory a statement as can be made,
>> regardless of the type of organization shunned.
that made me think, so what? it may be discriminatory, but
that doesn't mean it's not legitimately so. discriminating,
in and of itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
but i agree that my example wasn't analogous. sorry.
|
| 20.688 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Jan 10 1995 17:28 | 16 |
| re: .686
I'm not real sure what you're getting at here. I don't tend
to support pro-life organizations, because I do not feel they
value the mother's life (physically and emotionally) more than
the fetus she is carrying. I wouldn't give them time or money
because of this. If there was a pro-choice organization sponsoring
clinics which offered counselling on all options available to
pregnant women including abortion, I would support them with my time
and money. I honestly don't see anything more discriminatory in
that than the freedom to invest my time and money where I feel
it would do the most good.
What's yer point?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.689 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Jan 10 1995 18:10 | 34 |
| Joe,
If abortions made up the largest portion of PP's business, don't you
think the procedures would be done more than one day/week, and at every
clinic in a given vicinity? At least in Colorado Springs, only one
clinic in town does abortion procedures, and only one day/week. There
are three PP clinics in town, and only one of the three clinics offers
abortions.
At this point PP is the only place I have found in town that fits caps,
works with clients on a sliding scale according to income, does
menopausal care, as well as cancer screening, treatment and referrals
for those who are not insured. PP was my gyn for many yers until I
worked for a company with insurance, and no I was never pressured into
any decision I made. Lolita, Carrie and Atlehi were all confirmed
pregnancies through PP. At no time did anyone suggest that I should
abort, they did list abortion as a possible option, as well as
carrying to term and parenting them or adoption. Over the span of over
19 years between all the kids, the message has been consistant to me,
that it is MY choice, that these are the options, and what the impact
of those choices can be.
They offered prenantal care through the first trimester because of the
issues around getting into an OB as a new patient in this town, as well
as referrals to direct-entry midwives.
Now given that from the time I was a starry-eyed teenager to now, a
pretty cynical old witch, and the message has remained the same, I have
to say that it doesn't appear that pursing abortion is heavy on their
agenda. I went from young and unemployed to elderly (for a pregnancy)
and not once did they tell me that carrying to term and raising my kids
was a stupid thing to do.
meg
|
| 20.690 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Jan 10 1995 18:15 | 11 |
| Actually Mary-Michael, I do send used clothes over to life-support, as
I know many who have benifited from their help in times of crisis.
They were very helpful for my neighbor's daughter when she became
pregnant as far as getting through the ins and outs of the
medicaid/medicare (her father had died the month before) issues.
However, the crisis pregnancy center in town will never see a shred of
my clothes, a moment of my time, or any money. they are definitely not
dedicated to anything more than womb to cradle care IMO.
meg
|
| 20.691 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 10 1995 20:12 | 5 |
| >> However, the crisis pregnancy center in town will never see a shred
>> of my clothes, a moment of my time, or any money. they are definitely
>> not dedicated to anything more than womb to cradle care IMO.
You don't have to be hateful about it.
|
| 20.692 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Jan 10 1995 20:30 | 1 |
| You don't have to read hate into it.
|
| 20.693 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 10 1995 20:39 | 10 |
| > that made me think, so what? it may be discriminatory, but
> that doesn't mean it's not legitimately so. discriminating,
> in and of itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
To this I agree 100%
The term "discrimination" has been changed from a positive
action (discriminating buyer; discriminating taste; uses
good discrimination) to one that now must almost always
connote negative actions/motives.
|
| 20.694 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 10 1995 20:48 | 14 |
| .689
> At least in Colorado Springs
Of course you know that PP in Colorado Springs may not be
representative of PP nationwide. In fact I'd rather doubt it.
No, your reply is not what I was looking for at all. Nor would
I be interested in what PP does in, say, Detroit solely.
I wonder how I could go about finding out what service mix
Planned Parenthood does overall... Do you think I could just
call them? Is there a nationwide main office or something like
that?
|
| 20.695 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Jan 10 1995 21:02 | 27 |
| re: .694
Why are you so intent on looking for ways to discredit
Planned Parenthood? For many they provide the only real
affordable reproductive care available.
If you want some information about abortion clinics, try
this first-hand info, for the Pre-Term clinic in Brookline:
1.) Nearly a month from OB/GYN exam to abortion appointment;
2.) Private OB/GYN was the only one who actually stressed the
abortion alternative;
3.) Pre-Term did not stress abortion, in fact, counselled for
nearly an hour and a half to make sure reasons were clear
and understood, and that abortion was not forced. Presented
adoption alternatives and material. Allowed patient about
a half hour "quiet time" afterwards to think things over.
I found them to be very compassionate overall.
Isolated experience? No. I accompanied two
friends to Pre-Term on two different occasions. Same
treatment.
To listen to some of you you'd think they whipped you off to the
OR before you got all the way in the door.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.696 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 10 1995 21:20 | 4 |
| > Why are you so intent on looking for ways to discredit
> Planned Parenthood?
Why do you think I am? See .692.
|
| 20.697 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Tue Jan 10 1995 22:53 | 5 |
| .671
mentulam caco.
ave atque vale.
|
| 20.698 | re .676 Glen -- Yep! Wuz feeling mischeevious...:-) | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Pentium: Intel's Blew-Chip Special | Tue Jan 10 1995 23:52 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.699 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jan 11 1995 13:26 | 11 |
| However, the crisis pregnancy center in town will never see a shred of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
my clothes, a moment of my time, or any money.
^^^^^^^^^^
The "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" protest is in front of the furrier's,
not the crisis pregnancy center.
Speaking of which, I saw a car with a "Love animals, don't eat them"
bumper sticker and a pro-choice bumper sticker. I wonder how the owner
feels about giving animals abortions.
|
| 20.700 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Wed Jan 11 1995 13:56 | 5 |
|
Welll Dr.... I guess it never materialized..... it must have been
aborted....
|
| 20.701 | | USAT05::BENSON | | Wed Jan 11 1995 14:02 | 39 |
|
A story from the Honolulu Advertiser, 2/14/70 illustrating quite well, for me,
the importance of definitions for debating serious and important subjects,
especially social issues. You'll also notice that the arguments
and terms have changed very little, if at all, since 1970.
"Amidst the emotional debate on the abortion issue at the State Legislature,
humor still lives.
Anonymous legislative staffers this week drafted and circulated to legislators
a proposed "general response to constituent letters on abortion." It goes
like this:
'Dear Sir:
You ask me how I stand on abortion. Let me answer forthrightly and without
equivocation.
If by abortion you mean the murdering of defenseless human beings; the denial
of rights to the youngest of our citizens; the promotion of promiscuity among
our shiftless and valueless youth and the rejection of Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness - then, Sir, be assured that I shall never waver in my
opposition, so help me God.
But, Sir, if by abortion you mean the granting of equal rights to all our
citizens regardless of race, color, or sex; the elimination of evil and vile
institutions preying upon desperate and hopeless women; a chance to all our
youth to be wanted and loved; and, above all, the God-given right for all
citizens to act in accordance with the dictates of their own conscience - then,
Sir, let me promise you as a patriot and a humanist that I shall never be
presuaded to forego my pursuit of these most basic human rights.
Thank you for asking my position on this most crucial issue and let me again
assure you of the steadfastness of my stand.
Mahalo and Aloha Nui.'" (Thanks and Much Love)
jeff
|
| 20.702 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box! | Wed Jan 11 1995 14:17 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.701 by USAT05::BENSON >>>
| But, Sir, if by abortion you mean the granting of equal rights to all our
| citizens regardless of race, color, or sex; the elimination of evil and vile
| institutions preying upon desperate and hopeless women; a chance to all our
| youth to be wanted and loved; and, above all, the God-given right for all
| citizens to act in accordance with the dictates of their own conscience - then,
| Sir, let me promise you as a patriot and a humanist that I shall never be
| presuaded to forego my pursuit of these most basic human rights.
Yeah Jeff.... and these same people later on in life will walk away
from those who they saved at birth because they are different because <insert
reason>. Talk about hypocripsy.
|
| 20.703 | so true, glen, so true | USAT05::BENSON | | Wed Jan 11 1995 14:22 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.705 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Thu Jan 12 1995 14:35 | 4 |
| Convenient considering the b*tching I hear about fathers not taking
enough responsibility.
I disagree...it is between the woman, the man, and the physician!
|
| 20.706 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Jan 12 1995 14:38 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.704 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>
| Two well-off white male authority figures in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
| met yesterday to discuss their differences of opinion on what rightly, and
| legally, is a decision which belongs only between a woman and her physican.
Gee... and here I was thinking they were discussing commonalities with
the subject, not if it is right or wrong. I also thought they were discussing
teen pregnancy issues. Considering they are at oppisite ends of the spectrum,
one hardly thinks they spent too much time trying to convince the other of
anything.
|
| 20.707 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of WarmMoistRogering | Thu Jan 12 1995 14:44 | 12 |
| >MKOTS3::JMARTIN
>I disagree...it is between the woman, the man, and the physician!
Are you sure you meant to say that, Meaty? What happened to your
pro-life stance, which includes 'the government' as the fourth party?
FWIW, I could agree with the matter being between the woman, the man,
and the physician, but in the three cases about which I have personal
knowledge, the man did a bunk once the rabbit died. Hard to consult
with someone who's not there.
|
| 20.708 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159 | Thu Jan 12 1995 14:45 | 2 |
| One could make the argument 1.5 million abortions every year affects,
and involves many people -- perhaps even the nation as a whole.
|
| 20.709 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Thu Jan 12 1995 14:52 | 18 |
| Mz. Debra:
I guess I have to eat crow on this one. The man's input is mute if it
is rape or incest. The man's input is meaningless if it is a life
threatening issue. I guess I was referring to the birth control thing
again.
Like any medical procedure, I believe in the government setting safety
standards. You may or may not remember but in 1973, an abortion clinic
was opened in Chicago. The abortionist was a used car salesman and he
destroyed three womens chances of ever having children. He did an
abortion procedure on a woman who wasn't pregnant and she had to be
hospitalized. There was also confirmed reports of a baby screaming.
Please don't put your head in the sand people...this sort of thing
happens...(the baby crying that is)...deal with it...accept it!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.710 | | MAIL1::CRANE | | Thu Jan 12 1995 15:06 | 5 |
| Mr. Martin,
I don`t think the mans input is needed at all. He/me doesn`t have to
carry it for 9 months regardless of rape or incest. Walk down the back
allies in a lot of cities and you hear babies crying, perhaps you can
get used to it but I can`t.
|
| 20.711 | | SELL1::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Thu Jan 12 1995 15:18 | 1 |
| Yeah...so put em out of their misery right???
|
| 20.712 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Nothing wrong $100 wouldn't fix! | Thu Jan 12 1995 15:34 | 6 |
|
>I disagree...it is between the woman, the man, and the physician!
What happens when the woman and the man disagree (man wants child,
woman wants abortion - or - woman wants child, man wants abortion)?
|
| 20.713 | | DTRACY::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu Jan 12 1995 15:37 | 5 |
| Re: .710
No, the father should have input. He doesn't make the decision and he
doesn't have veto power, but he darn tootin' has the right to explain
his position.
|
| 20.714 | Question mark. | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jan 12 1995 15:41 | 5 |
| So do we have any reports on the actual content of the discussion
between the two well-off white male authority figures in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts who met yesterday or did they just reminisce about
their respective days at Hahvahd.
|
| 20.715 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | get on with it, baby | Thu Jan 12 1995 15:55 | 6 |
| >He doesn't make the decision and he doesn't have veto power, but he darn
>tootin' has the right to explain his position.
BFD. He's still on the hook for whatever she decides. Talk about
chattel. His best defense it to protect himself in case she isn't
sufficiently rigorous to prevent pregnancy on her own.
|
| 20.716 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Jan 12 1995 16:12 | 13 |
| i think the news simply stated that each of them were surprised at
the amount of common ground they shared.
weld said that this was a great start and that there might be a
compromise that could be reached if the conversations continue.
at the very least, one objective would be to clearly bring the
Pro Life philosophies into public view to prove that folks like
the fringe are not representative of the Pro Life movement.
frankly, i think weld and the holy man are two of the biggest dreamers
ever if they think a compromise will be reached.
Chip
|
| 20.717 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159 | Thu Jan 12 1995 16:27 | 11 |
|
One might place the blame for this 20-odd year social warfare re
abortion on Harry Blackmun's extraordinarily overreaching 1973
decision, which, in one feel swoop, largely determined US abortion
law.
Wasn't it Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself a liberal, who criticised
Balckmun's decision, arguing that the states were on the verge of
rewriting abortion law anyway?
|
| 20.718 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of WarmMoistRogering | Thu Jan 12 1995 16:34 | 5 |
|
.715
BINGO. I wonder why this is so hard for many men to grasp, so to
speak.
|
| 20.719 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu Jan 12 1995 16:58 | 10 |
| Re: .715
>He's still on the hook for whatever she decides.
He's not "on the hook" if he lobbied for the decision she made.
>His best defense it to protect himself
Precisely. You know how the government uses taxes to discourage
certain behaviors? Same kind of deal.
|
| 20.720 | The child is a party to this as well | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jan 12 1995 17:17 | 11 |
| > Are you sure you meant to say that, Meaty? What happened to your
> pro-life stance, which includes 'the government' as the fourth party?
Why should the government be the fourth party.
I know. Use a computer program which predicts what a child will look
like based on both parents' physical characteristics, feed it into a
computer animated simulation, and let the mother talk to her child and
tell it what she's about to do to it.
/john
|
| 20.721 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Jan 12 1995 17:23 | 4 |
|
It comes down to the definition of when a child is actually that John.
|
| 20.722 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | get on with it, baby | Thu Jan 12 1995 18:03 | 5 |
| >He's not "on the hook" if he lobbied for the decision she made.
How immensely comforting. If she does what he wants, then there's no
problem. It's when she does something else that there's a problem. One
would have thought this was self-evident.
|
| 20.723 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Jan 12 1995 18:16 | 15 |
| Re .720:
> I know. Use a computer program which predicts what a child will look
> like based on both parents' physical characteristics, feed it into a
> computer animated simulation, and let the mother talk to her child and
> tell it what she's about to do to it.
Retry, Abort, Ignore?
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.724 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Jan 12 1995 18:48 | 3 |
| re .721
ANd when whould you say that occurs, Glen?
|
| 20.725 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of WarmMoistRogering | Thu Jan 12 1995 19:35 | 3 |
|
Is it my imagination, or has edp said *two* funny things today?
|
| 20.726 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Thu Jan 12 1995 19:37 | 3 |
|
mz deb 8^)
|
| 20.727 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Jan 12 1995 19:58 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.724 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| ANd when whould you say that occurs, Glen?
It doesn't matter when I would think it would occur. For some it would
be as soon as the egg and sperm meet, for some it would be when the baby can
live outside the womb on it's own. Then legally it's at another level. All I
wuz doin was answering the question John posed. The answer is when someone
believes a baby is a baby. For my own view, it's when the sperm and egg meet.
It doesn't mean everyone will think this way, but that is *my* view.
Glen
|
| 20.728 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Jan 12 1995 20:14 | 8 |
| In other words you've bought into relativism.
Hook line and sinker.
The true definition of life is not subject to the whims of
individual interpretation. Now I may be wrong, and someone
else may be wrong, but somebody IS right, making all the
rest wrong.
|
| 20.729 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | | Thu Jan 12 1995 20:15 | 1 |
| Most of us have relatives.
|
| 20.730 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Jan 12 1995 20:20 | 20 |
| | <<< Note 20.728 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| In other words you've bought into relativism. Hook line and sinker.
Ahhhhh.... is my belief any different than yours Joe for when life
begins? You see, if our belief is the same on this, and you feel you have not
bought into relativism, then how could I?
It's all obvious, and I'm surprised you couldn't see it. IF I believe
something to be true, then wouldn't that mean that *I* also believe that if
someone comes up and says something different that I believe they are wrong?
The answer I gave is true. I have given my belief ALONG with the beliefs of
others. But 8MY* belief is what you should be addressing, not taking what I
said as my belief, and lumping it in with how OTHERS could feel. If you could
do this, I would be most appreciative.
Glen
|
| 20.731 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | | Thu Jan 12 1995 20:22 | 1 |
| Life begins at 40.
|
| 20.732 | An XTC song from "Wired" | MPGS::MARKEY | Hoist the Jolly Roger! | Thu Jan 12 1995 20:23 | 1 |
| Life begins at the hop.
|
| 20.733 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu Jan 12 1995 20:54 | 6 |
| Re: .722
>One would have thought this was self-evident.
Well, it was to me. But your point of view seemed to be that the guy
is _always_ shafted. He ain't.
|
| 20.734 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Jan 12 1995 21:33 | 46 |
| .730
>| In other words you've bought into relativism. Hook line and sinker.
>
> Ahhhhh.... is my belief any different than yours Joe for when life
>begins? You see, if our belief is the same on this, and you feel you have not
>bought into relativism, then how could I?
Then why are you arguing the point that you are in .727? If
you believe what you are saying in there, then you've bought
into relativism. If you don't believe what you are saying in
.727, you are just blowing hot air again.
> It's all obvious, and I'm surprised you couldn't see it.
With stuff like the following, you shouldn't be surprised that
I can see ANYTHING you say:
> IF I believe
>something to be true, then wouldn't that mean that *I* also believe that if
>someone comes up and says something different that I believe they are wrong?
Please retry. This just doesn't parse to me.
>But 8MY* belief is what you should be addressing,
>... do this, I would be most appreciative.
But in .727 you said:
.727> It doesn't matter when I would think it would occur.
And then you went on to defend relativism.
So what is is? Do you want me to address *YOUR* belief, or do
you say that it doesn't matter?
-----------
When you say:
.727> The answer is when someone
> believes a baby is a baby.
That's pure relativism. Nothing more. Nothing less. Do you
really believe that (for any individual) a baby is a baby when
that individual believes it is?
|
| 20.735 | | TORREY::SKELLY_JO | | Fri Jan 13 1995 00:17 | 19 |
| Re:.727 BIGQ::SILVA
Glen, I don't quite understand your "view". Surely, in a topic such as
this, the question "when is it a baby?" really means, when do you think the
results of conception acquire sufficient status as a human being to be
entitled to a right to life? If you hold the view that it is a human with a
right to life from the moment of conception, then say that you think its
mother may kill it in her womb if she disagrees with you, then I wouldn't
call that moral relativism so much as I'd call it an apparent
contradiction. You seem to be saying that you believe it has a right to
life and believe it doesn't have a right to life simultaneously.
If you think it's a human with a right to life, i.e., a baby, then abortion
may not necessarily be murder in your mind, but at the very least, I'd
think you'd have to treat it as justifiable homicide. Is it your view that
someone's personal opinion that someone else is not human is sufficient to
justify homicide?
John
|
| 20.736 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Jan 13 1995 09:09 | 13 |
| i think Glen is saying that between conception and birth there is
a point (a multitude of them) where any individual can (and does)
consider "a baby - a baby". That point can be all over the place,
but not necessarily incorrect.
i'm assuming that when Glen stated "someone is right" it simply means
that when decision points are reached on an individual level or on a
legislative level, that "someone" is right.
if this is the point, i agree 100% (i knew that's make you feel better
Glen :-)...)
Chip
|
| 20.737 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 13 1995 17:09 | 56 |
| | <<< Note 20.734 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| Then why are you arguing the point that you are in .727?
You amaze me. I gave you MY opinion, I gave what others could think. I
wasn't arguing ANYTHING, just clarifying the opinions of many. Those are
various times people feel life begins. It is just facts Joe, no argument, just
facts.
| If you believe what you are saying in there, then you've bought into
| relativism.
So, if I believe that these people have these opinions I have bought
into relativism? You're a funny guy. Come on Joe, tell the world that you don't
believe people have these opinions. You know you would be wrong. You know they
exist, and that by you admitting that they do will not mean you bought into
relativism, but that they are just opinions of others.
| If you don't believe what you are saying in .727, you are just blowing hot
| air again.
No, what it is is that YOU read more into it than the intent. Reread it
and look for where I give my view on it. Disect that part of the note and then
tell me how different it is from your view. I'd be pretty surprised if my view
of when life begins is any different than yours.
| >But 8MY* belief is what you should be addressing,
| >... do this, I would be most appreciative.
| But in .727 you said:
| .727> It doesn't matter when I would think it would occur.
Ahhhh... now I see. I gave my opinion in .727. You addressed the entire
note as being something I back instead of JUST the part that delt with my
belief. That was why later on I asked you to deal with what I said for my own
view, and not the crap you were spewing.
| And then you went on to defend relativism.
Show me how I defended relativism Joe. I listed reasons others had, and
I gave my opinion. To me that says 2 seperate things. If the other views are
not something I believe, then how am I defending those beliefs? Just because I
listed them? Give me an effin break.
| When you say:
| .727> The answer is when someone
| > believes a baby is a baby.
| That's pure relativism. Nothing more. Nothing less. Do you really believe
| that (for any individual) a baby is a baby when that individual believes it is
Joe, you do bring a smile to my face, that's for sure. Reread this note
for your answer. Look at the key parts of other people's views vs my own. Have
fun now, ya hear?
|
| 20.738 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 13 1995 17:17 | 34 |
| | <<< Note 20.735 by TORREY::SKELLY_JO >>>
| Glen, I don't quite understand your "view". Surely, in a topic such as this,
| the question "when is it a baby?" really means, when do you think the results
| of conception acquire sufficient status as a human being to be entitled to a
| right to life?
It's the same thing I said, just said more technically.... :-)
| If you hold the view that it is a human with a right to life from the moment
| of conception, then say that you think its mother may kill it in her womb if
| she disagrees with you, then I wouldn't call that moral relativism so much as
| I'd call it an apparent contradiction.
And you would be right on both accounts. My view is what *I* believe.
If a mother believes differently, then she does. I can explain my view to her,
but does that mean she will agree with it? That would be up to her. If she
turned out to NOT change her mind, would I still disagree with her? Yup. If the
mother were to abort the baby as a method of birth control, I would think what
she did was wrong. It isn't illegal, but to *me*, it is wrong. My view does not
change, regardless of what the mother does. My view is not a contradiction. Can
you see this?
| Is it your view that someone's personal opinion that someone else is not human
| is sufficient to justify homicide?
Wow.... how you got that from what I said is amazing to say the least.
My view would still be the same. It did not change. I would feel the actions
were wrong if it were done for birth control purposes.
Glen
|
| 20.739 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 13 1995 17:20 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.736 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>
Chip, you're right, it did make my day. You are absolutely correct!
Many will feel life begins at many different levels. My belief is that it
begins when the egg & sperm unite. Others will disagree. It does not mean that
I am buying into relativism because I can realize that others will disagree. I
would be buying into contradiction if I said their views, along with mine, were
correct. But I don't view it that way.
Glen
|
| 20.740 | | URQUEL::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 13 1995 17:21 | 1 |
| You're hopeless, Glen.
|
| 20.741 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Hoist the Jolly Roger! | Fri Jan 13 1995 17:28 | 13 |
| I'm really sorry to interrupt this debate surrounding the hopelessness
of Glen with a question... but, well I'm going to anyway.
It is my understanding that in many surgical procedures for women
(particularly when abdominal surgery is involved) that an "abortion"
is a routine part of the surgery... in most instances, this would
probably be removal of an unfertilized egg, but it may not be in
some cases. Has there been any attempt on the part of the pro-
life movement to discourage this surgical practice?
(I'm _not_ baiting. I'm just asking.)
-b
|
| 20.742 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 13 1995 17:49 | 5 |
|
-b, until Oracle makes it's move, you'll never be able to interupt Joe
screaming I am hopeless....
|
| 20.743 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 13 1995 17:52 | 5 |
| re markey
The pro-life movement objects to abortions of convenience.
/john
|
| 20.744 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Hoist the Jolly Roger! | Fri Jan 13 1995 17:57 | 9 |
| John,
Does that mean that the pro-life movement does not object to
abortions that are part of surgery, or that are performed for
reasons that are not deemed "convenience"?
(Again, I'm not baiting... I'm asking a serious question.)
-b
|
| 20.745 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 13 1995 19:17 | 16 |
| > Does that mean that the pro-life movement does not object to
> abortions that are part of surgery,
All abortions are surgery. Maybe you should be more explicit.
>or that are performed for reasons that are not deemed "convenience"?
If the woman's life is in real danger if she continues the pregnancy, the
pro-life movement does not object to termination of the pregnancy. There
may be a small number of fanatics, but obviously if both will die without
an abortion there is nothing wrong with the abortion; if the child would
be most likely to live and the mother would probably die, the mother has
the choice (as on a life raft which would sink under the weight of both
herself and her child) of sacrificing herself for her child, or not.
/john
|
| 20.746 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Hoist the Jolly Roger! | Fri Jan 13 1995 19:23 | 11 |
| John,
Thank you for the response, but it hasn't answered my question
yet. Is there any objection to abortions which are performed
as part of fairly routine surgery... abortions that, I
might add, the patient may not even be aware were part of the
procedure. Many operations for non-life threatening problems
related to the female reproductive system are routinely
accompanied by abortions.
-b
|
| 20.747 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Jan 13 1995 19:26 | 7 |
| Or more precisely, are accompanied by D&Cs. Since it happens to abort
unknown pregnancies, is this therefore an unholy surgical technique?
In other words, just how far into opposing the practise of physicians
doing surgeries other than abortions are the so-called prolifers planning
to intrude? Or so goes the question Brian is trying to ask.
DougO
|
| 20.748 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Hoist the Jolly Roger! | Fri Jan 13 1995 19:35 | 5 |
| Well, yes, Doug is correct insofar as the nature of my question. I'm
not trying to make my own statement by asking the question though.
I'm just asking it.
-b
|
| 20.749 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jan 13 1995 19:42 | 13 |
| > an abortion there is nothing wrong with the abortion; if the child would
> be most likely to live and the mother would probably die, the mother has
> the choice (as on a life raft which would sink under the weight of both
> herself and her child) of sacrificing herself for her child, or not.
Years ago before I left the RC Church, the Church's position was that if
only one of the two could be saved, the mother was required to sacrifice
herself for the child (this would have been in the 50's). In fact, if the
mother was not conscious or otherwise able to make the decision, any attending
responsible party aware of her Catholocism was supposed to recommend this path.
Has this changed?
|
| 20.750 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 13 1995 19:50 | 9 |
| Well, from an aspect of sin, you can only sin if you are
aware of it. If the procedure unknowingly results in
abortion, how can an issue be made of that?
Can a trained surgeon tell that he's aborting a 1-week-
old fetus in such a circumstance? If so, and if he is
concerned about (for instance) the Church's stance on
abortion, he would stop the procedure if possible and
reschedule it after the pregnancy is done.
|
| 20.751 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 13 1995 20:31 | 6 |
| re .749
I believe this is an extremist position which was never the teaching
of the Church. I doubt that you can document that it was.
/john
|
| 20.752 | perspective | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 13 1995 20:58 | 4 |
| What does it matter how the Church stands on this one point?
Does it change the fact that most abortions are performed as
a matter of birth control?
|
| 20.753 | | TORREY::SKELLY_JO | | Fri Jan 13 1995 21:07 | 14 |
| RE: Note 20.738 by BIGQ::SILVA
I'm sorry, Glen. Somehow I got the impression you were arguing in favor of
choice. I thought you were starting with the belief that the fertilized egg
was a human being with a right to life and ending up in the prochoice camp.
I didn't see how you got there. Not to imply that one can't get there, just
that the path, if there is one, isn't obvious to me. If that is your belief
and the camp you're in, I still don't understand how you got there, but it
seems more likely to me after your reply that I actually misidentified the
camp you were in. I guess the crux of the matter is: when you say "That
would be up to her", do you mean "It's a fact. Legally it's up to her." or
do you mean "It ought to be up to her."?
John
|
| 20.754 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Jan 16 1995 02:50 | 8 |
| re: .751 and .749
Actually I remember being taught that in Catholic
school in the sixties, I don't believe it was an
extremist position, although I'm not sure it is
documented anywhere.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.755 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 12:55 | 24 |
| | <<< Note 20.745 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| If the woman's life is in real danger if she continues the pregnancy, the
| pro-life movement does not object to termination of the pregnancy.
John, John, John..... very nicely worded. I think the key part to all
this is "real danger". Could you explain what constitutes a "real danger"? Who
gets to decide if the danger is bad enough???
| but obviously if both will die without an abortion there is nothing wrong with
| the abortion;
I agree with this.
| if the child would be most likely to live and the mother would probably die,
| the mother has the choice
I think here is where we may differ. Probably die is a little vaigue.
If there is ANY risk to the mother, then I believe she has the choice. Is that
different than your view John?
Glen
|
| 20.756 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 12:59 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.752 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| What does it matter how the Church stands on this one point?
Joe, a lot of people follow the church's teachings. If a church said a
mother should sacrafice her life for the child to be born, people could follow
it. So the churches position is very important in all this. But I think it may
have to do with the individual church, and not the Church as a whole. Each
church, even within it's own denomination, seems to have at least subtle
differences, if not major ones.
Glen
|
| 20.757 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 13:07 | 27 |
| | <<< Note 20.753 by TORREY::SKELLY_JO >>>
| I guess the crux of the matter is: when you say "That would be up to her", do
| you mean "It's a fact. Legally it's up to her." or do you mean "It ought to be
| up to her."?
In the case of rape, it ought to be to the woman period. If she feels
that she can't handle this baby for 9 months growing inside her, then she
should be able to abort the child. The mental anguish, the mental strain, the
emotional trauma of the rape are all real things that have to be delt with. If
she feels she can handle it all, then she will have made that decision herself.
I think more harm could be done to the mother/child if she were forced to have
it when she wasn't able to handle the strain.
In the case of a mothers life is in danger, it is up to her to make
that choice. I've heard people say, "What mother wouldn't give up her life for
her child?" Of course, THEY answer the question, without ever asking the
mother. If a mother loses her life, what happens to the rest of the family?
Does a mother really want to give up her life for a baby she has not seen? Some
may, some may not. But the decision has to be hers.
Does this help clear up the, "That would be up to her" stuff?
Glen
|
| 20.758 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 16 1995 15:50 | 28 |
| .755
> I think here is where we may differ. Probably die is a little vaigue.
>If there is ANY risk to the mother, then I believe she has the choice. Is that
>different than your view John?
I won't speak for John, but it is certainly different from mine.
First of all, "die" isn't vague at all.
I reject the notion that ANY (emphasis yours) risk is sufficient
to allow abortion (or choice thereof.) It has already been
stated in this topic that 7 out of 100,000 pregnancies carried
to term result in death of the mother, and 4 out of 100,000
pregnancies terminated by abortion result in death to the
mother. That constitutes a risk which must be included under
ANY risk, and therefore extends abortion choice to any pregnancy.
More concrete, I would consider any pregnancy that must be
delivered by c-section to constitute a risk to the mother.
I would consider twins/triplets/etc. to constitute a greater
risk.
Some would consider the financial drain of another child to
constitute a risk to the mother. Some would argue that mental
stress of another child to constitute a risk.
Be careful with the term "any risk".
|
| 20.759 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 16 1995 15:54 | 12 |
| .756
>| What does it matter how the Church stands on this one point?
>
> Joe, a lot of people follow the church's teachings.
You missed the entire point of the whole entry. You left off
the second sentence, which was the reason why I posted that
note in the first place.
And you are the one always crying when people don't repost
your entire notes when replying to them!
|
| 20.760 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 16 1995 15:56 | 9 |
| .757
> Does this help clear up the, "That would be up to her" stuff?
No, Glen, it doesn't. You chose two very extreme and relatively
infrequent incidents in the abortion business.
Now tell us about the most general case where the abortion is being
done as a matter of birth control.
|
| 20.761 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 16 1995 16:29 | 839 |
| ----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Answering The Arguments For Abortion Rights," Part One: The
Appeal to Pity, (an article from the Christian Research Journal,
Fall 1990, page 20) by Francis J. Beckwith.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
-------------
*Abortion has become the most divisive political and social issue
in late twentieth century America.*
When the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Missouri was
within its constitutional rights to enact abortion restrictions
(_Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,_ 1989), it moved the
debate from the realm of the federal judiciary into the lap of
the legislative process. It is now possible for other states to
enact similar and even more restrictive legislation. This, of
course, makes a candidate's stance on abortion rights much more
important in the electoral process, since his or her view on
abortion can now make a practical difference in terms of what
laws will be enacted if he or she is elected. And, since our
judiciary has become more conservative, it is apparent that the
abortion rights movement has the most to lose if the issue
returns to the courts. Thus the arguments for abortion rights are
being put forth in the political arena with greater vigor and
hotter rhetoric than ever before.
It is also apparent that pro-life spokespersons and political
candidates have, for the most part, responded inadequately. They
have either toned down their pro-life position, caved in to the
opposition, or permitted the pro-choice movement to control the
terminology and framework of the debate.[1]
It is my hope that this four-part series will help to reverse
this trend by providing a rigorous intellectual defense of the
pro-life position -- helpful to policy makers, political
consultants, pro-life leadership, and ordinary Americans.
In this first article, after briefly explaining what it means
to be pro-life and discussing why abortion on demand is legal in
America, I will present and critique those arguments best
classified as appeals to pity. The second article will deal with
more appeals to pity, appeals to tolerance, and arguments from
_ad hominem_ ("attacking the person"). In articles three and four
I will present the pro-life case for the full humanness of the
unborn from the moment of conception. Article four will conclude
with answers to some common questions about the pro-life
position.
Of course, not every defender of abortion rights holds to all
or any of the arguments that will appear in this four-part
series. Some of the more sophisticated defenders of abortion
rights eschew much of the popular rhetoric and defend their
position on other grounds. But since most people will come into
contact with these arguments in both the popular media and
pro-choice literature, it is necessary that they be carefully
analyzed.
*_WHAT IS PRO-LIFE?_*
The pro-life position is subject to somewhat varying
formulations. The most widely accepted and representative of
these can be defined in the following way: The unborn entity is
fully human from the moment of conception. Abortion (narrowly
defined) results in the intentional death of the unborn entity.
Therefore, abortion entails the intentional killing of a human
being. This killing is in most cases unjustified, since the
unborn human being has a full right to life. If, however, there
is a high probability that a woman's pregnancy will result in her
death (as in the case of a tubal pregnancy, for example), then
abortion is justified. For it is a greater good that one human
should live (the mother) rather than two die (the mother and her
child). Or, to put it another way, in such cases the intent is
not to kill the unborn (though that is an unfortunate effect) but
to save the life of the mother. With the exception of such cases,
abortion is an act in which an innocent human being is
intentionally killed; therefore, abortion should be made illegal,
as are all other such acts of killing. This is the pro-life
position I will be defending in this series.
Some people claim to be both pro-life and pro-choice. This is
a ploy taken by politicians, such as Nevada Senator Richard Bryan
and New York Governor Mario Cuomo, who appear absolutely
petrified to take a stand on the abortion issue. They usually
say, "I'm personally against abortion, but I don't object to a
woman who wants to have one if she believes it is the right thing
to do."
The problem with this statement is that it doesn't tell us
the reason _why_ the politician claims to be personally against
abortion. Since most people who are against abortion are so
because they believe that the unborn are fully human and have all
the rights that go along with such a status, we would expect that
if the politician were personally against abortion it would be
for the same reason. But this would make the politician's
personal opposition and public permission of abortion somewhat
perplexing, since the assumed reason why he would be personally
against abortion is the same reason why he _should_ be against
publicly permitting it, namely, that an entity which is fully
human has a right to life.
After all, what would we think of the depth of an
individual's convictions if he claimed that he was personally
against the genocide of a particular ethnic group (e.g., the
Jews), but he added that if others thought this race was not
human, they were certainly welcome to participate in the genocide
if they so chose? What I'm getting at is simply that the nature
of some "personal" opinions warrants public actions, even if
these opinions turn out to be wrong, while other opinions (e.g.,
one's personal preference for German chocolate cake) do not.
Thus, it makes little moral sense to claim that one is both
pro-life and pro-choice.
*_WHY ABORTION ON DEMAND IS LEGAL IN AMERICA_*
It is important that the reader understand the current legal
status of abortion in America. There seems to be a widespread
perception that the Supreme Court decision _Roe v. Wade_ (1973)
only permits abortions up to 24 weeks, and after that time only
to save the life of the mother. This false perception -- fueled
in large part by groups supporting abortion rights -- is
uncritically accepted by the media. The fact is that the current
law does not restrict a woman from getting an abortion for
practically any reason she deems fit during the entire nine
months of pregnancy. In order to understand why this is the case,
a brief history lesson is in order.
In _Roe,_ Justice Harry Blackmun divided pregnancy into three
trimesters. He ruled that aside from normal procedural guidelines
(e.g., an abortion must be safely performed by a licensed
physician), a state has no right to restrict abortion in the
first six months of pregnancy. Thus a woman could have an
abortion during the first two trimesters for any reason she
deemed fit, whether it be an unplanned pregnancy, gender
selection, convenience, or rape. In the last trimester the state
has a _right,_ although not an _obligation,_ to restrict
abortions to only those cases in which the mother's health is
jeopardized. In sum, _Roe v. Wade_ does not prevent a state from
allowing unrestricted abortion for the entire nine months of
pregnancy if it so chooses.
Like many other states, the state of Nevada has chosen to
restrict abortion in the last trimester by only permitting
abortions if "there is a substantial risk that the continuance of
the pregnancy would endanger the life of the patient or would
gravely impair the physical or mental health of the patient."[2]
But this restriction is a restriction in name only. For the
Supreme Court so broadly defined "health" in _Roe's_ companion
decision, _Doe v. Bolton_ (1973), that for all intents and
purposes the current law in every state except Missouri and
Pennsylvania (where the restrictions allowed by _Webster_ have
been enacted into law) allows for abortion on demand.
In _Bolton_ the court ruled that "health" must be taken in
its broadest possible medical context, and must be defined "in
light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological,
familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well being of
the patient. All these factors relate to health."[3] Since all
pregnancies have consequences for a woman's emotional and family
situation, the court's health provision has the practical effect
of legalizing abortion up until the time of birth -- if a woman
can convince her physician that she needs the abortion to
preserve her "emotional health." This is why the Senate Judiciary
Committee, after much critical evaluation of the current law in
light of the court's opinions, concluded that "no significant
legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United
States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during
any stage of her pregnancy."[4] A number of legal scholars have
come to the same conclusion, offering comments and observations
such as the following:
In actual effect, _Roe v. Wade_ judicially created
abortion on demand in the United States.[5]
The concept of "health," as defined by the Supreme
Court in _Doe v. Bolton,_ includes all medical,
psychological, social, familial, and economic factors
which might potentially inspire a decision to procure
an abortion. As such, "health" abortion is
indistinguishable from elective abortion. Thus, until a
more narrow definition of "health" is obtained, it may
not be possible to limit effectively the number of
abortions performed.[6]
After viability the mother's life or _health_
(which presumably is to be defined very broadly indeed,
so as to include what many might regard as the mother's
convenience...) must, as a matter of constitutional
law, take precedence over...the fetus's life...[7]
(emphasis in original).
It is safe to say, therefore, that in the first six months of
pregnancy a woman can have an abortion for no reason, but in the
last three months she can have it for any reason. This is
abortion on demand.
Those who defend abortion rights do not deny this disturbing
fact but often dismiss it by claiming that only one percent of
all abortions are done in the last trimester. There are several
problems with this statistical dismissal. First, the fact that
third-trimester abortions are permitted for nearly any reason and
that unborn children are left unprotected is significant in
itself regardless of whether a small percentage of total
abortions has taken place during this time. Second, since there
are about 1.5 million abortions per year in the U.S., it follows
that 15,000 (or one percent) of them are done in the third
trimester. This means that 1,250 of them are performed every
month (about 40 a day). This is no insignificant number.
*_ARGUMENTS THAT APPEAL TO PITY_*
When one fallaciously argues by appealing to pity, one is
arguing that certain actions should be permitted or tolerated out
of pity for those performing them (or those on whose behalf they
are done), when in fact the basis for showing them pity is not a
legitimate basis for the action. For example, a woman who argues
that she should not receive a parking ticket because her child
was crying and she took her child to a candy store to cheer her
up is fallaciously appealing to pity.[8] The following abortion
rights arguments are textbook examples of such appeals to pity.
*_Argument from the Dangers of Illegal Abortions_*
Anyone who keeps up with the many pro-choice demonstrations
in the United States cannot help but see on pro-choice placards
and buttons a drawing of the infamous coat hanger. This symbol of
the pro-choice movement represents the many women who were harmed
or killed because they either performed illegal abortions on
themselves (i.e., the surgery was performed with a "coat hanger")
or went to unscrupulous physicians (or "back-alley butchers").
Hence, as the argument goes, if abortion is made illegal, then
women will once again be harmed. Needless to say, this argument
serves a powerful rhetorical purpose. Although the thought of
finding a deceased young woman with a bloody coat hanger dangling
between her legs is -- to say the least -- unpleasant, powerful
and emotionally charged rhetoric does not a good argument make.
The chief reason this argument fails is because it commits
the fallacy of _begging the question._ In fact, as we shall see,
this fallacy seems to lurk behind a good percentage of the
popular arguments for the pro-choice position. One begs the
question when one assumes what one is trying to prove. Another
way of putting it is to say that the arguer is _reasoning in a
circle._ For example, if one _concludes_ that the Boston Celtics
are the best team because no team is as good, one is not giving
any reasons for this belief other than the conclusion one is
trying to prove, since to claim that a team is the _best team_ is
exactly the same as saying that _no team is as good._
The question-begging nature of the coat-hanger argument is
not difficult to discern: only by assuming that the unborn are
not fully human does the argument work. If the unborn are not
fully human, then the pro-choice advocate has a legitimate
concern, just as one would have in overturning a law forbidding
appendicitis operations if countless people were needlessly dying
of both appendicitis and illegal operations. But if the unborn
_are_ fully human, this pro-choice argument is tantamount to
saying that because people die or are harmed while killing other
people, the state should make it safe for them to do so.
Even some pro-choice advocates, who argue for their position
in other ways, admit that the coat hanger/back-alley argument is
fallacious. For example, pro-choice philosopher Mary Anne Warren
clearly recognizes that her position on abortion cannot rest on
this argument without it first being demonstrated that the unborn
entity is not fully human. She writes that "the fact that
restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not,
in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since
murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting
it..."[9]
Although it is doubtful whether statistics can establish a
particular moral position, it should be pointed out that there
has been considerable debate over both the actual number of
illegal abortions and the number of women who died as a result of
them prior to legalization.[10] Prior to Roe, pro-choicers were
fond of saying that nearly a _million_ women every year obtained
illegal abortions performed with rusty coat hangers in
back-alleys that resulted in _thousands_ of fatalities. Given the
gravity of the issue at hand, it would go beyond the duty of
kindness to call such claims an exaggeration, because several
well-attested facts establish that the pro-choice movement was
simply lying.
First, Dr. Bernard Nathanson -- who was one of the original
leaders of the American pro-abortion movement and co-founder of
N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights Action League), and who has
since become pro-life -- admits that he and others in the
abortion rights movement intentionally fabricated the number of
women who allegedly died as a result of illegal abortions.
How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was
illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the
drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics,
but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to
10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the
figures were totally false, and I suppose the others
did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the
"morality" of the revolution, it was a useful figure,
widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it
with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to
get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason
which had to be done was permissible.[11]
Second, Dr. Nathanson's observation is borne out in the best
official statistical studies available. According to the U.S.
Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died
from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before _Roe v.
Wade._[12] Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics
and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital, pointed out
that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths
since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved
medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133
by 1968.[13] The year before the first state-legalized abortion,
1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths.[14]
This is not to minimize the undeniable fact that such deaths
were significant losses to the families and loved ones of those
who died. But one must be willing to admit the equally undeniable
fact that if the unborn are fully human, these abortion-related
maternal deaths pale in comparison to the 1.5 million preborn
humans who die (on the average) every year. And even if we grant
that there were more abortion-related deaths than the low number
confirmed, there is no doubt that the 5,000 to 10,000 deaths
cited by the abortion rights movement is a gross
exaggeration.[15]
Third, it is simply false to claim that there were nearly a
million illegal abortions per year prior to legalization. There
is no reliable statistical support for this claim.[16] In
addition, a highly sophisticated recent study has concluded that
"a reasonable estimate for the actual number of criminal
abortions per year in the prelegalization era [prior to 1967]
would be from a low of 39,000 (1950) to a high of 210,000 (1961)
and a mean of 98,000 per year.[17]
Fourth, it is misleading to say that _pre-Roe_ illegal
abortions were performed by "back-alley butchers" with rusty coat
hangers. While president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Mary
Calderone pointed out in a 1960 _American Journal of Health_
article that Dr. Kinsey showed in 1958 that 84% to 87% of all
illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good
standing. Dr. Calderone herself concluded that "90% of all
illegal abortions are presently done by physicians."[18] It seems
that the vast majority of the alleged "back-alley butchers"
eventually became the "reproductive health providers" of our
present day.
*_Argument from Economic Inequity_*
Pro-choice advocates often argue that prior to abortion being
legalized, pregnant women who did not go to unscrupulous
physicians or "back-alley butchers" traveled to foreign nations
where abortions were legal. This was an option open only to rich
women who could afford such an expense. Hence, _Roe v. Wade_ has
made the current situation fairer for poor women. Therefore, if
abortion is prohibited it will not prevent rich women from having
safe and legal abortions elsewhere.[19]
This argument is fallacious: it _assumes_ that legal abortion
is a _moral good_ which poor women will be denied if abortion is
made illegal. But since the morality of abortion is the point
under question, the pro-choice proponent assumes what he or she
is trying to prove and therefore begs the question.
One can think of a number of examples to better understand
this point. To cite one, we would consider it outrageous if
someone argued that the hiring of hit men to kill one's enemies
should be legalized, since -- after all -- the poor do not have
easy economic access to such "professionals."
In the abortion debate the question of whether abortion
entails the death of a being who is fully human must be answered
_before_ the question of fairness is even asked. That is to say,
since equal opportunity to eliminate an innocent human being is
rarely if ever a moral good, the question of whether it is fair
that certain rich people will have privileged access to abortion
if it becomes illegal must be answered _after_ we answer the
question of whether abortion in fact is _not_ the killing of an
innocent human life. For it is not true that the vices of the
wealthy are virtues simply because the poor are denied them.
*_Argument from Population, Poverty, and Financial Burden_*
Some pro-choice advocates make much of both the use of
abortion as a means of population control and the financial and
emotional burden a child may put on a family. It is argued that
in such situations abortion is justified. Along the same lines, a
number of pro-choice advocates argue that if abortion is
forbidden, then the poor will keep producing more children to
draw more welfare. Hence, in addition to pity, there is an
economic incentive invoked in this appeal.
Beyond pointing out that the so-called "population explosion"
is an economic and not a people problem,[20] there are several
fundamental moral problems with this argument. First, it does not
really support the pro-choice position that abortion is a
fundamental right the pregnant woman can exercise for any reason
she deems fit during the entire nine months of pregnancy (_see
above_). If this argument is successful it only establishes the
right to an abortion in the cases of overpopulation, poverty, and
financial burden, and _not_ "for any reason the pregnant woman
deems fit."
Second, like the other arguments we have examined, this one
also begs the question. That is, only if the pro-choice advocate
assumes that the unborn poor are not fully human does his or her
policy carry any weight. For if the unborn poor are fully human,
the pro-choice advocate's plan to eliminate overpopulation and
poverty by permitting the extermination of the unborn poor is
inconsistent with his or her own ethic of personal rights. Thus,
the question of aborting the unborn poor, like the points brought
up earlier, hinges on the status of the unborn.
Furthermore, if the unborn are fully human, then this is also
a good argument for infanticide and the killing of all humans we
find to be financially burdensome or emotionally taxing.
Therefore, only by assuming that the unborn are not fully human
does the pro-choice advocate avoid such horrendous implications.
Thus, in order for this argument to work, the pro-choice advocate
must beg the question.
This is not to say that the human race may not reach a time
in its history at which overpopulation becomes a problem so
severe that it must significantly curtail its birthrate. At such
a time it would be wise to try to persuade people either to
willingly use contraceptive devices or to practice sexual
discipline. If such a tactic does not work, then forced
sterilization may be a viable -- albeit desperate -- option,
since it does not entail the death of the unborn. In any event,
if the unborn are fully human, abortion is not a solution to
population problems even in the most dire of circumstances.
Hence, the real question is whether or not the unborn are fully
human.
Underlying this type of pro-choice argument is a fundamental
confusion between the concept of "finding a solution" and the
concept of "eliminating a problem." For example, one can
eliminate the problem of poverty by executing all poor people,
but this would not really solve the problem, since it would
directly conflict with a basic moral truth that human beings
should not be gratuitously exterminated for the sake of easing
economic tension. This "solution" would undermine the very moral
sentiments that ground our compassion for poor people -- namely,
that they are humans of great worth and should be treated with
dignity regardless of their predicament. Similarly, one can
eliminate the problem of having a headache by cutting off one's
head, but this is certainly not a real solution. Therefore, the
argument of the pro-choice advocate is superfluous unless he or
she can first show that the unborn are not fully human and hence
do not deserve to be the recipients of our basic moral
sentiments. Baylor University philosopher and bioethicist Baruch
Brody comments:
In an age where we doubt the justice of capital
punishment even for very dangerous criminals, killing a
fetus who has not done any harm, to avoid a future
problem it may pose, seems totally unjust. There are
indeed many social problems that could be erased simply
by destroying those persons who constitute or cause
them, but that is a solution repugnant to the values of
society itself. In short, then, if the fetus is a human
being, the appeal to its being unwanted justifies no
abortions.[21]
This is not to minimize the fact that there are tragic
circumstances with which our society is all too familiar, such as
the poor woman with four small children who has become _pregnant
by her alcoholic husband._ But once again we must ask whether or
not the unborn entity is fully human, for hardship does not
justify homicide. In such cases, those in the religious and
charitable communities should help lend financial and emotional
support to the family. And it may be wise -- if it is a case of
extreme hardship -- for the woman to put her baby up for
adoption, so that she may give to others the gift of parenthood.
*_Argument from the Deformed and Mongoloid Child_*
Since it is now possible to detect through amniocentesis and
other tests whether the unborn entity will turn out to be
physically or mentally handicapped,[22] some pro-choice advocates
argue that abortion should remain a choice for women who do not
want to take care of such a child. Another reason cited for
advocating the aborting of the defective unborn is that it is
better for such children never to be born rather than to live a
life burdened with a serious mental or physical handicap. There
are several problems with this argument.
First, this argument, like many of the appeals to "hard
cases," does not _really_ support the pro-choice position -- the
position that abortion is a fundamental right the pregnant woman
can exercise for any reason she deems fit during the entire nine
months of pregnancy (_see above_). In other words, if this
argument is successful in showing that abortion is justified in
the case of a woman pregnant with a deformed or Mongoloid fetus,
it only establishes the right to an abortion in such cases, _not_
"for any reason the pregnant woman deems fit."
Second, like many of the pro-choice arguments, this argument
begs the question by assuming that the unborn entity is not fully
human. For if the unborn are fully human, then to promote the
aborting of the handicapped unborn is no different morally than
promoting the execution of handicapped people who are already
born. But such a practice is morally reprehensible. Are not
adults with deformities human? Then so too are smaller people who
have the same deformities. In fact, pro-choice advocates Peter
Singer and Helga Kuhse, who argue for their position in other
ways, admit that "pro-life groups are right about one thing: the
location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make such
a crucial moral difference...The solution, however, is not to
accept the pro-life view that the fetus is a human being with the
same moral status as yours or mine. The solution is the very
opposite: to abandon the idea that all human life is of equal
worth."[23] Although I do not agree with this conclusion, and
will argue against it in this series, Singer and Kuhse make an
important observation: the question is not whether a handicapped
individual is born or unborn, but whether handicapped human life
should be protected equally with healthy human life.
Third, it is amazingly presumptuous for mere human beings to
say that certain other human beings are better off not existing.
Those who make such judgments concerning the handicapped seem to
assume that handicapped persons cannot live meaningful and even
happy lives. However, this assumption is false. Former Surgeon
General C. Everett Koop, who worked for years with severely
deformed infants as a pediatric surgeon at Philadelphia's
Children's Hospital, commented that "it has been my constant
experience that disability and unhappiness do not necessarily go
together."[24] He continues:
Some of the most unhappy children whom I have known
have all of their physical and mental faculties, and on
the other hand some of the happiest youngsters have
borne burdens which I myself would find very difficult
to bear. Our obligation in such circumstances is to
find alternatives for the problems our patients face. I
don't consider death an acceptable alternative. With
our technology and creativity, we are merely at the
beginning of what we can do educationally and in the
field of leisure activities for such youngsters. And
who knows what happiness is for another person?[25]
This is not to deny that there are tragedies in life and that
having a handicapped child is often a difficult burden to
undertake. But I think it is important to realize that if the
unborn entity is fully human, homicide cannot be justified simply
because it relieves one of a terrible burden. Though it may be
hard to accept, I believe the following principle is fundamental
to correct moral reasoning: _it is better to suffer evil rather
than to inflict it._[26] If this moral precept were not true, all
so-called moral dilemmas would be easily soluble by simply
appealing to one's own relief from suffering. But in such a world
the antidote would be worse than the poison, for people would
then have a right to inflict suffering on another if it relieved
them of their own. This would be morally intolerable.
Moreover, it should not be forgotten that a handicapped child
can give both society and the family into which it has been born
an opportunity to exercise true compassion, love, charity, and
kindness. It is an assault upon our common humanity to deny our
capacity to attain virtue in the presence of suffering.
Fourth, for obvious reasons many handicapped people are
vehemently opposed to this argument. In fact, there is not a
single organization of handicapped people that is on record in
favor of abortion of those who may be handicapped. Surgeon
General Koop cites the following letter, which appeared in the
_London Daily Telegraph_ (8 Dec. 1962) at a time when European
newspapers were seriously discussing the use of abortion as an
effective means by which to avoid the birth of children who
became defective _in utero_ due to their mother's use of
Thalidomide (a tranquilizer used by European women in the 1950s
and 1960s but never approved by the FDA for sale in the U.S.):
Trowbridge
Kent
Dec. 8, 1962
Sirs:
We were disabled from causes other than
Thalidomide, the first of us two having useless arms
and hands; the second, two useless legs; and the third,
the use of neither arms nor legs.
We were fortunate...in having been allowed to live
and we want to say with strong conviction how thankful
we are that none took it upon themselves to destroy us
as useless cripples.
Here at the Debarue school of spastics, one of the
schools of the National Spastic Society, we have found
worthwhile and happy lives and we face our future with
confidence. Despite our disability, life still has much
to offer and we are more than anxious, if only
metaphorically, to reach out toward the future.
This, we hope will give comfort and hope to the
parents of the Thalidomide babies, and at the same time
serve to condemn those who would contemplate the
destruction of even a limbless baby.
Yours faithfully,
Elaine Duckett,
Glynn Verdon,
Caryl Hodges.[27]
Fifth, if there were a negative correlation between
happiness and handicap, it would seem natural to find more
suicides among the handicapped than the general public. But the
opposite is the case. Professor Krason points out that "no
study...has found that handicapped persons are more likely than
non-handicapped persons to want to be killed or to commit
suicide." Citing a study of the late Dr. Hellegers, Krason writes
that "of 200 consecutive suicides at the Baltimore Morgue...none
had been committed by people with congenital anomalies."[28]
A society whose ethic asserts that certain preborn human
beings forfeit their right to life simply because they have a
certain physical deformity or mental handicap is a society that
will inevitably see those who have already been born with the
same features as having lives "not worth living."
The chilling logic of this conclusion was played out in a
real-life situation in 1982. That year, Infant Doe, an Indiana
newborn who was born with Down's syndrome and correctable spina
bifida, was permitted to die at the request of her parents who
asked the attending physician to withhold food and water from the
infant. This parental decision was upheld by an Indiana court.
Since her spina bifida was correctable by surgery, if Infant Doe
had not been "retarded," there is no doubt that the parents would
have requested the necessary surgery. So it was not the spina
bifida that killed Infant Doe, but parents who neglected her
simply because she had Down's syndrome. While commenting on this
case, columnist George Will writes about his own son, Jonathan, a
Down's syndrome citizen:
When a commentator has a direct personal interest in an
issue, it behooves him to say so. Some of my best
friends are Down's syndrome citizens. (Citizens are
what Down's syndrome children are if they avoid being
homicide victims in hospitals.)
Jonathan Will, 10, fourth-grader and Orioles fan
(and the best Wiffle-ball hitter in southern Maryland),
has Down's syndrome. He does not "suffer from" (as
newspapers are wont to say) Down's syndrome. He suffers
from nothing, except anxiety about the Orioles' lousy
start. He is doing nicely, thank you. But he is bound
to have quite enough problems dealing with society --
receiving rights, let alone empathy. He can do without
people like Infant Doe's parents, and courts like
Indiana's asserting by their actions the principle that
people like him are less than fully human. On the
evidence, Down's syndrome citizens have little to learn
about being human from people responsible for the death
of Infant Doe.[29]
Finally, abortion is sometimes justified by pro-choicers by
appealing to certain extreme cases in which the entities in the
womb are so genetically abnormal as to be arguably nonhuman.
For example, the tertatoma is simply a tumor with some human
genetic material that has gone awry. Sometimes it may contain
hair, teeth, skin, or even fingers, but it is not an unborn human
entity and does not have the inherent capacity to develop under
any conditions into a human infant. The tertatoma is part of the
woman's bodily tissue and is not a separate human individual.[30]
More difficult is the case of the anencephalic baby.
According to the _American Medical Association Encyclopedia of
Medicine,_ anencephaly is the "absence at birth of the brain,
cranial vault (top of the skull), and spinal cord. Most affected
infants are stillborn or survive only a few hours." Anencephaly
occurs "due to a failure in development of the neural tube, the
nerve tissue in the embryo that eventually develops into the
spinal cord and brain." A woman can know early in pregnancy that
she is carrying an anencephalic baby "by measurement of
_alphafetoprotein,_ by _ultrasound scanning,_ and by
_amnio-centesis_..."[31]
We may or may not be dealing with human beings in the case of
anencephalic babies. Citing the work of Professor Germain Grisez,
Krason argues that "there are two ways we may view the
'anencephalic monster,' depending on when the abnormality
originates." One way, "when the abnormality or the genetic
certainty of it is present from conception, is to view the
organism as human in its conception, but incapable of developing
beyond a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks." He argues "that
in such cases, especially if the specifically human genetic
pattern is greatly transformed, we may not consider the conceptus
a human individual."[32]
Relying on Grisez, Krason writes that when the abnormality
develops some time after conception we could view the
anencephelic as we would an individual who has had his head blown
off by a shotgun. "Such a person is human and remains such until
he dies." Since "the anencephalic originated as a human and
developed normally up to the point when the neural tube failed to
close...he thus can be viewed as a human being, albeit a damaged
one, whose abnormality will cause his death shortly after birth,
like the gunshot-wounded person will die a short while after his
wound."[33] A damaged human is not a _non_human.
It should be remembered, however, that the anencephalic is a
"hard case," and cannot be used to justify the vast majority of
abortions that involve the killing of _healthy_ unborns for any
reason the pregnant woman deems fit. Furthermore, the argument
from the apparent nonhumanness of the anencephalic implicitly
admits what is the main contention of the pro-life position,
namely, that unborn human beings should not be killed.
---------------------------------------------------------------
*Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D.,* is a Lecturer of Philosophy at the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He has written extensively on
ethics, abortion, and public policy, including _A Matter of Life
and Death: Questions and Answers about Abortion and Euthanasia,_
a forthcoming book co-authored with Norman L. Geisler.
---------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTES*
1 See Fred Barnes, "Republicans Miscarry Abortion," _The
American Spectator_ 23 (January 1990):14-15.
2 _Nevada Revised Statute,_ 442.250, subsection 3.
3 _Doe v. Bolton_ 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).
4 Report, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on Senate
Resolution 3, 98th Congress, 98-149, 7 June 1983, 6.
5 John Warwick Montgomery, "The Rights of Unborn Children,"
_Simon Greenleaf Law Review_ 5 (1985-86):40.
6 Victor G. Rosenblum and Thomas J. Marzen, "Strategies for
Reversing _Roe v. Wade_ through the Courts," in _Abortion and
the Constitution: Reversing Roe v. Wade through the Courts,_
ed. Dennis Horan, Edward R. Grant, and Paige C. Cunningham
(Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1987),
199-200.
7 John Hart Ely, "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A comment on _Roe v.
Wade," Yale Law Journal_ 82 (1973):921.
8 John Nolt and Dennis Rohatyn, _Schaum's Outline of Theory and
Problems of Logic_ (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1988),
172.
in _The Problem of Abortion,_ 2nd ed., ed. Joel Feinberg
(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984), 103.
10 _See_ Daniel Callahan, _Abortion: Law, Choice, and Morality_
(New York: Macmillan, 1970), 132-36; and Stephen Krason,
_Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution_ (Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, 1984), 301-10.
11 Bernard Nathanson, M.D., _Aborting America_ (New York:
Doubleday, 1979), 193.
12 From the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics Center for Disease
Control, as cited in Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Wilke, _Abortion:
Questions and Answers,_ rev. ed. (Cincinnati: Hayes
Publishing, 1988), 101-2.
13 From Dr. Hellegers's testimony before the U.S. Senate
Judiciary Committee on Constitutional Amendments, April 25, 1
1974; cited in John Jefferson Davis, _Abortion and the
Christian_ (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1984), 75.
14 From the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics Center for Disease
Control, as cited in Wilke, 101-2.
15 _See_ Davis, 75.
16 _See_ note 10; Callahan, 132-36; Krason, 301-10.
17 Barbara J. Syska, Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D., and Dennis O'Hare,
"An Objective Model for Estimating Criminal Abortions and Its
Implications for Public Policy," in _New Perspectives on Human
Abortion,_ ed. Thomas Hilgers, M.D., Dennis J. Horan, and
David Mall (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America,
1981), 78.
18 Mary Calderone, "Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem,"
in _American Journal of Health_ 50 (July 1960):949.
19 _See_ Craig Walton, "Socrates Comes to His Senses During
Meeting With Bush," _Las Vegas Review-Journal_ (3 November
1988):11B.
20 _See_ Jaqueline Kasun, "The Population Bomb Threat: A Look at
the Facts," in _The Zero People,_ 33-41. Originally published
in _Intellect_ (June 1977).
21 Baruch Brody, _Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life: A
Philosophical View_ (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1975),
36-37.
22 _See_ "Birth Defects," in _The American Medical Association
Encyclopedia of Medicine,_ 172-73.
23 Peter Singer and Helen Kuhse, "On Letting Handicapped Infants
Die," in _The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral
Philosophy,_ ed. James Rachels (New York: Random House, 1989),
146.
24 Quoted in Nathanson, 235.
25 _Ibid.,_ 235-36.
26 _See_ Peter Kreeft, _The Unaborted Socrates_ (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1982), 140.
27 C. Everett Koop, _The Right to Live: The Right to Die_
(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1976), 51-52.
28 Krason, 295.
29 George Will, "The Killing Will Not Stop," in _The Zero
People,_ 206-7. Originally published in the _Washington Post_
(22 April 1982).
30 _AMA Encyclopedia,_ 971.
31 _Ibid.,_ 104.
32 Krason, 386-87. _See_ Germain Grisez, _Abortion: the Myths,
the Realities, and the Arguments_ (New York: Corpus Books,
1970), 30.
33 Krason, 387. _See_ Grisez, 28-30.
-------------
End of document, CRJ0038A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"Abortion Arguments: Appeal to Pity"
release A, August 24, 1994
R. Poll, CRI
|
| 20.762 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 17:00 | 50 |
| | <<< Note 20.758 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| > I think here is where we may differ. Probably die is a little vaigue.
| >If there is ANY risk to the mother, then I believe she has the choice. Is that
| >different than your view John?
| First of all, "die" isn't vague at all.
You are correct Joe. But John said PROBABLY die. I guess if you would
REALLY read what I write, then you'd see all the words written. But of course
you'll probably come back with a what does it matter, or some other crap
response instead of just admitting you aren't addressing what I was talking
about.
| I reject the notion that ANY (emphasis yours) risk is sufficient to allow
| abortion (or choice thereof.)
Risk of death? We would disagree if your position applied to that. And,
seeing that was the context of what I was talking about, I think we may
actually disagree on this.
| It has already been stated in this topic that 7 out of 100,000 pregnancies
| carrie to term result in death of the mother, and 4 out of 100,000 pregnancies
| terminated by abortion result in death to the mother. That constitutes a risk
| which must be included under ANY risk, and therefore extends abortion choice
| to any pregnancy.
Joe, we are talking about one of those 7 out of 100,000 people. I agree
that the risk of death while having the abortion should be told. But it would
still be the mothers choice to have it. Remember, if she has been told she is
at risk to die if she gives birth, then the .00004% chance that she might die
if she has an abortion would seem pretty low.
| More concrete, I would consider any pregnancy that must be delivered by
| c-section to constitute a risk to the mother. I would consider twins/triplets
| to constitute a greater risk.
Joe, if I did not make myself clear to you, understand this. I am
talking about death to the mother. If there is ANY risk of death, then she
should have that option.
| Some would consider the financial drain of another child to constitute a risk
| to the mother.
Joe, again, is it possible that you can stay in the realm of a
conversation without bring in things that aren't being talked about?
| Be careful with the term "any risk".
Be carefull to not take what is said out of context.
|
| 20.763 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 17:05 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.759 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| > Joe, a lot of people follow the church's teachings.
| You missed the entire point of the whole entry. You left off the second
| sentence, which was the reason why I posted that note in the first place.
Well gee Joe, they sounded like 2 different questions to me. One about
the church, another about the reasons why a woman has an abortion.
| And you are the one always crying when people don't repost your entire notes
| when replying to them!
Had i thought they were related to each other.....
|
| 20.764 | Try to keep up.... | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 17:12 | 25 |
| | <<< Note 20.760 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| > Does this help clear up the, "That would be up to her" stuff?
| No, Glen, it doesn't. You chose two very extreme and relatively infrequent
| incidents in the abortion business.
Haaa haaa ha... you REALLY took the cake and ate it too on this one
Joe. Let's see, I was asked by John about the term it would be up to her meant.
I explain what I meant, you you write what you did above. THEY APPLY TO WHAT
YOU WROTE ABOVE YOU IDIOT! God, you simply amaze the living Hell out of me.
Have a clue for once.
| Now tell us about the most general case where the abortion is being done as a
| matter of birth control.
That is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT subject of what John asked me. He asked me
to address what I said, and I did.
The answer to your question is easy, and it's been mentioned by me in
note .738. It is my view that abortion for means of birth control is wrong.
Glen
|
| 20.765 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 16 1995 18:03 | 40 |
| .762
>me| First of all, "die" isn't vague at all.
>
> You are correct Joe. But John said PROBABLY die. I guess if you would
>REALLY read what I write, then you'd see all the words written.
I see it now. Your syntax just didn't parse right the first
time. Please try to be more clear to avoid such confusions.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
> Joe, we are talking about one of those 7 out of 100,000 people. I agree
>that the risk of death while having the abortion should be told. But it would
>still be the mothers choice to have it.
You missed the point. By the statistics given, it has been
argued (an argument I reject, BTW) that there is less risk to
the mother if she aborts (4 in 100,000) than if she carries
to term (7 in 100,000). By this it was argued that the choice
for abortion should be hers because of the greater risk. That
fits in with your "ANY risk" argument too.
>me| More concrete, I would consider any pregnancy that must be delivered by
>| c-section to constitute a risk to the mother. I would consider twins/triplets
>| to constitute a greater risk.
>
> Joe, if I did not make myself clear to you, understand this. I am
>talking about death to the mother. If there is ANY risk of death, then she
>should have that option.
Sure. There is a greater risk of death TO THE MOTHER in the
surgical procedure of c-section than in a standard vaginal
delivery. There is also a greater risk of death to the mother
in multiple births -- whether c-section or vaginal delivery.
>| Be careful with the term "any risk".
>
> Be carefull to not take what is said out of context.
Most of what I said still holds.
|
| 20.766 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 16 1995 18:16 | 23 |
| .764
> Haaa haaa ha... you REALLY took the cake and ate it too on this one
>Joe. Let's see, I was asked by John about the term it would be up to her meant.
>I explain what I meant, you you write what you did above. THEY APPLY TO WHAT
>YOU WROTE ABOVE YOU IDIOT! God, you simply amaze the living Hell out of me.
>Have a clue for once.
First of all, Glen, you do no one any service (yourself included)
by degrading to name-calling.
It's a new year, Glen. Maybe we can keep this at a more mature
level, OK?
Secondly, this all started way back a .721. There is no focus
solely on "mother-at-risk" cases. You simply went on from there
to say (in effect) that it's up to the individual to determine
when the life of baby really becomes life.
> The answer to your question is easy, and it's been mentioned by me in
>note .738. It is my view that abortion for means of birth control is wrong.
So what were you trying to say in your entries back in the .720's?
|
| 20.767 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Jan 16 1995 18:23 | 11 |
|
RE: .766
> It's a new year, Glen. Maybe we can keep this at a more mature
>level, OK?
Joe,
Shouldn't this belong in the oxymoron topic??
|
| 20.768 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 19:06 | 40 |
| | <<< Note 20.765 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| I see it now. Your syntax just didn't parse right the first time.
Just read the words Joe. Both John and I included the key word
probably.
| > Joe, we are talking about one of those 7 out of 100,000 people. I agree
| >that the risk of death while having the abortion should be told. But it would
| >still be the mothers choice to have it.
| You missed the point. By the statistics given, it has been argued (an argument
| I reject, BTW) that there is less risk to the mother if she aborts (4 in
| 100,000) than if she carries to term (7 in 100,000).
Again, you bring in things that no one is addressing. Things that have
no meaning in the context that is being discussed.
| By this it was argued that the choice for abortion should be hers because of
| the greater risk. That fits in with your "ANY risk" argument too.
Except that the ANY RISK argument is confined to a mothers life is in
danger Joe. That would mean SHE ALREADY HAS BEEN TOLD THAT SHE COULD DIE IF SHE
HAS THE BAY, WHICH MAKES HER ONE OF THE 7 IN 100,000 PEOPLE ALREADY. That is
why your insistance on talking about the other stuff is useless garbage TO THIS
CONVERSATION. In a DIFFERENT conversation your particular view might have some
meaning (depending on the thing being discussed). But right now in this
conversation, it means nothing.
| >| Be careful with the term "any risk".
| >
| > Be carefull to not take what is said out of context.
| Most of what I said still holds.
Wrong again Joe.
Glen
|
| 20.769 | Reading is fundamental... so ya should be good at it | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 19:12 | 40 |
| | <<< Note 20.766 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| First of all, Glen, you do no one any service (yourself included)
| by degrading to name-calling.
P&K with this one Joe?
| It's a new year, Glen. Maybe we can keep this at a more mature level, OK?
It's only taken you 16 days to say it. Your notes have not reflected it
as of yet though.....
| Secondly, this all started way back a .721. There is no focus solely on
| "mother-at-risk" cases.
Again joe, you amaze me. YOU replied to what I said to John. That was
in .738 I believe. So don't give me this .721 crap when you replied to what I
said in a note that stated my viewpoint, ok?
| You simply went on from there to say (in effect) that it's up to the
| individual to determine when the life of baby really becomes life.
Then you should have responded to that note Joe. You'd make sense then.
But ya responded to LATER notes, which explained the viewpoint clearly. But
that's ok, I understand.
| > The answer to your question is easy, and it's been mentioned by me in
| >note .738. It is my view that abortion for means of birth control is wrong.
| So what were you trying to say in your entries back in the .720's?
It was made clearer when John asked questions. I had thought it was
clear from the beginning, and even Chip made mention of what he thought I
meant. (and was correct I might add) So it's been there, you just didn't get
it....
Glen
|
| 20.770 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 16 1995 19:24 | 18 |
| .768
> Again, you bring in things that no one is addressing. Things that have
>no meaning in the context that is being discussed.
If 7 in 100,000 will die from delivery, and you speak of ANY
risk, then 7 in 100,000 is SOME risk, and is included in your
ANY.
> Except that the ANY RISK argument is confined to a mothers life is in
>danger Joe. That would mean SHE ALREADY HAS BEEN TOLD THAT SHE COULD DIE IF SHE
>HAS THE BAY, WHICH MAKES HER ONE OF THE 7 IN 100,000 PEOPLE ALREADY. That is
>why your insistance on talking about the other stuff is useless garbage TO THIS
>CONVERSATION.
The world doesn't care about YOUR conversation. If "any risk"
can of worms is opened, you can bet that it will be exploited,
and far more aggressively than I'm suggesting.
|
| 20.771 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 16 1995 19:33 | 48 |
| .769
>| First of all, Glen, you do no one any service (yourself included)
>| by degrading to name-calling.
>
> P&K with this one Joe?
Maybe. Maybe not. I don't recall a time that I started
a name-calling fest. And you've been pretty obsessed in
the past with putting my entries in P&K, yet you have yet
to do so this year. Maybe that says something. Maybe not.
>| It's a new year, Glen. Maybe we can keep this at a more mature level, OK?
>
> It's only taken you 16 days to say it. Your notes have not reflected it
>as of yet though.....
I disagree. That that doesn't matter.
Let's start today, OK?
>| Secondly, this all started way back a .721. There is no focus solely on
>| "mother-at-risk" cases.
>
> Again joe, you amaze me. YOU replied to what I said to John. That was
>in .738 I believe. So don't give me this .721 crap when you replied to what I
>said in a note that stated my viewpoint, ok?
Are you afraid to re-read .720 and the notes that follow it?
>| You simply went on from there to say (in effect) that it's up to the
>| individual to determine when the life of baby really becomes life.
>
> Then you should have responded to that note Joe.
And I did. In .724. And you "clarified" it with .727 with your
"for some" argument.
>But ya responded to LATER notes, which explained the viewpoint clearly.
You have yet to explain your viewpoint as expressed in .727.
> It was made clearer when John asked questions. I had thought it was
>clear from the beginning,
It is not even clear now. What were you saying in .721, and .727?
Tell me slowly, and use small words so that I can understand.
|
| 20.772 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 19:40 | 25 |
| | <<< Note 20.770 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| If 7 in 100,000 will die from delivery, and you speak of ANY risk, then 7 in
| 100,000 is SOME risk, and is included in your ANY.
Errr.... Joe, one of the 7 in 100,000 IS what we are talking about.
It's the possability of the death rate for birth AND abortion combined as a
reason for an abortion that no one but you are talking about.
| The world doesn't care about YOUR conversation.
This is funny..... my conversation is what was being discussed. Maybe
if you could follow that concept, you could play too.
| If "any risk" can of worms is opened, you can bet that it will be exploited,
| and far more aggressively than I'm suggesting.
You do make a fine stereotypical Christian Joe. Take one line out of
what someone or the Bible says, and twist it around out of context. You're good
at that, but really, it is a waste of time and you look foolish. But some
people do get turned on by stuff like that...
Glen
|
| 20.773 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 19:43 | 25 |
| | <<< Note 20.771 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| Are you afraid to re-read .720 and the notes that follow it?
Maybe if what you responded to was back then, you'd have a point.
You've been following the conversation right along responding to the various
notes. Why is it now you revert back to a note where it wasn't clear to you on
various viewpoints, when you've responded to later notes that clear up the
problems? But keep trying Joe....
| And I did. In .724. And you "clarified" it with .727 with your
| "for some" argument.
And when it was later explained....
| >But ya responded to LATER notes, which explained the viewpoint clearly.
| You have yet to explain your viewpoint as expressed in .727.
You're wrong Joe. It has been done. Please read the later notes....
Glen
|
| 20.774 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 16 1995 19:45 | 7 |
|
Wow Joe, I went back and reread those notes.... you changed direction
again. .727 explains it right then and there joe. It's clear as day. Gee, we
went from origionaly talking about risk to jumping back to when a baby is a
baby. .727 Joe, read it reaaaaalll slow...
|
| 20.776 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 12:57 | 27 |
| | <<< Note 20.775 by IVOSS1::SKELLY_JO >>>
| View A concludes that abortion is homicide. It remains merely homicide if
| committed for the usual reasons: accident, insanity or self-defense (threatens
| life of mother). Everything else is murder.
What's the difference between homicide and murder? (besides that both
are spelt different)
| View B concludes that it's not murder if committed for any of these reasons
| and permits the additional excuse of rape.
Uhhhh.... yeah.... but excuse of rape? The difference between A & B is
simple. A is easy, as any abortion is wrong. B, deals with reality. There are
certain instances that a woman has no control over, rape and her life being in
danger. You need to account for these realities.
| I think that you hold view B,
Yes, that is correct.
Glen
|
| 20.777 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 13:07 | 47 |
| .772
> Errr.... Joe, one of the 7 in 100,000 IS what we are talking about.
>It's the possability of the death rate for birth AND abortion combined as a
>reason for an abortion that no one but you are talking about.
No, Glen. You still don't understand.
When you open the door to ANY RISK, then it has been argued that
more women die giving birth than having an abortion, making
"giving birth" more risky than abortion, and therefore all
births are SOME risk.
Not all of those 7 in 100,000 know they are at risk before
they go into labor, so by that it could be (and has been)
argued that ANY pregnant woman can be part of that 7 in 100,000.
Now addressing the narrow point you insist on focusing on,
there WILL BE women who are identified as having direct risk.
In some cases that risk will be minimal, and in others it
will be clearly life-threatening. I don't pretend to be God
(as much as you might want to portray my posturing to be) so
I can't say where to draw any line. From the strict Catholic
point of view in me I would hope that the woman would rely
on a well-formed conscience to do the right thing. From the
general pro-life point of view in me, these cases are rare
enough to fully allow a broader range of opportunities for
choice here if doing so meant the elimination of abortion
as a means of birth control.
>| The world doesn't care about YOUR conversation.
>
> This is funny..... my conversation is what was being discussed. Maybe
>if you could follow that concept, you could play too.
Actually, no it's not. Your conversation is just a part of several
discussion threads in this topic. You give yourself too much credit
if you think that only "your conversation" is being discussed.
> You do make a fine stereotypical Christian Joe. Take one line out of
>what someone or the Bible says, and twist it around out of context. You're good
>at that, but really, it is a waste of time and you look foolish. But some
>people do get turned on by stuff like that...
It sure didn't take you long to get back to insults.
Bad form, Glen!
|
| 20.778 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 13:11 | 21 |
| .773
>| Are you afraid to re-read .720 and the notes that follow it?
>
> Maybe if what you responded to was back then, you'd have a point.
>You've been following the conversation right along responding to the various
>notes. Why is it now you revert back to a note where it wasn't clear to you on
>various viewpoints, when you've responded to later notes that clear up the
>problems? But keep trying Joe....
I've been trying all along. For instance, .760 was yet another
request for clarification. You have NOT cleared up what you
were saying in .727, at least in a way that I can understand,
so yes, I *WILL* keep trying to get you to clarify what
you were trying to say in .727, for example.
>>| You have yet to explain your viewpoint as expressed in .727.
>
> You're wrong Joe. It has been done. Please read the later notes....
Post a pointer, because I sure missed it.
|
| 20.779 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 13:20 | 18 |
| .774
> Wow Joe, I went back and reread those notes.... you changed direction
>again. .727 explains it right then and there joe. It's clear as day.
It is only clear as day to you.
.727 seems to say that individual belief determines when life
begins, and that your individual belief is that it occurs at
cenception. Is that what you are saying?
>went from origionaly talking about risk to jumping back to when a baby is a
>baby. .727 Joe, read it reaaaaalll slow...
I am still trying to pin down what you were trying to say
because you have not clarified it. No matter how slowly I
read it, it is still not clear. All you have to do is clarify
it for me. What's so hard about that?
|
| 20.780 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 13:34 | 31 |
| | <<< Note 20.777 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| Actually, no it's not. Your conversation is just a part of several discussion
| threads in this topic. You give yourself too much credit if you think that
| only "your conversation" is being discussed.
Let me rephrase that Joe. It's the one you decided to butt in on.
Better?
| > You do make a fine stereotypical Christian Joe. Take one line out of
| >what someone or the Bible says, and twist it around out of context. You're good
| >at that, but really, it is a waste of time and you look foolish. But some
| >people do get turned on by stuff like that...
| It sure didn't take you long to get back to insults.
Truth hurts, huh?
Now, let's get back to the 7 in 100,000 stuff. When you first wrote
that, I was under the assumption that the 7 in 100,000 ONLY applied to those
women who have been told they could die if they have a baby. That was my
mistake. Now, I want you to understand something. The ONLY group I am referring
to when I say ANY RISK is those mothers who have been told they could die if
they give birth. Anything else is your own projection into our discussion. You
have what I mean, and it's made clear as day. Don't try and make any risk into
something that is not intended.
Glen
|
| 20.781 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 13:40 | 21 |
| | <<< Note 20.779 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| .727 seems to say that individual belief determines when life begins,
For that person only. It may or may not equal reality. Everyone
determines what color a leaf is. It doesn't mean they are right/wrong. People
make individual decisions about a whole host of things throughout life. And
because of these decisions, actions are taken in a lot of cases. But it does
not mean that the decisions or actions taken are right/wrong. An example of
this would be those people who hold signs that say, "God hates fags!". They
came to their conclusion, they took action on it. Does it mean they are
right/wrong? Can you see it clearer now Joe?
| and that your individual belief is that it occurs at cenception.
Yes.
Glen
|
| 20.782 | | SELL3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 17 1995 13:55 | 2 |
| Now Glen, no butting in going on here...all's fair in the notes
conference...
|
| 20.783 | DID I REALLY SAY THAT!!!!!!?????? | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 14:01 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.782 by SELL3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Now Glen, no butting in going on here...all's fair in the notes conference...
The cool calm voice of reason... by Jack Martin.... :-)
|
| 20.784 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 15:13 | 55 |
| .780
>Now, I want you to understand something. The ONLY group I am referring
>to when I say ANY RISK is those mothers who have been told they could die if
>they give birth.
Then be careful with what you ask for. That's why I jumped on
your "ANY risk" statement way back there.
>Anything else is your own projection into our discussion.
So? That projection helps you to better assess what you are
really saying. Without having someone challenge what we are
saying, we get sloppy, as happened here.
>| It sure didn't take you long to get back to insults.
>
> Truth hurts, huh?
Only in your "reality", Glen.
Now let's look at that "reality", OK?
.781
>| .727 seems to say that individual belief determines when life begins,
>
> For that person only. It may or may not equal reality. Everyone
>determines what color a leaf is. It doesn't mean they are right/wrong.
Yes it DOES mean that they are right or wrong. Life is life,
and color is color. Neither are subject to the whims of
individuals.
>But it does
>not mean that the decisions or actions taken are right/wrong. An example of
>this would be those people who hold signs that say, "God hates fags!". They
>came to their conclusion, they took action on it. Does it mean they are
>right/wrong? Can you see it clearer now Joe?
Yes, it DOES mean that they are right/wrong. What you are
selling here is relativism, pure and simple. We are back to
you buying the concept hook, line, and sinker.
>| and that your individual belief is that it occurs at cenception.
>
> Yes.
So why not argue the point? Why not stand by your own
convictions? Why, in .727, do you say that your opinion
does not matter? Do you doubt yourself that much that you
must instead embrace a line of reasoning that encourages
results counter to your own beliefs?
|
| 20.785 | | HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS | | Tue Jan 17 1995 15:31 | 47 |
| Glen, you and I are usually on the same side of debates in the 'box. We're
even pretty much on the same side of the abortion debate, I think. And Joe
is usually out to lunch on most issues, IMHO. But I gotta agree with him
here. You can't have it both ways.
If you think a human life in all of its essential dimensions begins with
the fertilization of the egg, then I don't understand how you can condone
abortion, regardless of the law - especially as an avowed Christian. If the
state made a law that permitted parents to kill any child of theirs who did
not meet certain developmental standards by the age of 3, say, would you
accept that? I think not. In fact, just about everyone on either side of
today's abortion issue would be up in arms over such a law. We would be
fighting it a lot more vociferously than the Right-to-Lifers, in fact.
Such a concept is horrific to us. We all agree that life is sacrosanct, and
we all agree that a three year old is a whole, sovereign life. (Which is
one reason that the slippery-slope anti-abortion argument doesn't wash.)
Even if most of us somehow decided that life begins with full language
usage, or something like that, can you imagine actually going along with
it? I can't. In fact, I might even take arms against such a system, if I
have the yeichas. (Which says to me that a vast majority of pro-lifers have
at least a grain of ambiguity in their belief in the humanity of the
fetus.)
I believe in a woman's right to choose for both theological and
secular/legal reasons. I believe that we assume an eternal soul when we
take our first breath. I have I think sound theological basis for this,
but in a rare impulse to brevity, I won't go into that now. In secular
terms, how can a fetus be a complete human if it is not breathing,
perceiving, learning? Other than its genetic underpinnings, how is the
human fetus different from a chimpanzee fetus? Or a dog fetus for that
matter? I can't see how an argument can be made that there is one
ontological continuum from fetus to adulthood. The fetus develops system
to ensure viability at birth. Other systems kick in at birth
(consciousness, reason, senses) to enable a baby develop into successful
(reproducing) adult.
From a purely legalistic standpoint, it is utterly impracticable
to give the rights of citizenship to a fetus. For one thing, in no other
circumstance do we impinge on the most fundamental rights and liberties of
one individual to protect the same in another, which is what we would have
to do to make abortion illegal.
But I can tell you, if I truly believed that we are human *beings* from the
moment of conception, I doubt I would show the restraint Joe does in
attacking the practice of abortion.
Tom
|
| 20.786 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 16:09 | 6 |
| >I doubt I would show the restraint Joe does in
>attacking the practice of abortion.
Restraint? I guess I'd better step it up then!
:^)
|
| 20.788 | No review before providing abortion benefits | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 17 1995 16:55 | 8 |
| Heard on the radio that the Feds are taking some sort of action against Rhode
Island, which requires a panel of three physicians to agree that an abortion
is necessary before a woman may have one at state expense.
The Feds are apparently insisting that RI not require a review by any doctor
other than the abortionist.
/john
|
| 20.789 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 17 1995 17:08 | 1 |
| Does one have to be an M.D. to be an abortionist?
|
| 20.790 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 17:17 | 78 |
| | <<< Note 20.784 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| >Now, I want you to understand something. The ONLY group I am referring
| >to when I say ANY RISK is those mothers who have been told they could die if
| >they give birth.
| Then be careful with what you ask for. That's why I jumped on your "ANY risk"
| statement way back there.
Joe, if you had read the note, you would have seen that I was talking
about mothers who's lives are in danger. And when you brought it up the first
time I restated that fact. I said it every time you brought it up. You just
have a great habit of bringing in stuff that has nothing to do with what is
being talked about, and trying to push it to be added. If you would spend more
of your time just going with what is implied by the author, and not what you
wish to throw in, life in this file would be so much easier for everyone. I've
seen this done with other people as well.
| >Anything else is your own projection into our discussion.
| So? That projection helps you to better assess what you are really saying.
So doesn't reading what is written.
| >| .727 seems to say that individual belief determines when life begins,
| >
| > For that person only. It may or may not equal reality. Everyone
| >determines what color a leaf is. It doesn't mean they are right/wrong.
| Yes it DOES mean that they are right or wrong. Life is life, and color is
| color. Neither are subject to the whims of individuals.
Joe, what are the 1st 4 words of *my* paragraph? Any person can believe
anything. It does not mean they are right. Take our beliefs on one thing for a
minute. I believe that as of this second, if I were to die, I would go to
Heaven. Would you agree with me? One of us would be wrong if you did not agree
with me. But both would believe we were right. Apply the same thing to when a
baby is a baby. Some will believe at conception, some will believe when the
baby is able to live on it's own, and others will believe many other things.
All of us can't be right, but all of us believe we have the correct answer.
| >But it does
| >not mean that the decisions or actions taken are right/wrong. An example of
| >this would be those people who hold signs that say, "God hates fags!". They
| >came to their conclusion, they took action on it. Does it mean they are
| >right/wrong? Can you see it clearer now Joe?
| Yes, it DOES mean that they are right/wrong.
Joe, how does the above example prove they are right or wrong?
| What you are selling here is relativism, pure and simple. We are back to
| you buying the concept hook, line, and sinker.
You definitely need to explain that Joe.
| >| and that your individual belief is that it occurs at cenception.
| >
| > Yes.
| So why not argue the point? Why not stand by your own convictions? Why, in
| .727, do you say that your opinion does not matter?
My opinion does not matter to someone who believes differently. My
opinion matters to those who believe the same. My opinion may be correct, but
it may be wrong. But my opinion is mine.
| Do you doubt yourself that much that you must instead embrace a line of
| reasoning that encourages results counter to your own beliefs?
Keep twisting Joe. You know, I actually am beginning to think you
believe what you write, but am reminded that this is only a game. Lets set the
wayback machine to the comment about life beginning. I stated origionally to
John Covert that it depends on when one believes a life is a life. That leaves
it open to the individual's beliefs. It does not make their belief correct, but
how I answered the question does give John one reason to go with his question.
But as usual, you came in and distorted it all.
|
| 20.791 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 17:33 | 45 |
| | <<< Note 20.785 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS >>>
| If you think a human life in all of its essential dimensions begins with
| the fertilization of the egg, then I don't understand how you can condone
| abortion, regardless of the law - especially as an avowed Christian.
Tom, if I thought ALL abortion was ok, you'd have a point. But I am not.
I am talking about cases where the mother had no control over the situation.
Rape is one of these, and if a mothers life is in danger. In these cases the
mother may choose to have an abortion, but she may choose to not have one. In
the case of sex=pregnancy and it is going to be used as a birth control method,
I am against it. I did not base my belief on abortion with religion. I based it
solely on weighing the issues, looking at the facts. I formed my own opinion
from it all. Does this make things any clearer for you?
| If the state made a law that permitted parents to kill any child of theirs who
| did not meet certain developmental standards by the age of 3, say, would you
| accept that?
Tom, I am not even taking into consideration that the law says it is ok
to abort or not. Clearly the law says it is ok. I do not agree with that except
for the 2 conditions I mentioned, and that is because the mother has no control
over it. What was it I said that made you think a law had anything to do with
this?
| I believe in a woman's right to choose for both theological and secular/legal
| reasons. I believe that we assume an eternal soul when we take our first
| breath. I have I think sound theological basis for this, but in a rare impulse
| to brevity, I won't go into that now.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank-you so much. Tom, you are entitled to your beliefs. Mine are
different than yours on this subject. Both have done our own research to come
to the conclusions we have. Both could spend hours trying to convince the other
of their belief. I won't say it will not work, as I have been taught a lot
about abortion since I started noting. There was a time where I did not believe
any abortions, regardless of the reasons, should happen. But reality has set
in, and how a mother will handle certain situations like rape and her life in
danger are important factors that have to be addressed. BUT..... maybe someday
we will talk about it. But I do want to clear up these misconceptions about
laws having any effects on my views with this subject.
Glen
|
| 20.792 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 17:42 | 73 |
| .790
>| > For that person only. It may or may not equal reality. Everyone
>| >determines what color a leaf is. It doesn't mean they are right/wrong.
>
>| Yes it DOES mean that they are right or wrong. Life is life, and color is
>| color. Neither are subject to the whims of individuals.
>
> Joe, what are the 1st 4 words of *my* paragraph? Any person can believe
>anything. It does not mean they are right.
Exactly.
>Apply the same thing to when a
>baby is a baby. Some will believe at conception, some will believe when the
>baby is able to live on it's own, and others will believe many other things.
>All of us can't be right, but all of us believe we have the correct answer.
Exactly. But regardless of what any individual believes in
such matters there **IS** an absolute right and wrong. But
what you are saying is that right and wrong changes for each
individual. I agree that their belief in right and wrong
changes, but the ABSOLUTE right and wrong cannot.
Supporting the first ideology (belief determines right and
wrong) is relativism.
>| Yes, it DOES mean that they are right/wrong.
>
> Joe, how does the above example prove they are right or wrong?
It doesn't prove anything. All I'm saying is that there *IS*
an absolute right or wrong, and while everyone internally
believes that they are right, they are still subject to what
is ABSOLUTE. And something like "the beginning of life"
*IS* absolute and not subject to the whims and fancies of
individual human belief. A statement such as "God hates fags"
*IS* either right or wrong. That's what I'm saying. Not that
it is right or that it is wrong, but that an absolute truth exists.
>| What you are selling here is relativism, pure and simple. We are back to
>| you buying the concept hook, line, and sinker.
>
> You definitely need to explain that Joe.
I don't know what more to say. If you can't see the difference
between relative and absolute then we are finished.
>| So why not argue the point? Why not stand by your own convictions? Why, in
>| .727, do you say that your opinion does not matter?
>
> My opinion does not matter to someone who believes differently. My
>opinion matters to those who believe the same. My opinion may be correct, but
>it may be wrong. But my opinion is mine.
Your opinion may help someone to reassess (or reaffirm) his/her
beliefs. Or, in discussing your opinion with others, THEIR
opinion may help you change (or strengthen) your own.
But bottom line is that nobody's opinion will change ABSOLUTE
truth.
>Lets set the
>wayback machine to the comment about life beginning. I stated origionally to
>John Covert that it depends on when one believes a life is a life. That leaves
>it open to the individual's beliefs.
Again, the beginning of life is not a matter of personal belief.
Supporting such a notion is pure relativism.
>But as usual, you came in and distorted it all.
Absolutes cannot be distorted.
|
| 20.793 | | HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS | | Tue Jan 17 1995 17:44 | 4 |
| <<< Note 20.791 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>
Sorry, Glen. I did misunderstand. I thought you were pro-choice. What the
hell are you and Joe arguing about!
|
| 20.794 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 17 1995 17:55 | 14 |
| >In secular terms, how can a fetus be a complete human if it is not breathing,
>perceiving, learning?
Breathing supplies oxygen to the bloodstream; it is doing that through the
placenta, so the function of breathing is being done. It is perceiving
sounds and learning its mother's voice while still in the womb.
>Other than its genetic underpinnings, how is the human fetus different
>from a chimpanzee fetus?
Other than its genetic underpinnings, how is the human newborn different
from a chimpanzee newborn?
/john
|
| 20.795 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 18:08 | 72 |
| | <<< Note 20.792 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| Exactly. But regardless of what any individual believes in such matters there
| **IS** an absolute right and wrong.
Ok... I've been saying that right along, so it would appear that we
agree on this.
| But what you are saying is that right and wrong changes for each individual.
I am saying it can. Some will believe as others, some won't.
| I agree that their belief in right and wrong changes, but the ABSOLUTE right
| and wrong cannot.
I agree with this too. So I wonder where the beef is?
| Supporting the first ideology (belief determines right and wrong) is
| relativism.
If you mean by belief = absolute right and wrong, you are correct. But
I do not believe that anyones belief = absolute right and wrong. It at best is
someone's opinion and or theory, but that's as far as it goes.
| It doesn't prove anything. All I'm saying is that there *IS* an absolute right
| or wrong, and while everyone internally believes that they are right, they are
| still subject to what is ABSOLUTE.
This is what I have been saying right along Joe. Nice to know you
finally caught up.
| And something like "the beginning of life" *IS* absolute and not subject to
| the whims and fancies of individual human belief.
From a belief point, it is subject to the above. From an absolute
point, no it is not. Again, that is what I have been saying. What did you think
I meant when I used phrases like "it doesn't mean both are right, only one can"
Come on Joe, you really do need to follow a little better than you have been
doing. Remember, I said people act on their beliefs. Look at Christianity. There
is nothing physical to show God exists. He will not show up in front of us right
now and say here I am, and then show us that it really is Him. That won't
happen. But the belief is still there.
| I don't know what more to say. If you can't see the difference between
| relative and absolute then we are finished.
I know the difference Joe. I just need you to explain how I'm being
relative when we agree on the same thing?
| > My opinion does not matter to someone who believes differently. My
| >opinion matters to those who believe the same. My opinion may be correct, but
| >it may be wrong. But my opinion is mine.
| Your opinion may help someone to reassess (or reaffirm) his/her beliefs.
Yeah, people used to get that from Koresh. The opinion does not mean it
is right or wrong. It has to be proven for it to be that.
| Or, in discussing your opinion with others, THEIR opinion may help you change
| (or strengthen) your own.
But it does not mean it is fact. From these 2 things you just wrote, it
could be taken in a relativism way for sure. Reassess or reaffirm ones beliefs
do not make them fact.
| Again, the beginning of life is not a matter of personal belief.
| Supporting such a notion is pure relativism.
When I start doing that, I'll let you know.
Glen
|
| 20.796 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 18:09 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.793 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS >>>
| Sorry, Glen. I did misunderstand. I thought you were pro-choice. What the
| hell are you and Joe arguing about!
Relatives..... :-)
|
| 20.797 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 18:23 | 29 |
| .795
>| I agree that their belief in right and wrong changes, but the ABSOLUTE right
>| and wrong cannot.
>
> I agree with this too. So I wonder where the beef is?
Because in the very same reply you still say:
>| But what you are saying is that right and wrong changes for each individual.
>
> I am saying it can. Some will believe as others, some won't.
And you have supported the same rejection of absolutes regarding
the beginning of life in .727.
>| And something like "the beginning of life" *IS* absolute and not subject to
>| the whims and fancies of individual human belief.
>
> From a belief point, it is subject to the above. From an absolute
>point, no it is not.
Thank you!!!
>Again, that is what I have been saying.
It did not seem that way to me, but now that we've come to
this agreement (in effect voiding .727) I see no reason to
contunue to belabor this.
|
| 20.798 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 18:53 | 35 |
| | <<< Note 20.797 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| > I agree with this too. So I wonder where the beef is?
| Because in the very same reply you still say:
| >| But what you are saying is that right and wrong changes for each individual.
| >
| > I am saying it can. Some will believe as others, some won't.
| And you have supported the same rejection of absolutes regarding the beginning
| of life in .727.
Again Joe, where you are still confused is a belief being = to an
absolute. A belief CAN be equal to an absolute, but it also MAY be wrong. When
I said what I did above, and in .727, I am talking about someone's beliefs, not
with the absolute.
| >Again, that is what I have been saying.
| It did not seem that way to me, but now that we've come to this agreement (in
| effect voiding .727) I see no reason to contunue to belabor this.
You are a piece of work, aren't you..... it does not void .727. That
note is based on a persons belief, which may cause them to think life begins at
conception, or life begins when a baby can live on it's own, with a whole lot
of other beliefs inbetween. It explains the note that was to john as to why one
might abort. It is based on their beliefs, and they acted/did nothing
accordingly. It does not mean that their belief is based on the absolute. It
just answered his question.
Glen
|
| 20.799 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 18:59 | 5 |
| So, Glen, in justifying abortion based on individual beliefs
you are supporting the relativistic arguments that encourage
abortions, which is counter to what you hold to be true.
It's like cutting your own throat.
|
| 20.800 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 19:11 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.799 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| So, Glen, in justifying abortion based on individual beliefs you are
| supporting the relativistic arguments that encourage abortions, which
| is counter to what you hold to be true. It's like cutting your own throat.
I swear Joe, you need to take comprehension classes. Please show me
where I have said it would be justified? The only way anything, regardless of
what it is, can be justified by beliefs, is if the belief is = to the absolute.
A persons actions may be based upon a belief, but it doesn't mean it is
justified, and doesn't mean it equals the absolute right/wrong.
Glen
|
| 20.801 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 19:28 | 6 |
| Look, Glen. I wasn't the only person who saw in your entries
the support of the pro-choice position.
Maybe if you weren't so wishy-washy in what you've been saying
there wouldn't be so much confusion and so much need for you
to clarify what you are really saying.
|
| 20.802 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 19:36 | 26 |
| | <<< Note 20.801 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| Look, Glen. I wasn't the only person who saw in your entries the support of
| the pro-choice position.
uh oh.... I think this will be as close as I will get to him admitting
he was wrong on this one..... btw, how come before my entries supported
relativism, but now they support the pro-choice position? My Joe, you certainly
have gotten around with twisting the meanings of what I said.
| Maybe if you weren't so wishy-washy in what you've been saying there wouldn't
| be so much confusion and so much need for you to clarify what you are really
| saying.
Or you could just read what is written. Now let's see, if we go back to
the beginning, Chip cleared it all up when both you and John had a different
view of what I meant. At least with John he had serious questions about my
views, while you kept trying to project relativism as my view. One asked what I
meant, the other told. Reading comprehension is very important Joe. They have
some good classes on that at night. You might want to take one.
Glen
|
| 20.803 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 19:48 | 10 |
| >btw, how come before my entries supported
>relativism, but now they support the pro-choice position?
Your relativism supports the pro-choice position.
Reading comprehension is useless if the writer isn't clear.
It is even moreso if the writer doesn't know what he stands for.
See .775 and .793 for recent examples of others confused by
your entries.
|
| 20.804 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 17 1995 19:52 | 16 |
| RE Homicide and Murder
I'd just like to clear up some terms that are being waved around a bit
casually.
Under common law, a homicide is the unlawful taking of a human life. It does
NOT include lawful killings such as self-defense, executions, war, etc.
There are two types of homicide, murder and manslaughter. Murder is a
homicide committed with malice aforethought. Any other homicide is considered
manslaughter.
By definition, abortion is never homicide because it is lawful. It is never
murder because it is never a homicide.
George
|
| 20.805 | Don't look now, but... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Jan 17 1995 19:55 | 4 |
|
Heeee'sss Baaaccckkk .... bb
|
| 20.806 | alleged... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Tue Jan 17 1995 19:57 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.807 | 8^) | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Oral Exploits | Tue Jan 17 1995 20:08 | 2 |
|
..allegedly back?
|
| 20.808 | | HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS | | Tue Jan 17 1995 20:12 | 24 |
| <<< Note 20.794 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>In secular terms, how can a fetus be a complete human if it is not breathing,
>perceiving, learning?
>Breathing supplies oxygen to the bloodstream; it is doing that through the
>placenta, so the function of breathing is being done. It is perceiving
>sounds and learning its mother's voice while still in the womb.
Breathing is more than getting oxygen. Do your organs "breath?" The
mother's voice argument is completely without merit. Have you ever listened
to anyone under water? Just because a baby reacts immediately to its
mother's voice is not proof that it has learned that in the womb.
>Other than its genetic underpinnings, how is the human fetus different
>from a chimpanzee fetus?
>Other than its genetic underpinnings, how is the human newborn different
>from a chimpanzee newborn?
It's learning from and responding to it's environment
differently - right from the get-go.
Tom
|
| 20.809 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 17 1995 20:12 | 22 |
| | <<< Note 20.803 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| >btw, how come before my entries supported
| >relativism, but now they support the pro-choice position?
| Your relativism supports the pro-choice position.
By your assertion. Remember, it was your belief that led you to this,
but it did not match the absolute, or truth of the matter. Thanks for helping
me illistrate this Joe.
| Reading comprehension is useless if the writer isn't clear. It is even moreso
| if the writer doesn't know what he stands for.
Another projection by you joe.....
| See .775 and .793 for recent examples of others confused by your entries.
Maybe they will tell us what it was specifically that led them to their
beliefs and we can work from there. Remember, Chip got it right the very first
note way back when I wuz respondin to John Covert! You seem to keep forgetting
that point....
|
| 20.810 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 20:35 | 1 |
| Sigh...
|
| 20.811 | ahem...is it always like this? | SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA | Blondes have more Brains! | Tue Jan 17 1995 22:06 | 14 |
| I've just read from about .774 on, and notice that this topic at this
time seems to be dominated by (a) men and (b) a great deal of
hostility. Interesting points, both. Since I don't have time to scan
775 replies, have women contributed in any equal proportion to this
topic in the past, or is this topic as male-dominated as it seems? Are
there any truly pro-choice opinions expressed regularly in here, or only
variations of pro-life?
This week, it looks like a place where the male of the species
takes time out from his day to discuss how the female should manage her
body and life...-:)
m.
|
| 20.812 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 17 1995 22:10 | 6 |
| Well why don't you take some time out and tell us how you
should manage your body! Yes, there is an absence of women's
perspectives. You can change that.
And while you're at it, why not tell us how woman should
manage the bodies of their in-utero children.
|
| 20.813 | Are you sure you're ready? I'm not! | SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA | Blondes have more Brains! | Tue Jan 17 1995 22:37 | 42 |
| Okay. Personally, I am pro-choice. I believe that a woman should have
the right to choose whether to bear a child or not, to a certain point.
I believe that, if my body is going to be used as an incubator and
I.V.-feeder for 40 weeks, I have the right to just say "no", but
that I should be counseled on available alternatives and given
the opportunity to discuss my feelings and reasoning with a
professional (counselor/therapist type).
I believe that, after 12 weeks, I no longer should have the right to
abort unless: my life is in *real* medical danger (not just 7 out of
100,000) jeopardy or unless an amniocintesis (sp?) indicates that there
is a very great (i.e., 80% or better) chance that this child is not
going to be able to ever live outside the womb.
I believe that no man on earth should be able to arbitrarily decide
whether life begins at conception or 12 weeks or birth until he has
personally experienced the joys and difficulties of pregnancy. Maybe
we need a maternity simulator for lawmakers and clergymen. Let them
experience 40 weeks of needing the bathroom every 20 minutes, feeling
sick 70% of the time, raging hormone syndrome, and having to modify
lifestyle, eating habits, even work/leisure styles and hours, in order
to accomodate this pregnancy. Let them go one sleepless night because
Junior can't keep his feet to himself. And most of all, let them get a
taste of labor.
I am a mother, my son is 6. When I discovered I was pregnant with him
7 years ago, I was a single woman whose birth control method
(diaphragm) failed. It happens, folks -- remember, every birth control
method except abstinence or sterilization comes with a disclaimer
regarding percentage of effectiveness when used properly, etc.
I *chose*, after much thought and personal struggle, not to abort. I had
an abortion in my late teens (college years) and have no regrets. I
was, at that time, incapable of supporting myself, let alone a child.
I love my son, and do not regret having decided to carry him to term
and raise him, either. The point is that I decided. I am a person,
not just a machine for making babies. I have the right to decide
whether I am qualified to raise this biological accident or not.
Go ahead, beat me up now! I'm waiting! -:)
M.
|
| 20.814 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Jan 18 1995 08:57 | 7 |
| I've only enetered one note in here over the last coupla weeks and I
gotta tell ya Glen, your patience is "Job-like" and the tenacity
meter is off the scale.
Amen,
Chip
|
| 20.815 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 18 1995 11:47 | 8 |
| No Chip...it's just that Glen has this tenacious way of always siding
with the liberal victim in notes. Abortion however is his archilles
heal and he doesn't know how to deal with his own feelings and cater to
the liberal victim at the same time!!
TFIC
-Jack
|
| 20.816 | Achilles' Heel | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Oral Exploits | Wed Jan 18 1995 11:57 | 2 |
|
|
| 20.818 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 18 1995 12:17 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.814 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>
| I've only enetered one note in here over the last coupla weeks and I gotta
| tell ya Glen, your patience is "Job-like"
Thanks Chip....
| and the tenacity meter is off the scale.
Anal retentive might fit here... :-)
|
| 20.819 | Whatcha been smokin??? | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 18 1995 12:22 | 21 |
| | <<< Note 20.815 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| No Chip...it's just that Glen has this tenacious way of always siding with the
| liberal victim in notes.
That's right Jack. It has nothing to do with me actually believing in
what I back. I only do it for the liberalism. As usual oh demon lover of
Barney, you're wrong. :-)
| Abortion however is his archilles heal and he doesn't know how to deal with
| his own feelings and cater to the liberal victim at the same time!!
Jack, this is really funny. Let's here your version of abortion. I
think we will find that they really aren't that different. AND, it will also
prove that I back what I believe, not just liberalism points of view. I mean, I
did vote for Weld & Malone..... (and Kennedy)
Glen
|
| 20.820 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 18 1995 12:39 | 60 |
| | <<< Note 20.817 by CNTROL::JENNISON "No turning back" >>>
| Glen's talking out of both sides of his mouth, and every time he gets caught,
| he cries "you are twisting my words".
Hi Karen. It was the "Job" thing that got to ya, huh????
| Either Glen needs to learn to write more clearly, or he needs to own up to
| what he's really saying.
I don't think I can own up to anymore than I have. You see, it's been
owned up to right from the beginning. Whether or not you've read, or just
jumped into the middle of it all, Chip understood what I was saying about 50 or
so notes ago. He understood it clearly. Now, two people had questions that were
asked, and it took what, one note to clear it up? One of them even stated that
he couldn't figure out what it was Joe and I were arguing about. Now, that does
lead us to Joe. It's hard to tell if he really didn't understand, or if it was
as he said before, "a game". Regardless, there is always room for improvement
when writing more clearly, so that's easy. But if you think there is something
else I need to own up to, by all means, tell me. I'm dieing to know. If there
isn't, could you please explain why you would imply there is?
| Glen says he's pro-life.
| Glen says he thinks life begins at conception.
These 2 are correct.
| Glen says not everyone thinks that, and that every person gets to pick his/her
| own time that life begins.
Karen, is there really anything in life, in this country anyway, that
each individual doesn't get to choose when it comes to what they believe is
right and wrong? The key is while everyone gets to choose, it does not mean the
choice is correct.
| Glen says even though life begins at conception in his eyes, it's ok for a
| mother to kill her baby if she was raped.
If a mother could not handle the mental/emotional strain of it all,
then yeah. Only she knows if she can handle it. Are you one who believes a
mother should carry the baby to term if she was raped?
| Glen says a mother can kill her baby if her own life is at risk (but doesn't
| acknowledge the irony of this, in that every delivery carries risks, some able
| to be seen in advance, some not).
Karen, a mother knows the risks. Hell, she could walk out the door and
get hit by a car. Risks that we don't know about, can't be helped. If you were
to find a tumor, you would know right away that your chances of dieing are
greater than they were before it formed. You know right then and there. I am
talking about these very mothers who know right then and there that they could
die. And say it turns out that what you thought was a tumor really wasn't. You
still have a risk of dieing, like a mother does at birth, like any one does at
any time of their life. Normal risks are one thing Karen, having someone tell
you that you could die because of something specific is another.
Glen
|
| 20.821 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | UNISYS: ``Beware .GIFt horses!'' | Wed Jan 18 1995 12:44 | 4 |
| P'raps he has both an Achilles heel & fallen arches?
Could happen!
|
| 20.823 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 18 1995 12:52 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.821 by LJSRV2::KALIKOW "UNISYS: ``Beware .GIFt horses!''" >>>
| P'raps he has both an Achilles heel & fallen arches?
I have the fallen arches already......
|
| 20.824 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 18 1995 12:54 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.822 by CNTROL::JENNISON "No turning back" >>>
| I wasn't talking about my views in my reply, I was recapping what I *heard*
| you saying in umpteen notes. Letting you know how it parsed...
I knew you weren't telling us your views Karen. But it would be nice to
know what they are. To see if they really are any different than mine.
Glen
|
| 20.825 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 18 1995 13:07 | 6 |
| I just said the stuff about Glen fighting for the liberal victim all
the time to get his goat.
TFIC = Tongue Firmly in Cheek!
-Jack
|
| 20.826 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 18 1995 15:15 | 7 |
|
I guess Karen went back to read only......
|
| 20.827 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Jan 18 1995 15:23 | 1 |
| I guess I'm not the only one who thinks your logic is warped.
|
| 20.828 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 18 1995 15:29 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.827 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| I guess I'm not the only one who thinks your logic is warped.
And like you, Karen hasn't proven anything, or even made any type of
real point. She just listed things I said, but left it at that.
|
| 20.829 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Jan 18 1995 15:30 | 4 |
| -1 then again there are large numbers of people with blue
eyes in this world. i'm not getting your point!
Chip
|
| 20.830 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 18 1995 15:54 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.829 by WMOIS::GIROUARD_C >>>
| -1 then again there are large numbers of people with blue
| eyes in this world. i'm not getting your point!
Could you splain this a little more??? :-)
|
| 20.831 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Jan 18 1995 16:05 | 4 |
| Sorry Glen, it was meant for Joe's staement about someone else
also missing your point...
Chip
|
| 20.833 | Getting nowhere. Fast. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Jan 18 1995 19:12 | 7 |
| Frankly, Glen, going round and round with you has merely been a
waste of time, and will always be so. The more you talk, the
more I'm convinced I'm right. But even if you were smacked between
the eyes with a brick you wouldn't see it -- so convinced you are
of your neat twisted logic.
So I'm outta this one.
|
| 20.834 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 18 1995 19:23 | 7 |
|
Bye bye Joe.... bye bye....
Thanks for the clarification Chip.
Karen... been workin???? heh heh....
|
| 20.835 | I'm still here.... | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Thu Jan 19 1995 13:56 | 21 |
| re: .811
No, but I've quiet for a few reasons:
a.) I've been working;
b.) I hate "paint-by-numbers" noting, ie ("in .XXX you said
I said blahblah in .YYY, but if you really read .YYY
correctly....");
c.) While I could keep myself warm all winter from the
heat generated in this topic, I wouldn't learn much :-)
d.) I occasionally get feeling extremely offended about the
way people can use their belief systems to stomp all over
women and I retreat for a while :-)
I am pro-choice. I believe in a woman's intelligence and her
basic right to make her own reproductive choices. I, would,
however, counsel any woman to came to me for advice to think
long and hard about that choice for some very personal reasons
which are discussed elsewhere in this topic.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.836 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Jan 19 1995 17:16 | 9 |
| rep .794 and the differences between a chim newborn and a human
newborn:
simple, if a chimpanzee mother shoves her baby in a separate room and
refuses to nurse it, the babies are taken away from her as she is an
unfit mother. This is perfectly acceptable (and often expected)
behaviour for human parents.
meg
|
| 20.837 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Jan 19 1995 17:44 | 3 |
| re -1
Point being... ?
|
| 20.838 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Jan 19 1995 18:59 | 1 |
| Just answering John's question Joe
|
| 20.840 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 20 1995 01:40 | 5 |
| OK, meg, so that's an impassioned argument for breast feeding. Not my beer.
Big deal, not related to the topic.
/john
|
| 20.841 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 20 1995 12:49 | 34 |
| | <<< Note 20.839 by ONOFRE::SKELLY_JO >>>
| For the most part, it's a debate of the question "Under what conditions should
| abortion be legal?"
No, that is not the case. It is written into law when one can have an
abortion. That's already determined, and not part of this discussion.
| In that context, when someone says "everyone gets to pick when life begins",
| it has the implication, "so abortion shouldn't be illegal because that would
| infringe on individuals' intrinsic right to choose for themselves what's human
| and what isn't." That's why it sounds pro-choice.
John, a human being can choose if it is right to steal or not to steal.
That is their choice. It does not mean that their choice is correct. The same
applies to when life begins. I say at conception, someone else says at a later
date. Both are our beliefs, but it doesn't mean either of us is right. What is
pro-choice about that? One's beliefs may NOT be reality. That is all I am
saying. I am not saying anything about whether abortion is right or wrong, as I
am only talking about when life begins in this context.
| I suspect, though, that the context of the string remains unshifted in many
| people's minds. "The key" as you call it, isn't key to other noters at all.
| It's practically irrelevant. They can see it's relevance only when they try to
| interpret it as a pro-choice argument.
That's understandable if you are taking when a life begins and applying
it to when an abortion should be legal. I am not doing that at all. The
government has already done that for us.
Glen
|
| 20.842 | My opinion | MROA::DHURLEY | family=common beliefs=values=care=respect | Fri Jan 20 1995 14:23 | 46 |
| I am a read only in this conference but have been compelled to express
my opinion regarding this subject....My opinion of the current debate
regarding abortion is that our overall views regarding women and
children need to be seriously rethought...Our society does not value
women and children...Our men fail to take responsibility for caring for
our women and children...
When a woman becomes pregnant she has to make a major choice about her
life....In many cases there is a man in her life that loves her and is
willing to take the responsbility of caring for her and their
child...however, there are many other situations where that man is not
there, runs for cover....denies his responsibilty to care for that
child...
If a woman has support emotionally and financially from people who care
and love her she would be able to nuture this pregnancy and have this
child...
Does this society have the means to provide the support to help these
women when that emotional and financial support is not there....
The amount of child abuse and neglect in this country is
outrageous...and domestic abuse is tragic...this is where society
attitudes need to change about control and womens' rights to choose
what is best for them...
If we are bringing children into this world then it is our
responsibility to care for them...my personal belief is that I don't
just want to see people fighting for the "unborn"...I want to see
people fighting for those children who don't have enough to eat, who
are abused, who end up in a system of foster care that doesn't
work...are these people going to fight for jobs and education for these
children...caring for children doesn't stop the day they are born...it
continues till the day they don't need our help anymore...
Will these folks be there all the way...every step...
It's not a perfect world and all that I can do is try to make it better
for those who are here...I will not tell another woman what she can and
cannot do regarding her life and her choice...but I will be there for
her and I will fight to make it better for those chidre who are here
and now...who need better care, I will fight for women who are abused
or who do not receive proper medical care....I will fight to make this
a better world to bring children into...
denise
|
| 20.843 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Fri Jan 20 1995 14:24 | 3 |
| .842
looks like you're not a readonly any more. welcome to the war.
|
| 20.844 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 20 1995 14:36 | 14 |
| <<< Note 20.842 by MROA::DHURLEY "family=common beliefs=values=care=respect" >>>
denise, I agree that it has to be taken all the way. And things like
back alley abortions and adoptions need to be addressed as well. That is why I
am not in favor of changing the laws as they stand now, as I think it will
place a major burden on the whole situation. A burden that I do not feel the
country could handle. While you know my position about abortion, I am a realist
and can see that to change anything right now without preparing for it would be
devistating.
Glen
|
| 20.845 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Jan 20 1995 15:53 | 15 |
| RE<<< Note 20.842 by MROA::DHURLEY "family=common beliefs=values=care=respect" >>>
Welcome to the trenches.
>...I want to see
> people fighting for those children who don't have enough to eat, who
> are abused, who end up in a system of foster care that doesn't
> work...are these people going to fight for jobs and education for these
> children...
Of course not. Don't forget the moto of the pro-life movement,
"The right to life begins at conception and ends at birth".
George
|
| 20.846 | We also support the "Super Hunger Brunch" this Sunday | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 20 1995 16:05 | 11 |
| > Of course not. Don't forget the moto of the pro-life movement,
>
> "The right to life begins at conception and ends at birth".
You lie, George; why do you lie?
Why don't you join me at a baby shower for the clients of an
abortion alternative center? Why don't you help us provide for
the needs of mothers who have made the choice for life?
/john
|
| 20.847 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Jan 20 1995 16:12 | 12 |
| RE <<< Note 20.846 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>Why don't you join me at a baby shower for the clients of an
>abortion alternative center? Why don't you help us provide for
>the needs of mothers who have made the choice for life?
Well I'll pass on the shower but I do support mothers who have kids. I
supported Patty who came equipped with 4 kids, I vote for democrats who favor
supporting mothers on welfare and who support day care so mothers can work and
I pay my taxes without all the griping I hear from so many others.
George
|
| 20.848 | What are the next steps | MROA::DHURLEY | family=common beliefs=values=care=respect | Fri Jan 20 1995 17:06 | 17 |
| First of all thanks for the welcome
re: 846
John,
Are you providing more than a baby shower for this mother? Does your
center provide financial assistance? Will someone be there when she
delivers the baby....will she have to go on welfare to survive?
I am asking does your center have the means to provide for this women
if there is nothing else there to help her...a baby shower is wonderful
but are you taking that extra step...?
denise
|
| 20.849 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 20 1995 17:18 | 19 |
| What, exactly, is "that extra step" that you are thinking of?
Many pro-life centers provide new mothers with baby supplies
ranging from formula, bottles, and clothes, to baby furniture.
They help them find public assistance as well as private
assistance from local churches and other sources. Often times
the assistance continues with toddler clothing and supplies,
as well as post-maternity clothing for the mother. Some even
offer daycare so that the mother can get back to work.
I wonder if you are looking for carte blanche living expenses
for the mother and child. Rent. Food. Utilities. Clothing.
Well people have to become self-sufficient. That's the problem
with today's welfare mentality, and it would be equally wrong
to expect private organizations to propogate that problem.
You are welcome to twist that into a claim of, "See? Pro-life
organizations don't care about them after birth," but I reject
that claim as unreasonable.
|
| 20.850 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 20 1995 17:39 | 13 |
|
Joe, the 1st half of your note was very good. It explained about what
denise was asking about. Very informative stuff.
But you started to lose it in the 2nd part as she never really
mentioned a free ride at any time.
You totally lost it at the end when you went on the pro-life tirade.
Glen
|
| 20.851 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 20 1995 17:44 | 5 |
| "She never REALLY mentioned..."
By this I'll assume that you saw the implication too.
So with what part of the "pro-life tirade" did you disagree?
|
| 20.852 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:05 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.851 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| "She never REALLY mentioned..."
| By this I'll assume that you saw the implication too.
No Joe, I saw NO implication.
| So with what part of the "pro-life tirade" did you disagree?
That you practically dared her to say it. Why bring it into the
discussion at all if no one brings it up.
|
| 20.853 | More questions? | MROA::DHURLEY | family=common beliefs=values=care=respect | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:17 | 25 |
| Thanks for the answer regarding what the center does...and Glen is
right I am not advocating that folks not take care of
themselves...however, we all need the means and some sort of support system
to survive...
Now, another question....what does these centers do for those children
that are all ready here and need assistance...does the centers provide
job training for parents...financial assistance....how to find affordable
housing...parenting classes...are you advocates for children who are
abused...
Do your centers try to help with making changes for women....to improve
their lives and their children...how much more do you do for those who
are already here?
Do your leaders take care of their children as they should...I'm not
talking about a free ride for women...I'm talking about men taking
responsibility for thier children...
denise
|
| 20.854 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:19 | 12 |
| >| So with what part of the "pro-life tirade" did you disagree?
>
> That you practically dared her to say it. Why bring it into the
>discussion at all if no one brings it up.
That's not "the pro-life tirade". That's my own behavior.
Why attack pro-life for what you dislike in my notes? You
say you are pro-life, yet you attack pro-life much too often
as you did here.
Why do you attack pro-life, when you claim to hold that belief
yourself?
|
| 20.855 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:20 | 5 |
| re .853
Various different pro-life agencies I support provide all of those things.
/john
|
| 20.856 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:22 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.854 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| That's not "the pro-life tirade". That's my own behavior.
Your behavior was daring someone to go off on the pro-life people Joe.
| Why attack pro-life for what you dislike in my notes?
Take reading comprehension 101. You need it bad, and the course too.
| Why do you attack pro-life, when you claim to hold that belief yourself?
Blah blah blah blah
|
| 20.857 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:22 | 26 |
| RE <<< Note 20.849 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
> I wonder if you are looking for carte blanche living expenses
> for the mother and child. Rent. Food. Utilities. Clothing.
> Well people have to become self-sufficient. That's the problem
> with today's welfare mentality, and it would be equally wrong
> to expect private organizations to propogate that problem.
This is exactly the point. If the mother is allowed to have an abortion
there are no living expense for a child and she doesn't have to worry about
day care while she earns a living. That's a real alternative.
With many pro-life supporters there is rabid support for mandated welfare,
provided by the mother, between conception and birth but then there is no
alternative for support offered after birth.
Or to put it another way, the right to life and support starts at conception
but ends at birth.
It's a lot like that unpaid mandated bill the Democrats are trying to kill
in the Senate, pro-lifers want to mandate that someone carry a pregnancy to
term but are unwilling to pay for the child, just as the Federal Government
mandates that states have programs but then doesn't give them the money to
run the programs.
George
|
| 20.858 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:28 | 10 |
| .865
> Take reading comprehension 101. You need it bad, and the course too.
Back to the insults again, I see. Bad form. (And childish
insults do not make clever ones.)
> Blah blah blah blah
In other words: DODGE!
|
| 20.859 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:30 | 10 |
| > This is exactly the point. If the mother is allowed to have an abortion
>there are no living expense for a child and she doesn't have to worry about
>day care while she earns a living. That's a real alternative.
Sure. Just kill the children that get in the way.
> Or to put it another way, the right to life and support starts at conception
>but ends at birth.
You haven't been paying attention.
|
| 20.860 | Tired of playing the Joe Oppelt Home Version BORED Game | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:31 | 8 |
|
No, in other words I will not get into any more discussions with you
where you tell me what I meant instead of asking for clarification.
Glen
|
| 20.861 | Resolution ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:31 | 4 |
|
Yes you will.
bb
|
| 20.862 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 20 1995 18:33 | 4 |
|
bb, STAY OUT OF THIS!!! :-)
|
| 20.863 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Jan 20 1995 20:06 | 10 |
| RE <<< Note 20.859 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
> Sure. Just kill the children that get in the way.
No, just terminate the pregnancy that gets in the way.
Remember, it is only your opinion that they are children which of course is
your choice.
George
|
| 20.864 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 20 1995 20:09 | 2 |
| Where there is doubt, I prefer to give life the benefit of the
doubt.
|
| 20.865 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Jan 20 1995 20:13 | 9 |
| RE <<< Note 20.864 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
> Where there is doubt, I prefer to give life the benefit of the
> doubt.
Ok so eggs are potential human life and there is doubt that they are not,
shall we draft legislation to protect them?
George
|
| 20.866 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 20 1995 20:17 | 5 |
| Oh, not THAT again!
You'd probably be better off going back to the beginning of
the topic where you went through it before and reread the
biology lessons you received the last time.
|
| 20.867 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Jan 22 1995 21:05 | 5 |
|
T r u t h D o e s n ' t K i l l . A b o r t i o n D o e s .
|
| 20.868 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Jan 22 1995 21:06 | 16 |
|
"Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has
been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea
of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The
result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact,
which everyone really knows, that human life begins at
conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine
until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics
which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but
taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not put
forth under socially impeccable auspices."
"A New Ethic for Medicine and Society"
California Medicine (editorial)
September 1970
|
| 20.869 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Jan 22 1995 21:06 | 7 |
|
"Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."
"Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness"
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
(pamphlet), 1963
|
| 20.870 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Jan 22 1995 21:06 | 12 |
|
"We have reached a point in this particular technology where
there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by
the operator. It is before one's eyes. The sensations of
dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current."
Dr. Warren Hern, Director
Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado
at a Meeting of the
Assoc. of Planned Parenthood Physicians
San Diego, October 26, 1978
|
| 20.871 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Jan 22 1995 21:06 | 8 |
|
"Paradoxically, I have angry feelings at myself for feeling
good about ... doing a technically good procedure which
destroys a fetus, kills a baby."
New Mexico Abortionist
American Medical News, July 12, 1993
|
| 20.872 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Jan 22 1995 21:06 | 10 |
|
"Many times" (a clinic nurse said), "women who had just had
abortions would lie in the recovery room and cry, `I've just
killed my baby'... I don't know what to say to these women,"
the nurse told the group. "Part of me thinks, `Maybe they're
right.'"
Abortion Clinic Nurse
American Medical News, July 12, 1993
|
| 20.873 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Jan 22 1995 21:06 | 7 |
|
"Even if you're pro-choice, no one likes to see a dead fetus."
Vilma Valdez, Education Director
Planned Parenthood of Greater Miami
The Miami Herald, October 24, 1992
|
| 20.874 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Jan 22 1995 21:06 | 6 |
|
Pro-life advocates call abortion killing.
So do abortion advocates.
Agreement of basic fact is the first step in reasoned dialog.
|
| 20.875 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Jan 22 1995 21:06 | 7 |
|
A b o r t i o n P o l i c y M u s t b e D e b a t e d .
W i t h o u t V i o l e n c e . B u t w i t h T r u t h .
|
| 20.876 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Jan 22 1995 21:06 | 9 |
|
National Conference of Catholic Bishops
Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
3211 Fourth Street, N.E.
Washington, D. C. 20017
Full page ads made possible by the generosity of the Knights of Columbus
|
| 20.877 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 12:39 | 15 |
| RE <<< Note 20.866 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
> Oh, not THAT again!
>
> You'd probably be better off going back to the beginning of
> the topic where you went through it before and reread the
> biology lessons you received the last time.
You mean go back and re-read your opinions again? No thanks, you never did
make a good argument as to why eggs were not potential life. Your entire
argument hinged on the fact that they were not complete and depended on
their parents to survive which is exactly the same situation you have with
a fetus.
George
|
| 20.878 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 13:01 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.867 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| T r u t h D o e s n ' t K i l l . A b o r t i o n D o e s .
Then why is it that a lot of the pro-life movement ONLY looks at part
of the truth?
|
| 20.879 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 13:02 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.875 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| A b o r t i o n P o l i c y M u s t b e D e b a t e d .
| W i t h o u t V i o l e n c e . B u t w i t h T r u t h .
Ya gotta reread .878 again John...
|
| 20.880 | Since when is a tiny fringe group "a lot"? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 23 1995 13:02 | 3 |
| >a lot
You lie. Why do you lie?
|
| 20.881 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Jan 23 1995 13:08 | 17 |
| Factoids from the religious section in the local rag:
Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as the general
population.
of 69% of women having abortions identify themselves as christian with
over 29% regularaly attending church.
1 out of 6 identify themselves as "born again christians."
One of the suspected reasons for these women having abortions is the
fear that they or their partners will be shunned for having had sex
outside of marriage. Better to hide the fact, even if you are
"pro-life" than to have your religious support system torn out from
under you.
|
| 20.882 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 23 1995 13:17 | 8 |
|
So how come there's a picture in the Glob of the pro-abortion
march in Boston yesterday showing a large sign that says
"Prolifers Suck"?
I thought sucking was just another lifestyle choice?
/john
|
| 20.883 | Do ya storm the halls of the clinics???? | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 13:35 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 20.880 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| -< Since when is a tiny fringe group "a lot"? >-
Since I am not talking about a tiny fringe group.
| >a lot
| You lie. Why do you lie?
When I do, you'll be able to say that. But for now, you can't. There
are very few pro-life people I talked to who think the back alley abortions are
a problem, or even will become one. There a very few people that I have talked
to in the pro-life movement who will address the problems with adoption. Most I
have talked to say put the baby up for adoption! There are more parents wanting
babies than there are babies! Of course that's WHITE babies..... so no John, I
am not lieing, I am basing it on what I have heard from others.
And john, you are one who goes to the clinics, right? Are you part of
OR?
Glen
|
| 20.884 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 13:39 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.882 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| So how come there's a picture in the Glob of the pro-abortion march in Boston
| yesterday showing a large sign that says "Prolifers Suck"?
That's something that's stupid. It should not have been held at all.
Glen
|
| 20.885 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 13:41 | 10 |
|
Heard on the news this morning that a recent poll that was taken showed
38% of the people wanted abortions to stay as they are, 37% wanted a modified
version of abortion, and 23% wanted abortions made illegal. I heard it this
morning on WBZ tv. I forget who they said took the poll though.
Glen
|
| 20.886 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Mon Jan 23 1995 13:52 | 3 |
| Cardinal O'Conner is leading a protest some place today, maybe with a
little luck he`ll break a leg. He does far more stuff then abortion
protests that I don`t like him for...
|
| 20.887 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 14:20 | 3 |
| Don't worry, he's probably wishing you the same!
-Jack
|
| 20.888 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 14:23 | 4 |
|
No Jack, he will pray for him..... to break a leg! :-)
|
| 20.889 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 14:25 | 19 |
| RE <<< Note 20.870 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
> "We have reached a point in this particular technology where
> there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by
> the operator. It is before one's eyes. The sensations of
> dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current."
>
> Dr. Warren Hern, Director
> Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado
> at a Meeting of the
> Assoc. of Planned Parenthood Physicians
> San Diego, October 26, 1978
This is also true of the process of allowing an unfertilized baby to
die by depriving it of life saving fertilization.
So what's the point?
George
|
| 20.890 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 14:26 | 2 |
| The point is that your basing your belief in a leadership that doesn't
know which way is up!!
|
| 20.891 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 14:26 | 17 |
| RE <<< Note 20.872 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
> "Many times" (a clinic nurse said), "women who had just had
> abortions would lie in the recovery room and cry, `I've just
> killed my baby'... I don't know what to say to these women,"
> the nurse told the group. "Part of me thinks, `Maybe they're
> right.'"
>
> Abortion Clinic Nurse
> American Medical News, July 12, 1993
And many times mothers cry for decades about their inability to raise
children when having abortions would have allowed them to care for a smaller
family.
In life there is pain,
George
|
| 20.892 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 14:27 | 12 |
| RE <<< Note 20.873 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
> "Even if you're pro-choice, no one likes to see a dead fetus."
>
> Vilma Valdez, Education Director
> Planned Parenthood of Greater Miami
> The Miami Herald, October 24, 1992
... although there are many pro-life who don't mind seeing a punctured
uterus.
George
|
| 20.893 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 14:40 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.890 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| The point is that your basing your belief in a leadership that doesn't
| know which way is up!!
Jack, how different is abortion since Clinton came into office compared
to when Reagan/Bush were president for 12 years?
Glen
|
| 20.894 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 23 1995 14:56 | 5 |
| >...don't mind seeing a punctured uterus.
Bzzzt. Assertion of things not in evidence.
/john
|
| 20.895 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 14:57 | 14 |
| George:
It's like suicide George. I can't do much about the kid who does the
back ally route. But just because she wants to do the back ally route
doesn't mean I should have to provide her a coathanger and a soft bed.
And why should I? I don't provide cyanide to people who want to commit
suicide. Why should this be any different?
Glen:
One thing proven is that it doesn't make any difference what a
president thinks of abortion. Abortion should be a state issue anyway!
-Jack
|
| 20.896 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:04 | 2 |
| Maybe he is praying for me to break a leg...but I really don`t what he
prays for. I expect my prayers are answered by the same God`s as his.
|
| 20.897 | .886 was just so nice of you | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:08 | 6 |
| I sincerely doubt that Cardinal O'Connor would pray for harm to befall
anyone.
Unlike you.
/john
|
| 20.898 | Please read it right... | MAIL2::CRANE | | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:14 | 3 |
| I did not say that I would "pray" for him to break his leg, I said
witha little LUCK he would break his leg. I would NEVER pray for bodily
injury to anyone, no matter how much I dislike someone.
|
| 20.899 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:18 | 2 |
| such a fine distinction between hoping and praying. your discerning
use of english is to be commended.
|
| 20.900 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:19 | 5 |
| >> I would NEVER pray for bodily
>> injury to anyone, no matter how much I dislike someone.
Hmmmm..Interesting Paradox!
|
| 20.901 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:19 | 1 |
| Why thank you Mr. Binder but there is a diffence.
|
| 20.902 | | SMURF::BINDER | gustam vitare | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:22 | 3 |
| the difference being that you want him injured but not enough to ask
for divine assistance in the fulfilment of your wishes. that's still
not exactly my idea of the way to approach disagreements.
|
| 20.903 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:36 | 9 |
| RE <<< Note 20.895 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> It's like suicide George. I can't do much about the kid who does the
> back ally route. But just because she wants to do the back ally route
> doesn't mean I should have to provide her a coathanger and a soft bed.
I have never heard of a case where someone wanted a back ally abortion.
George
|
| 20.904 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:41 | 22 |
| RE <<< Note 20.894 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>>...don't mind seeing a punctured uterus.
>
>Bzzzt. Assertion of things not in evidence.
I think if you look I said "many pro-life", not "all pro-life".
I realize that there is a faction who seems to be pro-life, against shooting
doctors, and is willing to aid people after birth but unfortunately there is
also a large pro-life faction that has little regard for human life after
birth.
Just yesterday on the news I heard a woman talking about how she had no
sympathy for anyone who takes part in abortions and I saw another individual
listing names and addresses of doctors.
Clearly there is an element within your movement which has no regard for
human life at all and unfortunately that element appears to be much larger than
you would like to believe.
George
|
| 20.905 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:46 | 9 |
| Both suicide and back ally abortion have a common factor...they are
both done out of desparation. Both are done because the party in
question can't cope with their current dilemna.
Ever see the sign on the Cape Cod bridges..."Desparate?? Call the
Samaritans"? Just like war and violence, there are ALWAYS alternative
solutions...both to suicide and definitely to abortion.
-Jack
|
| 20.906 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:51 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.895 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| One thing proven is that it doesn't make any difference what a president
| thinks of abortion. Abortion should be a state issue anyway!
Jack, you crack me up! You bring the administration into this, and when
you are questioned about Reagan/Bush, it is now all of a sudden not the
administrations place. You're talking out that mile wide thing again...
|
| 20.907 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:51 | 19 |
| RE <<< Note 20.905 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> Both suicide and back ally abortion have a common factor...they are
> both done out of desparation. Both are done because the party in
> question can't cope with their current dilemna.
But there is also a big difference. For the most part, people who commit
suicide are trying to die where as people who have back ally abortions are
trying to go on with their lives. Otherwise they would have committed suicide
themselves.
> Ever see the sign on the Cape Cod bridges..."Desperate?? Call the
> Samaritans"? Just like war and violence, there are ALWAYS alternative
> solutions...both to suicide and definitely to abortion.
You are exactly right and it is the pro-choice point of view that everyone
should have the right to consider all of the alternatives including abortion.
George
|
| 20.908 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:53 | 1 |
| Yes...As long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other people!
|
| 20.909 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:54 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.905 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Both suicide and back ally abortion have a common factor...they are
| both done out of desparation. Both are done because the party in
| question can't cope with their current dilemna.
You should add one thing to it as well Jack. People try to prevent
suicides, but a lot of the pro-life movement don't do anything, or even realize
there is a problem with back-alley abortions. Why is that Jack when there is so
much in common with the 2????
Glen
|
| 20.910 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:56 | 9 |
|
Read an article in the Boston Glob last week that shows more and more
college students across campuses throughout the country are becoming
more pro-active in the pro-life movement...
What a refreshing change....
|
| 20.911 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:57 | 8 |
|
John, will you be responding to .883 anytime soon? I mean, you asked my why I
lied, and I told you what I based it on. Do you plan on responding to the note
or can I assume that you're retracting that statement? I'd rather not assume.
|
| 20.912 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:59 | 20 |
| >> Jack, you crack me up! You bring the administration into this, and whe
>> you are questioned about Reagan/Bush, it is now all of a sudden not the
>> administrations place. You're talking out that mile wide thing again...
Could you provide me with a pointer on when we discussed Reagan/Bush?
My only concern with the administrations involvement is that the
president can appoint federal judges on the circuit courts and Supreme
Court judges. Incidently, I find it interesting that the democrat
party raised major stinks on both Reagan and Bushes appointments, yet
Clinton received cooperation on a bipartisan level.
What bothers me about the current administration is Clinton's apparent
trust in Witch Hazel's quota appointments to cabinet positions. There
was a show on CNN last night called Crossroads, the Clinton Presidency.
All authoritative interviewees stated that Hillary was a negative to
the president, that she (and Bill) were unfamiliar with Washington, and
that she probably should have continued in her own profession and
minded her own business.
-Jack
|
| 20.913 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 15:59 | 8 |
|
Gee, if 75% of the people in the country want at least a modified
version of abortions, and only 23% want to do away with it, does that mean we
won't have to listen to the claim that some pro-life people make that says they
are in the majority????? Maybe we can start dealing with truths for a change?
|
| 20.914 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 16:02 | 5 |
| Keep in mind Glen, according to groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood,
I am in the statistics of pro choice because of my stance of
rape/incest/life to mother. As you can see, I have very little
sympathy for the majority of abortions that happen due to birth
control!
|
| 20.915 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 16:02 | 21 |
| RE <<< Note 20.910 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
> Read an article in the Boston Glob last week that shows more and more
> college students across campuses throughout the country are becoming
> more pro-active in the pro-life movement...
... while at the same time pro-choice is now having some success using grass
roots techniques to recruit pro-choice activists.
> What a refreshing change....
But in other news, a recent survey shows that people still break down about:
35% pro-choice
38% sometimes favor abortion
25% pro-life
which is about what it was when the Boston Globe misprinted the results of
their abortion survey about 5-6 years ago.
George
|
| 20.916 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 16:09 | 24 |
| | <<< Note 20.912 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Could you provide me with a pointer on when we discussed Reagan/Bush?
We weren't. But you were talking about putting trust in an
administration that doesn't know which way is up, and I wanted to point out to
you that the 2 prior administrations did nothing about abortion.
| My only concern with the administrations involvement is that the president can
| appoint federal judges on the circuit courts and Supreme Court judges.
| Incidently, I find it interesting that the democrat party raised major stinks
| on both Reagan and Bushes appointments, yet Clinton received cooperation on a
| bipartisan level.
Gee, could it be that Clinton made the better choices???? Nah.... ya
could never admit that....
| All authoritative interviewees stated that Hillary was a negative to the
| president, that she (and Bill) were unfamiliar with Washington, and that she
| probably should have continued in her own profession and minded her own
| business.
Jack, what specific reasons did they give to back these claims? I'm
curious.
|
| 20.917 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 16:11 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.914 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Keep in mind Glen, according to groups like NOW and Planned Parenthood, I am
| in the statistics of pro choice because of my stance of rape/incest/life to
| mother.
Does anyone have any connections with NOW or Planned Parenthood that
could back or prove this statement wrong? I have never heard it before, and
would love to hear from someone in that group.
Glen
|
| 20.918 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 16:55 | 14 |
| Glen:
What I said was that the leadership (Not Clinton but NOW and PP),
didn't know which way was up. John Covert was quoting these
organizations from the sixties, they have flip flopped.
You could be right on the Supreme Court issue. I believe Bork got
screwed however, I believe the democrat leadership made a fiasco out of
the Thomas incident. And they couldn't get dirt on Judge Souter. So I
admit that Clinton did the expedient thing by choosing people he could
have very little problems with...especially after that nannygate crap
he had to deal with.
-Jack
|
| 20.919 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 17:04 | 16 |
| RE <<< Note 20.918 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> You could be right on the Supreme Court issue. I believe Bork got
> screwed however, I believe the democrat leadership made a fiasco out of
> the Thomas incident. And they couldn't get dirt on Judge Souter.
Bork got asked about an article that he wrote and when an ABC survey
indicated that the majority of people in the United States didn't want Judge
Bork on the Supreme Court the Senate voted him down.
As for Thomas, all the democrats did was allow witnesses to testify. It's
not Joe Biden's fault that Anita Hill claimed that she was abused. He let her
testify and he let Thomas answer the charge. That was about it from the Dem
side of the isle.
George
|
| 20.920 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 17:40 | 8 |
|
Jack, specifically, if you would, please list the things that NOW & PP
have flip flopped on. Thanks.
Glen
|
| 20.921 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Jan 23 1995 17:43 | 15 |
| clarification on the abortion deaths and maternal deaths stats. Could
someonw explain the other math presented in here please?
1987 CDC information
1.4 million surgical abortions performed/ 6 deaths
Unknown number of spontaneous abortions (roughly 80% of all
conceptions according to Jack Cohen author of "reproduction) 12 deaths
Maternal death rates for 1987 are slightly higher than 1/10,000 births
for women of color, and slightly lower than 1/10,000 births for
caucasian women. this somehow doesn't look like 6/100,000 to me.
|
| 20.922 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 17:59 | 8 |
| Jack, specifically, if you would, please list the things that
NOW & PP
have flip flopped on. Thanks.
I was referring to .869. And I referred to Planned Parenthood. NOW
has always been consistent in their views.
-Jack
|
| 20.923 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:02 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.922 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| I was referring to .869. And I referred to Planned Parenthood. NOW
| has always been consistent in their views.
Man, you list BOTH groups, and again when you're asked about it, you
back away. Please do us all a favor and stop saying things just for the sake of
talking. If you mean both groups, then say it. If there is only one group
involved, don't throw around other names. Your credibility is very low.
Glen
|
| 20.924 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:04 | 6 |
|
John kind of answered what I wanted, but it was in another notesfile.
It does prove him wrong when he said I lied. He believes it's ok for a group
to chain themselves to the doors and railings. A fanatic? You be the judge.
|
| 20.925 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:20 | 4 |
| Glen:
Yes, you definitely hold the corner on virtue in your replies...ha ha
ha !!!
|
| 20.926 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:21 | 7 |
| And what happens to people inside should another "peaceful reformer"
decide to firebomb the clinic. Can't get in, but those already inside
can't get out either. Oh yeah, that's right, it is defense of the
innocent, I forget these things. those inside, even if they are their
only to prevent an unwanted pregnancy from occuring should fry.
meg
|
| 20.927 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:23 | 4 |
| <-------
Which "peaceful reforming firebomber" are you talking about?
|
| 20.928 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:23 | 4 |
| Bottom line Meg is that your ilk set the prescedent. Everything else,
good or bad is only a result or a response of it!
-Jack
|
| 20.929 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:29 | 8 |
| RE <<< Note 20.928 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> Bottom line Meg is that your ilk set the precedent. Everything else,
> good or bad is only a result or a response of it!
When did pro-choice ever block the door to a building?
George
|
| 20.930 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:33 | 2 |
| No...I mean that it is you who wanted to perpetrate this wonderful
procedure on society under the guise of compassion.
|
| 20.931 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:36 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.925 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Yes, you definitely hold the corner on virtue in your replies...ha ha ha !!!
Jack, trying to deflect does not change the fact of the matter. List
what is real, don't add into it more than what is real, and your credibility
will start to go up.
Glen
|
| 20.932 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:39 | 3 |
| Sorry Glen, I know of other conferences where your credibility is
completely marred. i guess we are all getting our lumps these days
eh?!
|
| 20.933 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:41 | 9 |
| RE <<< Note 20.930 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> No...I mean that it is you who wanted to perpetrate this wonderful
> procedure on society under the guise of compassion.
No, all pro-choice wants to do is to offer it as an alternative. No one is
"perpetrating" it on any mother who doesn't want to be involved.
George
|
| 20.934 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:42 | 11 |
| My ILK? when did "My ilk" start shooting people inside churches,
firebombing the offices of "crisis pregnancy centers", kidnapping
pregnant people and forcing them to do what my choice for them would
be, dragging an "arrested" couple to a pro-choice rally to convince
them to abort, shooting pro-life doctors and staff at crisis pregnancy
centers, sending death threats to staff of pregnancy centers,
threatening the children of people who work in pro-life clinics, etc.,
etc., etc.?
meg
|
| 20.935 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:43 | 6 |
| George:
If we were to remove the thirteenth ammendment from the Constitution
(which could happen), and proslavery folks said, "we aren't
perpetrating our views on society", would you agree with this or reject
it?
|
| 20.936 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:45 | 4 |
| Meg:
Were these things in existence before Roe v. Wade was perpetrared on
America?
|
| 20.937 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:47 | 14 |
| RE <<< Note 20.935 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> If we were to remove the thirteenth ammendment from the Constitution
> (which could happen), and proslavery folks said, "we aren't
> perpetrating our views on society", would you agree with this or reject
> it?
Yes, that would be perpetrating slavery on what most of us recognize as
living breathing human beings.
In the case of abortion, we are talking about women who choose to have
abortions, no one else.
George
|
| 20.938 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:48 | 1 |
| Obviously, alot of people don't see it that way!
|
| 20.939 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:50 | 7 |
| RE <<< Note 20.938 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> Obviously, alot of people don't see it that way!
Obviously a lot more do.
George
|
| 20.940 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:51 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.932 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Sorry Glen, I know of other conferences where your credibility is completely
| marred.
Jack, why don't you list the reasons why they are in that other
CONFERENCE. BTW, again, nice deflection. Didn't change the facts about you
Jack, so please try again. How about this time addressing the issue of you, and
not deflect. If you'd like, we could hold 2 discussions. One that deflects, one
that deals with the issue at hand.
| i guess we are all getting our lumps these days eh?!
Lumps???? Themz nipples!
|
| 20.941 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:54 | 12 |
| jack,
what, one poor woman who sued the state of Texas to get abortion safe
and legal is a person of "my ilk?"
Because her suit was successful, she is responsible for people who
murder, bomb, and threaten small living children and their parents with
death, in the name of pro-life?
Get serious, and get some logic as well Jack. I think you need it.
meg
|
| 20.942 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:56 | 4 |
|
Seems broad-brushing from either "extreme" spectrum does no-one any
good... does it meg?
|
| 20.943 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Jan 23 1995 18:58 | 5 |
| As one who is anti violence, I don't know what you mean.
I really want to know how jack can blame one poor woman, who, by the
way is still poor for people who burn, vandalize, assault and murder
living, breathing people.
|
| 20.944 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:01 | 17 |
| >> Because her suit was successful, she is responsible for people who
>> murder, bomb, and threaten small living children and their parents
>> with death, in the name of pro-life?
Roe v. Wade propogated the acceptance and use of abortion in the United
States, you know it and I know it. The things mentioned above are
condemned by most reasonable individuals. But don't sit there and cry
that your virtues are any better than theirs. Like I said some replies
back, the doctor killers, although they are thugs, see you in exactly
the same light. One thug shooting another thug. This is the way
people think Meg. I condemn their actions as much as you do...but
don't sit there when something like that happens and say, "Oh my, why
are they trying to hurt lil old me?" They see you as a thug...plain
and simple. Sorry to have to tell you this! Don't shoot the
messenger!!
-Jack
|
| 20.945 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:05 | 10 |
|
Jack, it doesn't matter if they see her as a thug or not. If it is not
factual, then they are thinking wrongly, pure and simple. Correct me if I am
wrong, but the impression your note left me with is because they may view her
as a thug, she should accept it.
Glen
|
| 20.946 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:05 | 11 |
|
RE: .943
meg,
Rabid idealism, from whichever side of the spectrum, does not
necessarily include violence...
Have you seen ALL the demonstrations this past weekend?
|
| 20.947 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:11 | 13 |
| Glen:
Perception and reality go hand in hand at times. A clinic worker
doesn't have to see themselves as a thug; however, the prolifer only
has two options here..
1. Believing the clinic worker is a thug.
2. Believing the clinic worker is misguided and was sold a bill of
goods.
I'd be interested in which one of these you think fits Glen!
-Jack
|
| 20.948 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:17 | 14 |
| and jack,
those of us who are pro-choice and pro-life? What do you think we see?
oh yeah, I forgot, I am a fence sitting situational ethic, mor
relativist (and apparently according to you thug)
However, I still don't know of any pro-choicer, no matter how fervent a
believer who drags pregnant women into clinics against their will to
have wanted pregnancies aborted. I have seen people who claim to be
pro-life assault and murder thhose who are pro-choice, including those
who are pregnant.
meg
|
| 20.949 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:17 | 14 |
| RE <<< Note 20.947 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> Perception and reality go hand in hand at times. A clinic worker
> doesn't have to see themselves as a thug; however, the prolifer only
> has two options here..
>
> 1. Believing the clinic worker is a thug.
> 2. Believing the clinic worker is misguided and was sold a bill of
> goods.
No, they've got one more. Chose to avoid having abortions themselves and
leave other people alone.
George
|
| 20.950 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:19 | 10 |
|
RE: .948
>I have seen people who claim to be
^^^^^
Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| 20.951 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:23 | 18 |
| | <<< Note 20.947 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Perception and reality go hand in hand at times. A clinic worker doesn't have
| to see themselves as a thug; however, the prolifer only has two options here..
| 1. Believing the clinic worker is a thug.
| 2. Believing the clinic worker is misguided and was sold a bill of goods.
You forgot the 3rd and most important one Jack. Let God do the judging
of others.
| I'd be interested in which one of these you think fits Glen!
#3.
Glen
|
| 20.952 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:25 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.950 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
| >I have seen people who claim to be
^^^^^
| Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Andy, do all pro-life people have to agree 100% with everything in
order for them to be pro-life?
Glen
|
| 20.953 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:32 | 11 |
|
<-------
pay attention!!!
Meg brought up an "extreme".... I was just calling attention to the
fact that it was an extreme...
NNTTM
|
| 20.954 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:37 | 14 |
| >> You forgot the 3rd and most important one Jack. Let God do the
>> judging of others.
Glen, you're the balz man! So if the thirteenth ammendment gets
repealed and I own a slave, you won't do anything about it eh?! Let
God be my judge eh?! I personally don't think you'd stand for it!
Meg:
No, I don't see you as a thug. I see you as somebody who is blinded by
the NOW crowd....somebody who was told that wrong was right and you've
convinced yourself of the same!
|
| 20.955 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:39 | 5 |
| Yo, what was wrong with my 3rd choice:
Choose not to have an abortion and leave other people alone.
George
|
| 20.956 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:48 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.953 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
| Meg brought up an "extreme".... I was just calling attention to the
| fact that it was an extreme...
An extreme can still be part of the belief.
|
| 20.957 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:50 | 14 |
| >> Yo, what was wrong with my 3rd choice:
>> Choose not to have an abortion and leave other people alone.
For one thing, it doesn't address the issue of societal
responsibility. The 13th ammendment, the ammendment on equal rights,
equal protection...these are all the results of societal ownership.
It's like I said George, some people see abortion the same way a
neighbors dog craps on ones lawn. Nobody wants it but half the
neighborhood feels the dog is only performing that which is normal and
should be able to chit where it wants!
-Jack
|
| 20.958 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:51 | 19 |
| | <<< Note 20.954 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| >> You forgot the 3rd and most important one Jack. Let God do the
| >> judging of others.
| Glen, you're the balz man! So if the thirteenth ammendment gets repealed and
| I own a slave, you won't do anything about it eh?!
Jack, you gave me 2 options on what I would think of these people. Not
whether or not I would want them to do what they do. I do not think of them as
thugs, I let God judge them for what they do the same way I let God judge you
for what you do. I view them, and you, as human beings.
| No, I don't see you as a thug. I see you as somebody who is blinded by
| the NOW crowd....somebody who was told that wrong was right and you've
| convinced yourself of the same!
But can ya prove it?
|
| 20.959 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:53 | 9 |
| >> I view them, and you, as human beings.
Right...but alot of people see them as animalistic. That's the
unfortunate fact.
I don't have to prove this Glen. It is an opinion obviously prejudiced
by my mores.
-Jack
|
| 20.960 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 19:59 | 26 |
| RE <<< Note 20.957 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> For one thing, it doesn't address the issue of societal
> responsibility. The 13th ammendment, the ammendment on equal rights,
> equal protection...these are all the results of societal ownership.
If the 13th amendment applies to this situation it works for pro-choice not
pro-life. Forcing a woman to carry a child is a lot closer to slavery than
anything pro-life is talking about. Where is the involuntary servitude in the
pro-life position?
> It's like I said George, some people see abortion the same way a
> neighbors dog craps on ones lawn. Nobody wants it but half the
> neighborhood feels the dog is only performing that which is normal and
> should be able to chit where it wants!
Problem here is that we have the dog relieving himself on his owners lawn and
we have people who don't even live in the neighborhood trying to block the dog
from entering his own house.
As long as a dog stays in his own yard, all you have to do is mind your own
business and his business is not a problem. As long as a pro-lifer is not
forced into an abortion clinic, all they have to do is mind their own business
and the entire problem goes away.
George
|
| 20.961 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 20:03 | 5 |
| Yes, if you see the fetus as the property of the woman, who may do with
it as she deems fit. (Slave Owner) Baby=Slave.
If large segment of society sees fetus as individual being, we have a
problem here!
|
| 20.962 | You're driven by opinion, not fact | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 20:05 | 18 |
| | <<< Note 20.959 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| >> I view them, and you, as human beings.
| Right...but alot of people see them as animalistic. That's the unfortunate
| fact.
You seem, from your past notes, to accept this as a valid reason for
them. Please correct me if I am wrong.
| I don't have to prove this Glen. It is an opinion obviously prejudiced
| by my mores.
Jack, by this statement alone you have cleared everything up. Thank
you.
Glen
|
| 20.963 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 20:05 | 14 |
| RE <<< Note 20.961 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> Yes, if you see the fetus as the property of the woman, who may do with
> it as she deems fit. (Slave Owner) Baby=Slave.
So if I have my appendix out am I being a slave owner? Appendix=slave.
> If large segment of society sees fetus as individual being, we have a
> problem here!
But they don't. Pro-life is a minority. Albeit a vocal minority but a minority
none the less.
George
|
| 20.964 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 20:08 | 9 |
| >> You seem, from your past notes, to accept this as a valid
>> reason for
>> them. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If you speak of me condoning the actions, the answer is no. I believe
Paul Hill should receive the death penalty as also the others who shot
these ignorant, misguided doctors.
-Jack
|
| 20.965 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 23 1995 20:11 | 17 |
| >> So if I have my appendix out am I being a slave owner?
>> Appendix=slave.
No, the DNA makeup of a fetus is the of a person. An Appendix is an
organ within a person. Apples to Oranges.
> If large segment of society sees fetus as individual being, we
have a
> problem here!
>>> But they don't. Pro-life is a minority. Albeit a vocal minority but a
>>> minority
Not true. The majority see abortion for birth control as evil. This
unfortunately is the silent crowd...the fencesitters...
-Jack
|
| 20.966 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 23 1995 20:13 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.965 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Not true. The majority see abortion for birth control as evil. This
| unfortunately is the silent crowd...the fencesitters...
No jack, 23% see it as that.
|
| 20.967 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Mon Jan 23 1995 20:15 | 5 |
|
>No jack, 23% see it as that.
Source??? (as if you found it and read it yourself...)
|
| 20.968 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Jan 23 1995 20:17 | 32 |
| RE <<< Note 20.965 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> No, the DNA makeup of a fetus is the of a person. An Appendix is an
> organ within a person. Apples to Oranges.
Well then that brings us back to eggs. They clearly have a different DNA
than the person, if a woman has a hysterectomy has she killed thousand of
unfertilized babies just because the DNA of the eggs is different? Egg=Slave.
> Not true. The majority see abortion for birth control as evil. This
> unfortunately is the silent crowd...the fencesitters...
I have never seen a survey that said a majority of people thought that
abortion for birth control was evil. In fact I've never seen word evil used in
an abortion survey.
The numbers I saw the other night were the ones I posted before. They went
something like:
35% pro-choice
38% sometimes abortion is ok
25% pro-life
That 38% varies a great deal on who's doing the asking and what is being
asked. When someone asks "Do you believe in murdering babies" they almost all
say no. When someone asks "Do you believe a woman has a right to control her
reproductive system" most of them say yes.
That type of indecision is a far cry from them believing that abortion for
birth control is evil.
George
|
| 20.969 | But at least you can use analogies here. | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jan 24 1995 03:57 | 1 |
| That analogy was a real dog.
|
| 20.970 | Political danger for the GOP... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Jan 24 1995 11:07 | 28 |
|
This is potentially a very divisive issue at the GOP 96 convention.
The political truth is, the inside-the-GOP pro-life majority can
make it very hard for any Republican to get nominated, but catering
to them makes it hard to get elected. High marks so far to Hailey
Barber for keeping this behind the scenes, but it will come out.
This week pro-life/pro-choice demonstrations are everywhere, although
neither Congress or the Supremes have it on their agenda anytime soon.
This has led to a lot of silly politics. Why on earth are NOW, etc
picketing WELD ? He is pro-choice through-and-through, damagingly
so from the point of view of having any national GOP aspirations.
This certainly damages any attempt at bipartisanship among the
feminists. They look like just another front group for the Democratic
National Committee.
Also incongruous was the "prayer" of the pro-life demonstration in
Washington, who begged the new GOP Congressional leadership to add
something pro-life to the Contract with America. Won't happen, unless
Dole/Gingrich have a death wish.
Truth is, the court has ruled, whatever you think of it, and there is
not enough concensus among the people to overturn their ruling. Nor
(given the most recent re-affirmation of Row-v-Wade) is there any
prospect of the Court considering the matter again any time soon.
bb
|
| 20.971 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Jan 24 1995 12:30 | 14 |
| Jack,
I am not blinded by the NOW crowd. I have seen first hand in my family
the results of illegal, unsafe abortion, and I don't wish to have that
happen to myself, my daughters or my future granddaughters.
I also firmly belive that if we allow the gevermnment this much control
in our reproduction when some people want more children, that should
the tables be turned, we will have given the government the right to
make decisions surrounding sterilization abortions, a fertility in
general. Shades of China, where the guvmint knows best for what your
fertility choices.
meg
|
| 20.972 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 12:51 | 14 |
| Meg:
We know we are both after the same thing. We disagree on the method to
accomplish this. Since it is no secret that most abortions are birth
control related, and since it seems apparent from this conference that
even prochoices see the need to lower the abortion rate and oppose the
use of abortion for birth control, this is where I see our venue for
compromise.
The Norplant thing, we've discussed alot and I do understand the side
effects and all that. Face it, compromise has to be made or
women/clinics are going to suffer a perpetual hell on earth!
-Jack
|
| 20.973 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 24 1995 13:10 | 22 |
| RE <<< Note 20.972 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> Since it is no secret that most abortions are birth
> control related, and since it seems apparent from this conference that
> even prochoices see the need to lower the abortion rate and oppose the
> use of abortion for birth control, this is where I see our venue for
> compromise.
Whooooo, where did that one come from. I'm pro-choice and I have never
supported denying a woman the choice of an abortion for birth control.
>Face it, compromise has to be made or
> women/clinics are going to suffer a perpetual hell on earth!
No, compromise is not necessary at all. We'll beef up security and do what
ever it takes to keep the wackos and thugs from murdering real live thinking
and breathing people who are trying to exercise their Constitutional Rights.
People have been willing to die for much less in the name of freedom, the
tyranny of the pro-life is not going to force anyone to compromise.
George
|
| 20.974 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 13:17 | 1 |
| Fine George, see you in the trenches!
|
| 20.975 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 24 1995 13:23 | 4 |
| I thought you were against violence at clinics. If so then what will you be
doing in the trenches?
George
|
| 20.976 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Tue Jan 24 1995 13:26 | 8 |
| re: .973
>Whooooo, where did that one come from. I'm pro-choice and I have never
>supported denying a woman the choice of an abortion for birth control.
Then you are in the minority among your peers....
|
| 20.977 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 13:39 | 13 |
| George:
I didn't say I'd be in the trenches. I said I'll see you in the
trenches. Everytime I see coverage on TV of a clinic, I'll think of
you as being there...because you're going to have to continue the fight
for this "Constitutional Right" and you'll have to shell up the money
for the extra security...or your fellow clinicians that is!
Don't worry about me shooting somebody. I'll just continue to take
cowardly pot shots at you folks...continuing in the war effort to make
your rights as miserably received as possible!
-Jack
|
| 20.978 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Jan 24 1995 14:09 | 11 |
| jack,
You forget. It is mnot my business WHY a women chooses an abortion. I
do want better, more reliable contraception to reduce the number of
abortions. I want men to take more responsibility for where they fire
off their sperm to reduce the number of pregnancies, I want better
support for women and parents so that aborting an unplanned pregnancy
is less attractive.
meg
|
| 20.979 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Jan 24 1995 14:19 | 15 |
| Oh and Jack,
Evwry family planning clinic? You see not all PP clinics provide
abortion services, and at least in Colorado less than 6% of the
business conducted in clinics is abortion related.
So you will work to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies,
advanced cervical and breast cancers, and in some cases you prevent
women from getting innoculations which prevent fatal birth defects,
prevent prenatal care, and generally invade the lives of women who
never have had and never will have an abortion.
Boy, who would of thought you hated women and children this much.
meg
|
| 20.980 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 14:24 | 5 |
| Touche...and noted. However, you surely must realize, as stated in the
past, Planned Parenthood has a serious marketing deficiency. If I were
president of PP, I would do alot of PR work to improve their image!
-Jack
|
| 20.981 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Jan 24 1995 14:24 | 52 |
| re: .977
I am struck by how absolutely pointless this topic has
become. Once you start calling people "wackos" and "thugs"
you (in a collective sense) have really lost all sense of
discussion, and are certainly as far off from the "compromise"
area as you can get.
Poking people with verbal stilettos does nothing to ingratiate
your arguments.
There are many areas where there is argeement: no one really
wants abortion to be a form of birth control. From a woman's
perspective, is isn't as safe as other forms, and it carries
with it the possibility of lifetime emotional damage for some.
Obviously, promoting the use of safe, effective methods of
birth control (including abstinence) is preferred. However,
the problem I see is that the pro-life people don't seem to want
to promote the dissemination of birth control information
either. What it appears is that you would rather people stop having
sex. Sex being what it is, I don't think that's going to happen,
and I think that particular agenda is too controlling and
unrealistic.
No one wants unwanted children brought into the world. No one wants
to see children hurt, malnourished, unloved or living in abject poverty.
Fine then, what can we all do? Can we work together to establish
volunteer centers to help pregnant mothers, adoptions networks to place
children, work harder to remove the prejudicies that prevent homes from
being opened to children of color? Can we use all this energy from all
this anger to do some good?
Or should we just all go on being angry?
Abortion will never go away, and personally, I don't think it should.
It has always been with us. However, we can minimize the number of
abortions by working together to bring information and help to each
community in this country. And if we do, maybe a lot of other things
will get better as well. Maybe we'll all understand a little better
what it means to be poor and have no options. Or what it means to
be left alone and pregnant with only a minimum wage job to
support yourself and your child. Or what it means to always be
hungry. Or what it means to be unloved. And maybe the birth
control information will keep unwanted children from being born.
And maybe it will keep some couples from having sex until they
are married.
Or we could just all go on being angry. The choice is yours.
Well? How many lives do you really want to save?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.982 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Jan 24 1995 14:56 | 10 |
| well Mary-Michael, i do agree with your position. your observation
on the words being used to describe the fringe also holds some merit.
emotions run soooo high in this space that people begin to "emphasize"
that emotion through poor choice (i'm as guilty as anyone).
however, indiscriminant and extreme acts of violence (murder) can be
categorized (conservatively) as thuggery...
Chip
|
| 20.983 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 15:05 | 17 |
| Mary Michael:
When did I ever resort to name calling in this conference? Even
collectively, you will find most prolifers see prochoicers as
misguided. I was only saying the ones who shoot doctors are doing this
because they see the doctors as butchers and thugs.
The issues you bring forth are quite pertinent, I don't make light of
these. The problem with government implementing the birth control
issue is that they are prone to misrepresenting the moral authority
issue. Apparently this is a big issue since alot of people are against
the distribution of BC devices by local government. Government has
proven to be the opposite in this matter! Therefore, I believe it is
up to the local church to get off their duffs, remove the candor, and
get down to brass tacks!
-Jack
|
| 20.984 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Jan 24 1995 16:08 | 18 |
| re: .983
Jack,
I find being referred to as a "thug" rather offensive, but
perhaps I'm just a bit peculiar in that regard.... :-)
"Thug" is a term guaranteed to generate more heat than
light, consequently if you use those terms, one can make
the assumption that light, represented in the form of
compromise, isn't really what you're looking for.
I find your position regarding government interference in
birth control rather interesting, especially since you,
I believe, adocated mandating Norplant use for welfare
mothers. Would you mind explaining the difference for me?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.985 | | MROA::DHURLEY | family=common beliefs=values=care=respect | Tue Jan 24 1995 16:31 | 20 |
| I have read several notes here asking whatabout the children that are
presently living in situations that are unsuitable...poverty, abuse,
and despair and I have yet to hear from anyone willing to address how
we as a society can concentrate our efforts on those children...
I have yet to read about any true commitments about trying to change
how we take care of these children...again it takes more than a child
being born...it takes money, time, and commitment to get a family
stable emotional and financial....
You know there are so many different situations where when it takes
alot of money to support a child....and when I hear about not funding
people who can't make on their own...it makes me crazy...where does the
money come from???
We as a society do not know how to care for our children.....we as a
society need to start finding out how to do that....again it takes
money, time and committment from all different places....
denise
|
| 20.986 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 24 1995 16:39 | 12 |
| RE<<< Note 20.985 by MROA::DHURLEY "family=common beliefs=values=care=respect" >>>
> I have yet to read about any true commitments about trying to change
> how we take care of these children...again it takes more than a child
> being born...it takes money, time, and commitment to get a family
> stable emotional and financial....
I think that Newt has an idea about orphanages. Just put kids in institutions
and people with the sensitivity of some old Spencer Tracy character will appear
magically to make their lives wonderful.
George
|
| 20.987 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Tue Jan 24 1995 16:41 | 2 |
| .985
....at about $36,000.00 per year.
|
| 20.988 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 17:13 | 40 |
| George, you're blowing smoke. It is being done now and the idea is
being promoted via Donna Shalala as a spokesperson for the Clinton
Administration. So let's stop kidding ourselves into thinking this is
a republican idea, okay?!
Denise, this is a very good question and worthy of an honest answer.
This is where I cross over into the religious realm in this discussion.
I've noticed in this conference alot of fear generated when religion or
true Christian values are brought forth or recommended. The word
thumper, born again moron and the like come immediately to mind. Well,
I'm a believer in balance within ones life and I happen to believe the
family is an area that needs balance.
Allowing government to act as a surrogate for family issues and family
leadership is probably one of the worst ideas imaginable. Our looney
friends on the far left seem to believe that our federal government
should fill this role. Ihappen to disagree. Our government uses the
secular humanist approach to tackle the issue of dysfunctional families
with psychologists as their priests. We are now feeling the effects of
this today. The sheer dysfunctionalism we see in children having
children, if tackled now, may reverse itself in about twenty to thirty
years. The government is a very poor replacement for what the church
and private institutions should be doing. Yet, we continually see this
idea poo poo'd under the guise of the separation issue. As far as I'm
concerned, this society has one foot in hell already...hell on earth.
The blame goes on the gullibles out there...the Kennedy bumkissers and
the like...as well as a lukewarm local church who cares about the
building programs and the ghastly committees the members serve on. I
speak of the church as a whole global body, not any church in
particular. The church/synagogue should do what they're commissioned
to do and the government should be there as a secondary resource. Of
course people like George will have you believe the opposite...then we
can put our other foot into perdition.
Our youth need to be taken from dysfunctional environments. They need
to have stable role models. I firmly believe they need Jesus in their
lives first and foremost but that's my opinion. So the real problem is
how can we do the first part at least?
-Jack
|
| 20.989 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Tue Jan 24 1995 17:19 | 7 |
| .988
Who gets to determinan a "dysfunctional" family...the welfare or the
Pope. I don`t think either are qualifed to do it. Sure there has to be
balance in life but it won`t be the Pope or the government in my house,
there it is up to me to do the balancing. I`d much rather hear John
(Covert) do the preaching...at least I think he uses more common sence
about this subject then most.
|
| 20.990 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 17:20 | 26 |
| >> I find your position regarding government interference in
>> birth control rather interesting, especially since you,
>> I believe, adocated mandating Norplant use for welfare
>> mothers. Would you mind explaining the difference for me?
Yes. I believe government should not make decisions centered around
birth or conception control. Not to citizens who uphold the law
and are self sufficient. I believe if a young woman needs assistance
or will be taking money from the system, that's fine. However, they
don't have the right to create further dependents. The Norplant idea
is a good idea in this case. The 14 year old can become educated, hold
down a job, show she can be a competent parent, get married! Then,
she can get off the Norplant.
Keep in mind, IT IS HER DECISION...she can have it removed anytime she
wants. In essence, she is being paid to not have children and get her
life in order. I abhor government interference. I hate government
creating dependence worse. I stand for self sufficiency and instilling
the values of personal responsibility and self reliance. A poor young
woman realistically in trouble will not have had this chance to learn
these things. The Norplant will give her the time and ability to
continue maturing and learning along the way. I don't see the problem
in this, Orwellian as it sounds!!
-Jack
|
| 20.991 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 24 1995 17:22 | 29 |
| RE <<< Note 20.988 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> We are now feeling the effects of
> this today. The sheer dysfunctionalism we see in children having
> children, if tackled now, may reverse itself in about twenty to thirty
> years.
If you allow free access and public support for abortions this problem will
solve itself a lot quicker.
> The church/synagogue should do what they're commissioned
> to do and the government should be there as a secondary resource. Of
> course people like George will have you believe the opposite...then we
> can put our other foot into perdition.
Churches are doing what they are suppose to do. There are many churches
preaching their religion and many are doing what they can to help the poor.
> Our youth need to be taken from dysfunctional environments. They need
> to have stable role models. I firmly believe they need Jesus in their
> lives first and foremost but that's my opinion. So the real problem is
> how can we do the first part at least?
So what do you suggest, kidnapping? The government can't force kids into
a Christian environment because that would violate their religious freedom.
To whom would you assign the job of going around kidnapping kids from their
parents and transporting them to Christian orphanages?
George
|
| 20.992 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Tue Jan 24 1995 17:27 | 10 |
|
re: Jack
>> I've noticed in this conference alot of fear generated when religion or
>> true Christian values are brought forth or recommended.
"fear"? this is exactly the kind of unfounded, condescending
assessment of other people's attitudes that makes religious
zealots so hard to take.
|
| 20.993 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 17:31 | 22 |
| George:
Children who are brought up in a church/synagogue going household are
less likely to grow up dysfunctional. Children from two parent
families are less likely to drop out of school, go to jail, or have
illigitamate children. This is statistically proven.
There is alot more the local church can do! I believe we relinquished
the duty to Uncle Sam...that was a mistake. the roles are
dysfunctional in themselves. George, why do you think the public
schools are going to pot and more people are homeschooling these days?
Yes, a trophy or monument of evidence as to the incompetance of
government.
This is why I'm a proponent of Newt Gingrich. I don't care whose
feelings he hurts. I want that safety net to dissappear so that the
church and other private institutions can fulfill their purposes. I
want to see the tax burden dropped so that more money can be donated
charitably. Government is also a poor spender of money. Again the
public schools...completely incompetent the way they spend money.
-Jack
|
| 20.994 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 17:33 | 7 |
| >> there it is up to me to do the balancing. I`d much rather hear John
>> (Covert) do the preaching...at least I think he uses more common
>> sense about this subject then most.
Agreed. It's a big mess...but we have to move from the status quo...
they're making things worse and going about it the wrong way.
(government that is)
|
| 20.995 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 24 1995 17:41 | 16 |
| RE <<< Note 20.993 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> Children who are brought up in a church/synagogue going household are
> less likely to grow up dysfunctional.
Susan Smith comes to mind.
>Children from two parent
> families are less likely to drop out of school, go to jail, or have
> illigitamate children. This is statistically proven.
Yes we've been down this road before. It can also be statistically proven
that if people are carrying umbrellas then it is probably raining although
I doubt anyone would conclude that umbrellas cause it to rain.
George
|
| 20.996 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 17:45 | 24 |
| >> "fear"? this is exactly the kind of unfounded, condescending
>> assessment of other people's attitudes that makes religious
>> zealots so hard to take.
Diane dear:
I would be glad to furnish you with proof of this. Go into any string
from the old version of Soapbox...for that matter, go into any string
that discusses anything tied in with moral values. Immediately, I
guarantee you will find resistance...you will find ridicule....you will
see titles saying thump thump thump...the list goes on.
Any counselor will tell you we fear that which we don't
understand. Even though we have a beautiful tool called next unseen,
it is rarely used. You will see the pejorative statements and
defensive posturing that goes on. It's no secret religion is a
divisive issue in this world...which is why each of the apostles except
one was martyred for their faith. I do make reference to my faith from
time to time but only on rare occasions, lest I make somebody
uncomfortable without realizing it.
So please don't take this as condescending. The proof runneth over!
-Jack
|
| 20.997 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Tue Jan 24 1995 18:03 | 6 |
| RE: .991
>If you allow free access and public support for abortions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow public support???
|
| 20.998 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 24 1995 18:14 | 11 |
| RE <<< Note 20.997 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
> Allow public support???
Yes, if we allow public support for abortions then the poor as well as the
rich will have access to those procedures.
And it is cost justified. It costs the state a lot more to deny the poor
abortions than it would cost us to provide them.
George
|
| 20.999 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Jan 24 1995 18:14 | 25 |
| re: .990
I'm sorry, but I find this line of thinking frightening.
What's to keep the government from limiting it to a 14 year old.
Or a 16 year old? Or a 24 year old? Or a 32 year old woman
with 2 children whose husband has passed away? What you are
saying is that women must carry the blame and the burden for
unwanted pregnancy in our society. That, IMNSHO, is
reprehensible. Are there only women on welfare? Do only
women abuse the system? Are all these devious women
practicing cell division alone in the comfort of their
spacious homes while they watch cable television and their
16 children polish the Cadillac in the driveway?
I agree with you that when the government sticks it's foot
in the door it is rather difficult to get it back out of
the house. But I would also say the same for the local
church. The only person who should be making decisions
about me is me. Allowing the government to provide information
and supplies is very different from allowing the government
to mandate what you do with it.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1000 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Tue Jan 24 1995 18:18 | 9 |
|
RE: .998
and how are we to accomplish that? Through our un-biased media?
If "public support" were overwhelmingly opposed to abortion on
demand, you'd support that... wouldn't you?
|
| 20.1001 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 24 1995 18:25 | 13 |
| >> The only person who should be making decisions
>> about me is me. Allowing the government to provide information
>> and supplies is very different from allowing the government
>> to mandate what you do with it.
Fine, like I said, they have full say in the whole situation. You look
at it as government holding a carrot on a stick. I see it as an
incentive for young girls who want to get their lives in order. I
believe there has to be give and take and a welfare mom must relinquish
their reproductive rights if they are to receive stopends from the
taxpayers!
-Jack
|
| 20.1002 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 24 1995 18:30 | 20 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1000 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
> RE: .998
>
> and how are we to accomplish that? Through our un-biased media?
>
> If "public support" were overwhelmingly opposed to abortion on
> demand, you'd support that... wouldn't you?
What in blazes are you talking about?
I'm saying that I believe that the poor should have access to abortions
on demand and that the government should pay for those services. I believe it
would be cost justified since it costs the government a lot more to deny
abortions on demand.
And since the public is not overwhelmingly opposed to abortion on demand
I don't see what point you are trying to make.
George
|
| 20.1003 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 12:20 | 10 |
| Sorry George, that's blood money and it's not the responsibility of the
public to fund it. It's a private choice, let Planned Parenthood or
NARAL or NOW amongst other private groups fund it.
We don't ask the taxpayers to send our church missionaries overseas.
That's about as ridiculous as what you suggested. I'd rather do the
more expensive route. I could save alot of money by bumping my mother
n law off too...but you don't see me promoting this...much.
-Jack
|
| 20.1004 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Jan 25 1995 12:27 | 10 |
| re: .1001
But my point is once you give the government the
authority, what is to prevent it from expanding the
program from a 14 year old girl who wants to get her
life in order to a 32 year old widow who needs public
assistance? Or perhaps you think ANY woman who needs
public assistance should be put on Norplant?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1005 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 12:33 | 15 |
| No, I don't have all the answers. In fact, I'm now against Norplant
(made aware by Meg and the news) to be used due to the side effects.
Ideally, any device that can be used on a male or female that would
stop them from multiplying. Okay, I'll pick an arbitrary number...age
21. This way, anybody under the drinking age cannot have a baby. This
would solve alot of those inner city problems you've been telling us
about. I don't really see the problem here. No birth control, no
money. Want to have babies, that's your choice. This is the message
they'd be getting. They're being paid to not have children and get
their lives in order. Any decisions they make over 21, well, they're
adults and are accountable!!!
What is wrong with this compromise!? It solves both our problems!
-Jack
|
| 20.1006 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jan 25 1995 13:14 | 14 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1003 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> Sorry George, that's blood money and it's not the responsibility of the
> public to fund it. It's a private choice, let Planned Parenthood or
> NARAL or NOW amongst other private groups fund it.
All operations result in blood which suggests to me that all money to pay
for any operation is "blood money".
By law a fetus is not a person so no one's life is being destroyed unless
you base the definition of a person on DNA in which case an egg is a human
life.
George
|
| 20.1007 | | BRITE::FYFE | Never tell a dragon your real name. | Wed Jan 25 1995 13:21 | 6 |
|
> All operations result in blood which suggests to me that all money to pay
>for any operation is "blood money".
Come on George. You know that isn't what he meant.
|
| 20.1008 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 13:21 | 8 |
| >> All operations result in blood which suggests to me that all money to
>> pay for any operation is "blood money".
No. What Judas received for betraying Jesus was blood money. What a
good german citizen received for turning in a jew was blood money.
-Jack
|
| 20.1009 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jan 25 1995 13:38 | 1 |
| What an abortionist receives for killing a baby is blood money.
|
| 20.1010 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Jan 25 1995 13:38 | 6 |
| re: .1008
And if John Salvi received money from pro-life organizations,
was that blood money too?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1011 | By definition, one cannot be pro-life and pay a hit man | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jan 25 1995 13:39 | 3 |
| Yes. But he didn't.
/john
|
| 20.1012 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 13:45 | 5 |
| Right Mary Michael. Salvi deserves the death penalty! Anybody who who
fund or pay for this is an accomplice and should receive the due
penalty.
-Jack
|
| 20.1013 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:07 | 11 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1009 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>What an abortionist receives for killing a baby is blood money.
No abortionist ever killed a baby. Under law a fetus does not become a baby
until after birth.
So any doctor getting paid for performing a legal medical procedure is
getting "blood money"?
George
|
| 20.1014 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Belgian Burger Disseminator | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:13 | 1 |
| The condom companies are getting blood money.
|
| 20.1015 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:17 | 5 |
| Actually, if you use George's model, every doctor who
does a hysterectomy or a vasectomy is getting blood money
too...... :-)
|
| 20.1016 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:17 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.967 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
| >No jack, 23% see it as that.
| Source??? (as if you found it and read it yourself...)
I gave the source many notes ago Andy. Guess ya jumped in late. I heard
it on WBZ tv news Monday morning.
Glen
|
| 20.1017 | | HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS | | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:20 | 11 |
| <<< Note 20.1001 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> Fine, like I said, they have full say in the whole situation. You look
> at it as government holding a carrot on a stick. I see it as an
> incentive for young girls who want to get their lives in order. I
> believe there has to be give and take and a welfare mom must relinquish
> their reproductive rights if they are to receive stopends from the
> taxpayers!
What bodily function are you willing to give up for your government
handout, the $thousands you get back for owning a home?
|
| 20.1018 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:20 | 13 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1015 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
> Actually, if you use George's model, every doctor who
> does a hysterectomy or a vasectomy is getting blood money
> too...... :-)
Well it depends.
If you say that any procedure results in blood money if it involves the
removal of living tissue from the body who's DNA is different from the parent,
then yes.
George
|
| 20.1019 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:26 | 17 |
|
| I've noticed in this conference alot of fear generated when religion or true
| Christian values are brought forth or recommended.
Jack, you are a funny guy! You scream how you don't want to be put into
the homophobic crowd on several occassions, yet you make a blanket sweeping
statement that fear is generated when talking about religion or true <whatever
that means> Christian values are talked about. Why do you throw people into
this catagory when I know you haven't talked to all of them to find out what
their positions are. You state that you are not homophobic, but you don't agree
with the homosexual sex. You do not want this disagreement taken and have a
homophobic label stamped onto you. Yet haven't you just done that to those who
do not agree with the "true" Christian value system?
Glen
|
| 20.1020 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:27 | 4 |
| So George, the jews by law were vermon in Germany....but that would be
killing eh?
You apply law to your argument...but it's full of holes!
|
| 20.1021 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:30 | 7 |
| Tom:
My bodily functions aren't a detriment to society so your question is a
moot one! Fifteen year olds on welfare do not have the right to
procreate to extort from the public dole.
-Jack
|
| 20.1022 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:30 | 27 |
| | <<< Note 20.996 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| I would be glad to furnish you with proof of this. Go into any string from the
| old version of Soapbox...for that matter, go into any string that discusses
| anything tied in with moral values. Immediately, I guarantee you will find
| resistance...you will find ridicule....you will see titles saying thump thump
| thump...the list goes on.
That's good Jack. Now how about tieing this all in with fear? You have
only shown that people do not agree with all of ther er... "true" Christian
values along with people are sick of hearing them. No fear like you origionally
claimed...
| Any counselor will tell you we fear that which we don't understand.
Jack, I know there are things about homosexuals that you do not
understand. Does that mean you fear us? No. There is more to it than just not
understanding that goes into it all.
| So please don't take this as condescending. The proof runneth over!
Actually, there is no proof so far Jack. Just more assertions by you,
and nothing to back them.
Glen
|
| 20.1023 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:40 | 7 |
|
RE: .1016
Heard it on WBZ???
Well!!! That's definitive!!! Glen proclaims it gospel cause WBZ said
so!! I suppose they got it from a definitive source too!!
|
| 20.1024 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:40 | 12 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1020 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> So George, the jews by law were vermon in Germany....but that would be
> killing eh?
I don't think there is any comparison between U.S. Law and the system used
by the Nazi's during their occupation of Germany.
To recognize the Nazi's as a legitimate government Germany is an insult to the
German people.
George
|
| 20.1025 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:42 | 10 |
| RE: .1006
>By law.....
So George, if the Supreme Court throws out Roe vs. Wade and assigns
human rights to a fetus, then "by law" it will be a baby and all your
arguments will be moot... correct?
|
| 20.1026 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:43 | 4 |
|
RE: .1024
Insult or not, they WERE the legitimate government!!!
|
| 20.1027 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:46 | 42 |
| > Jack, you are a funny guy! You scream how you don't want to be put into
> the homophobic crowd on several occassions, yet you make a blanket sweeping
> statement that fear is generated when talking about religion or true <whatever
> that means> Christian values are talked about.
Glen, to some people I am homophobic. What I have said time and time
again is that by ones definition of perpetrating hate toward gays, no,
I am not homophobic. I do not, for example, go into the Christianity
and Gays string in CP conference and purposefully demean or ridicule
somebody's orientation or belief....this would be counter productive.
I only state my own belief and back up my source as to why I believe
the way I do.
>> Why do you throw people into this catagory when I know you haven't
>> talked to all of them to find outwhat their positions are.
>> You state that you are not homophobic, but you don't agree
>> with the homosexual sex.
Oh Glen, don't misunderstand. I use the word fear quite carefully
here. Disagreement and insult are two entirely different things. If
you consider my position on gay sex, be it love or lust a homophobic
reaction, then I guess I have to live with that. I don't consider it
homophobic. (Homo=Same) (Phobia=fear) - this greek title would imply
that I have a fear of gay people and you and I both know this to be a
fallacy, particularly where I appreciate the input of gay individuals
in my philosophies and life. In short, it's nonsense.
To me, pejorative terms like queer, fag, and thumper are synonomous
in intent. That is, to make a disparaging remark toward a belief
system or group of individuals. The word thumper as used in the text
of Soapbox is meant as an attack on ones belief system, i.e. he is
prolife therefore he is a thumper. He doesn't believe in premarital
sex therefore he is a thumper.
Heck, being called a thumper doesn't bother me...why should it? But I
find it rather humerous that grown adults in Soapbox have to resort to
immaturity in these matters...simply because they fear something that
makes them uncomfortable!!
-Jack
|
| 20.1028 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 14:49 | 13 |
| >> I don't think there is any comparison between U.S. Law and the system
>> used by the Nazi's during their occupation of Germany.
>> To recognize the Nazi's as a legitimate government Germany is an
>> insult to the German people.
By YOUR standard George. Too bad if it's an insult. The Nazi regime
was a legitamate government...just as the Roman government was a
legitamate government. The statement above has no bearing. You say
such and such is legal BECAUSE the law says so. In this case, you must
apply your way of thinking to ALL governments!
-Jack
|
| 20.1029 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:02 | 7 |
| >> To recognize the Nazi's as a legitimate government Germany is an
>> insult to the German people.
To recognize the unrestricted right to abortion as a legitimate right
is an insult to all people.
/john
|
| 20.1030 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:09 | 6 |
| re: .1029
To insist that women are the chattel of government and
men is an insult to all women.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1031 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:12 | 6 |
| I would not make any such insistance.
To claim that restricting abortion on demand makes women "chattel"
insults the dignity of women's role in the propagation of the species.
/john
|
| 20.1032 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:18 | 17 |
| re: .1031
But I think you do.
If you insist that women are not intelligent enough to make
their own reproductive choices, if you question their ability
to make the "right" or "correct" choice (ie, the choice you
believe in), and if you believe that the governement should
step in and "manage" women's choice, then you are in effect,
making women chattel.
Insisting we somehow need to be "compelled" to do the
"right" (ie, the choice you believe in) thing, is indeed
an insult to a woman's participation in the propagation of
the species.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1033 | Women know it; they force themselves to ignore it | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:24 | 3 |
| It's a child, not a choice, dammit!
/john
|
| 20.1034 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:25 | 10 |
| re: .1021
Ok, let's try this then, Jack. Do you have the right
to have more children than you can afford? Do you have
the right to accept special tax deductions and subsidized
public education? Do you have the right to expect government
subsidies so your children can attend college? Or should
we all have to prove fiscal soundness before we procreate?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1035 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:31 | 15 |
| re: .1033
No, it's a woman not a machine. A living breathing, thinking
human being who is about to undergo 9 months of extreme physical
changes and a lifetime of worry, dependency, joy, love, and
financial outlay. It is a child AND a choice. It is a profession
and a vocation. It is a lifetime of putting yourself and your
dreams on hold for someone else. Some can do it, some can't.
Some wouldn't have it any other way. The ones that can't wreck
their own lives and the lives of the children they produce. You
cannot boil this issue down to sound bites, no matter how clever
they are.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1036 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Have you got two tens for a five? | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:31 | 6 |
|
>It's a child, not a choice, dammit!
John, just curious...would you extend American citizenship to any child
conceived in the U.S.?
|
| 20.1037 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:38 | 9 |
| To you, and a few others in this note, yes it is a child. To a mother
that already has 2-3 kids, can`t keep them clothed or feed properly
then what are ya gonna do? send her down the street to St. who ever is
there and let them take care of the problem? How long do yoy think any
church can survive with a constant drain on there resorces and how long
will it be before YOU start telling the church YOU don`t want to pay
for it? It has to be the CHOICE of the mother, not your church (or
mine) nor is it governments job. I still say it is a matter for the
right of that person to chose and not a moral one at that.
|
| 20.1038 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:42 | 5 |
|
RE: .1036
And the price of potatoes in China is????
|
| 20.1039 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Belgian Burger Disseminator | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:47 | 3 |
| potatoes?
Billy has had a profound influence on you.
|
| 20.1040 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:48 | 23 |
| >> If you insist that women are not intelligent enough to make
>> their own reproductive choices, if you question their ability
>> to make the "right" or "correct" choice (ie, the choice you
>> believe in), and if you believe that the governement should
>> step in and "manage" women's choice, then you are in effect,
>> making women chattel.
Mary Michael, this is an emotional reply. I remind you that I am
referring not to women...but girls who are considered minors. No they
are not chattel, but they certainly aren't old or mature enough to make
reproductive choices. The fact that you believe abortion should be
available in the inner city tells me you feel the same way.
Remember, minors only!
Re:your last question, the standard deduction on the EZ form equals the
deductions for my children. But to answer your question, I would have
to concede that is an advantage. I would be willing to relinquish it.
However, remember the bottom line is I am an independent contributor to
the GNP of society. I AM NOT OVERHEAD! Schools need to be privatized
so I'm with you on that issue!
-Jack
|
| 20.1041 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:49 | 4 |
|
RE: .1039
Scuse me??? Is that not the proper spelling of the plural??
|
| 20.1042 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jan 25 1995 15:52 | 9 |
| > >It's a child, not a choice, dammit!
>
> John, just curious...would you extend American citizenship to any child
> conceived in the U.S.?
The possession of American citizenship is not necessary to have the right
to life.
/john
|
| 20.1043 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:03 | 35 |
| > To you, and a few others in this note, yes it is a child. To a mother
> that already has 2-3 kids, can`t keep them clothed or feed properly
> then what are ya gonna do? send her down the street to St. who everis
> there and let them take care of the problem?
Absolutely. One of the tenants of the Christian faith is to take care
of the widow. There are people in my church who are equipped to take
care of women who are single and pregnant. It's been done here.
>> How long do yoy think any
>> church can survive with a constant drain on there resorces and how long
>> will it be before YOU start telling the church YOU don`t want to pay
>> for it?
Well, I am of the belief that Christ is head of the church, not man.
If God can part the Red Sea, heal the blind, feed the masses with a
loaf of bread and two fish, and pour down manna from heaven, then yes,
a church will endure...in fact, it will endure alot better than if it
does nothing.
>>It has to be the CHOICE of the mother, not your church (or
>>mine) nor is it governments job. I still say it is a matter for the
>>right of that person to chose and not a moral one at that.
As a citizen, I claim a vote as to the policies that permeate our
society...be it euthanasia clinics or abortion clinics. You don't
have the right to usurp this from me. Yes, it is not the choice of the
church...but the church needs to take the primary role in ministering
to our youth, Bill Clinton affirmed this last night.
I think you'll find, IN MY OPINION, that society will benefit far
greater if FDR is removed from the alter of our lives and Jesus Christ
is put in his place. IN MY OPINION!
-Jack
|
| 20.1044 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:09 | 7 |
| sheesh Jack, for a guy who avoided the argument using religion
a hundred (something) notes ago, you've sure jumped into it head
first lately.
what gives?
Chip
|
| 20.1045 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:09 | 12 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1025 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
> So George, if the Supreme Court throws out Roe vs. Wade and assigns
> human rights to a fetus, then "by law" it will be a baby and all your
> arguments will be moot... correct?
Right, and if pigs grow wings and fly suddenly "bringing home the bacon"
will take on a whole new meaning.
So what's your point?
George
|
| 20.1046 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:18 | 8 |
| Chip:
If you read closely, I did not bring up abortion as a moral issue in
regards to the Christian faith. I was addressing Mr. Cranes questions
regarding the ability of the local church to take the reigns in the
matter of ministering to pregnant teens.
-Jack
|
| 20.1047 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:19 | 9 |
|
RE: .1045
My point???
Obviously, your lack of comprehension....
What didn't you understand about my question (your inane comment about
pigs non-withstanding)???
|
| 20.1048 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:23 | 10 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1026 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
> RE: .1024
>
> Insult or not, they WERE the legitimate government!!!
You're opinion maybe, I don't believe there was anything legitimate about
the Nazis.
George
|
| 20.1049 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:27 | 37 |
| re: .1043
In your opinion, yes, it could be true. However, if you don't
happen to believe in Jesus Christ, all you are really doing in my
opinion, (which we both know is radically different from yours.... :-) :-)
is substituting one man of vision for another with very little
understanding as to why either one of them is a figurehead.
Social institutions need to become more involved. And not just
the local church and its organization (K of C and the like)
but women's and men's clubs and secular organizations as well.
No one in this country would hurt any from adding a little
charity to their lives. I have found that if you give people
the tools to work with, a dream to follow and hope for the
future, they can be counted in to improve themselves and their
lives. However, we have become a jaded, selfish and distrustful
people, always looking for the worst in each other, and flinging
our motto "not my problem" across a country full of heartache.
Is it any wonder that women would use abortion, when they may
feel there is no one they can turn to for help? There are
non-secular institutions, but I don't think a pregnant women's
first choice would be to turn to a place which is run by a faith
she does not believe in. Is abortion really the problem or is it
only a symptom of a much larger problem that needs to be addressed?
You can argue the differences on either side of this issue all
day, and the only difference will be that they will have been
more abortions performed, more couples with inadequate birth
control information getting pregnant, more STDs spread, and
more violence and angry words exchanged in a country that already
has far too much anger and hatred. What's needed is to find the
common ground and work from there. Perhaps no one will be able
to claim "victory", except perhaps for the people who will be
able to change their lives, and that's really what's important,
isnt' it?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1050 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:28 | 20 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1028 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> By YOUR standard George. Too bad if it's an insult. The Nazi regime
> was a legitamate government...just as the Roman government was a
> legitamate government. The statement above has no bearing. You say
> such and such is legal BECAUSE the law says so. In this case, you must
> apply your way of thinking to ALL governments!
The United States, of which I am a citizen, often follows the policy of
recognizing governments and allowing those governments to govern their people
without interference.
In the case of the Nazis the United States joined several other nations in
invading Germany, forcibly removing them from power, then setting up what we
believed to be a valid government.
Try telling someone who landed on D-Day that we recognized the Nazis as
the legitimate government of Germany.
George
|
| 20.1051 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:28 | 7 |
|
<---------
You need a history lesson...
You of all people should know better!!!
|
| 20.1052 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:32 | 15 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1047 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>
> What didn't you understand about my question (your inane comment about
> pigs non-withstanding)???
I understood it as:
"If the Supreme Court does something they are very unlikely to do, then
what happens?"
I don't know, I guess I'd write my Congressman and ask him to vote to codify
the right to abortion by demand as a law, but I don't think that will be
necessary since the Supreme Court is not likely to take that action.
George
|
| 20.1053 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:33 | 12 |
| This is just silly. Hitler was elected Chancellor and was certainly
recognized as the head of the 'legitimate' (read: only) government in
Germany. The Allies didn't invade Germany because they found his
government illegally constituted, they invaded it because he'd declared
war and invaded several other countries. George is speaking of the
legitimacy of the third reich without understanding that the word
'legitimacy' has a very specific definition when referring to
gevernments; he'd rather apply the word 'legitimate' to the moral
suitability or somesuch, of that government. His usage is incorrect.
Don't expect him to admit it, however.
DougO
|
| 20.1054 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:34 | 8 |
|
RE: .1050
We did not "invade" Germany...
We had a hand in "liberating" Europe.
|
| 20.1055 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:43 | 10 |
| Right...so the whole thing boils down to...a government is legitamate
ONLY if it follows the tenants of what George feels is proper moral
conduct.
George, Iraq is a legitamate government...even though the guy misguides
and abuses his constituents. Suffice to say, your argument basing the
morality of abortion on the written law is a moot point. It is
fallable to the core.
-Jack
|
| 20.1056 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Have you got two tens for a five? | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:45 | 10 |
|
>>John, just curious...would you extend American citizenship to any child
>>conceived in the U.S.?
>The possession of American citizenship is not necessary to have the right
>to life.
...which is not an answer to my question. Can I assume your answer
is "no"?
|
| 20.1057 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:49 | 20 |
| Mary Michael:
I use the term "Church" figuratively. It encompasses all churches,
synagogues, and parachurches such as private organizations.
And your correct. Abortion is a symptom of the real problem which is
a lack of spiritual direction in the lives of our youth. Again, I use
the term spiritual very generically. An atheist can have a solid life
too while a church goer can be all screwed up. But the point being,
our society is realizing that they lost the definition of right and
wrong. I see abortion as trying to control the problem...something
George seems to be pushing for. I find the bumpersticker "If you don't
believe in abortion, don't have one" to be lame and insulting to
anybody with a brain. It is based on the relativism of the written
law. As I explained to George, any country can implement a written law
but that doesn't make it acceptable. Coming from the Vietnam
generation, I find it amazing how people in this conference are blind
to the concept of questioning authority!
-Jack
|
| 20.1058 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jan 25 1995 16:50 | 4 |
| Why am I not surprised that when we get down to a debate over the legitimacy
of the Nazis, pro-life is on the side of the 3rd Reich.
George
|
| 20.1059 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:03 | 13 |
| 20.1060 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:05 | 12 |
| George:
I'm starting to not take you seriously here. That reply was simply
stupid and you might want to think of deleting it.
The third Reisch was a recognized government in the thirties and
forties. All terrorist countries are recognized countries. All
terrorist regimes are recognized regimes. Your reply assumes that
since I affirm the US recognizes these governments that I approve these
governments. Utter nonsense.
I think Aristead is a thug, but I recognize his government...so what?
|
| 20.1061 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:06 | 9 |
| 20.1043
"and Jesus Christ was put in its place" (FDR)...
sorry, Jack. the references to Christian faith and JC threw me...
Come on...
Chip
|
| 20.1062 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebras should be seen and not herd | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:10 | 4 |
|
RE: .1058
You are a Polack.. aren't you!!!
|
| 20.1063 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:12 | 29 |
| | <<< Note 20.1027 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Glen, to some people I am homophobic.
Jack, anyone can think anything. I could think fundies should be shot.
It doesn't mean that I or the other people are correct.
| I am not homophobic. I do not, for example, go into the Christianity and Gays
| string in CP conference and purposefully demean or ridicule somebody's
| orientation or belief....this would be counter productive. I only state my own
| belief and back up my source as to why I believe the way I do.
Again, nice diversion. I didn't throw the homophobic comment in so you
would go off again on how you're not, but to show you that Jack Martin is doing
the same thing to those who don't believe in the "true" Christian value system.
You put them in the fear catagory.
| Oh Glen, don't misunderstand. I use the word fear quite carefully here.
Actually, you don't. You took people using the word thumper, and made
it into a, "they fear Christians" thing. You don't know if this is true. You
mention your position on gay sex, and get pissed because people make that into
you being homophobic, when it is just your opinion on the subject. Yet you do
the same thing as many have done to you when you throw all people who say
thumper into one catagory. (u could get sued by Walt Disney :-)
Oh yeah, if thumper doesn't bother you, why bitch about it?
Glen
|
| 20.1064 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:22 | 16 |
| re: .1057
Convincing people not to use abortion as an alternative
is one thing. Legislating it out of existance is another.
I do not believe the government belongs in anyone's reproductive
system. I believe the government can provide birth control
supplies and information (but I don't think that's the best
place for it), but I do not believe the government should
get into the businees of regulating what we do with our
bodies.
If you can convince people not to use abortion, fine.
More power to you. But if you want to make it illegal,
I can't support that.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1065 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:23 | 18 |
| >> Actually, you don't. You took people using the word thumper,
>> and made it into a, "they fear Christians" thing.
No, they fear the content of what is being preached to them. Not in
the sense of shuddering in their boots. If you look even in the book
of Acts, most believers were martyred...amazing the power of the spoken
word!!!!
Glen, we fear what could potentially change us. Society on a large and
small scale always go through some sort of upheaval when change occurs.
Take 1965 - 1973 as a good example!
Being called a homophobe doesn't bother me in the least...provided the
label grammatically demonstrates what I really am. Fear of Gays does
not demonstrate who I am. Fear of the act does because I believe it
will ultimately have a consequence.
-Jack
|
| 20.1066 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:23 | 7 |
| > Why am I not surprised that when we get down to a debate over the
> legitimacy of the Nazis, pro-life is on the side of the 3rd Reich.
Watch it, pilgrim. I'm as pro-choice as they come, but your
description of the Nazis as illegitimate is still wrong.
DougO
|
| 20.1067 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:26 | 11 |
| Mary Michael:
I wasn't referring to overturning Roe v. Wade in my reply to you. I
was supporting my point that girls (minors) shouldn't have the right to
procreate. Do you believe they have the right to procreate? A sixteen
year old, uneducated, ignorant young girl who is clueless? I hope your
answer is no because if it isn't in the affirmative, you're telling me
that you aren't really taking the problem of inner city pregnancy
problems seriously!
-Jack
|
| 20.1068 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:29 | 8 |
| >> sorry, Jack. the references to Christian faith and JC threw me...
Chip, the purpose of the church is to evangelize and disciple. Would
you rather society continue to look at their government as their God?
Everybody is going to serve somebody. I believe in Christ's words that
we are to be the salt of the earth.
-Jack
|
| 20.1069 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:46 | 27 |
| | <<< Note 20.1065 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| >> Actually, you don't. You took people using the word thumper,
| >> and made it into a, "they fear Christians" thing.
| No, they fear the content of what is being preached to them. Not in
| the sense of shuddering in their boots.
Jack, could it POSSIBLY be that these people are just tired of
listening to people preach, or that they do not believe in religion, or are from
a different religion, and that they do NOT fear the words in a book? YES or NO?
| Glen, we fear what could potentially change us.
I agree that people can fear what could change us. But then they would
be fearing more in line with shuddering in their boots, and not a person who
they labeled as thumper.
| Being called a homophobe doesn't bother me in the least...provided the label
| grammatically demonstrates what I really am. Fear of Gays does not demonstrate
| who I am.
Fear of Christians may not demonstrate who those people who use the
word thumper are really like either Jack.
Glen
|
| 20.1070 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 17:57 | 13 |
| >> Jack, could it POSSIBLY be that these people are just tired of
>> listening to people preach, or that they do not believe in religion, or
>> are from
>> a different religion, and that they do NOT fear the words in a book?
>> YES or NO?
Yes...it could be. And I wouldn't have even brought it up except for
the fact that almost all of Greg Griffis strings in the former version
of Soapbox have a very high amount of replies. This tells me they
aren't tired of it...otherwise, they would have ignored the whole
string!
-Jack
|
| 20.1071 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Jan 25 1995 18:13 | 23 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1066 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto" >>>
> Watch it, pilgrim. I'm as pro-choice as they come, but your
> description of the Nazis as illegitimate is still wrong.
DougO you're splitting hairs over the word legitimate.
First, Hitler had himself appointed both prime minister and chancellor and
it's not all that clear that it was legal under German law at that time.
Second, it is not at all clear that once he took power he allowed the German
parliament it's complete authority under German law if he allowed it exist at
all. Murder was illegal in Germany when Hitler took office, do you ever recall
hearing about debates in the German parliament over relaxing homicide laws to
allow for the final solution?
And what about free elections? Were the citizens allowed to elect members
to parliament to contradict Hitler and the 3rd Reich?
No, I do not think that under German Law as it existed in the 20's and early
30's that Hitler's regime was anywhere near legitimate.
George
|
| 20.1072 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 25 1995 19:08 | 29 |
| | <<< Note 20.1070 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| >>Jack, could it POSSIBLY be that these people are just tired of listening to
| >>people preach, or that they do not believe in religion, or are from a
| >>different religion, and that they do NOT fear the words in a book?YES or NO?
| Yes...it could be.
THANK-YOU!!!! Now please don't put everyone into the same catagory when
it is not the case, and you even realize it is not the case.
| And I wouldn't have even brought it up except for the fact that almost all of
| Greg Griffis strings in the former version of Soapbox have a very high amount
| of replies.
Jack, many have told me they thought he had a few marbles missing. That
may have something to do with it.
| This tells me they aren't tired of it...otherwise, they would have ignored the
| whole string!
So if they just stop writing then they are tired of it, but if they use
thumper they fear? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I have to be wrong because
of what you aknowledged at the beginning of this note. But then that would make
the statement right above this wrong as well.
Glen
|
| 20.1073 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 19:18 | 19 |
| Thumper is a pejorative term used generically for bible believing
Christians who insert part of their faith statement in everyday
discussion. This is what I perceive from Soapbox. They can do it all
they want...makes no diff to me. By the way, I want to commend Greg
Griffis, somebody who allegedly has half their marbles, for drawing a
crowd to make over 500 replies. This really says alot about the
marbles of people in Soapbox.
Glen, Homophobia does exist, I never denied that. I believe anybody
who is in the habit of attacking anybody elses faith or orientation
without just cause either fears what they attack or dislikes it.
Either option is not flattering. As far as the last version, Greg
Griffis is a zealot, I don't deny that. However, his question, "Are
Your Children Prepared to Meet Jesus" was a very pertinent one. A
question worth pondering over, and frankly, I thought the immediate
negative response was not warranted by a crowd as sophisticated as
this one!!
-Jack
|
| 20.1074 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Wed Jan 25 1995 19:21 | 6 |
| >> ...a crowd as sophisticated as
>> this one!!
hoo doggies. that's a good one. ;>
|
| 20.1075 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 25 1995 19:29 | 25 |
| | <<< Note 20.1073 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Thumper is a pejorative term used generically for bible believing Christians
| who insert part of their faith statement in everyday discussion.
Which has no tie in with fear.
| By the way, I want to commend Greg Griffis, somebody who allegedly has half
| their marbles, for drawing a crowd to make over 500 replies.
Kind of like what Newt does in the various topics he;s been discussed
in.
| Glen, Homophobia does exist, I never denied that. I believe anybody who is in
| the habit of attacking anybody elses faith or orientation without just cause
| either fears what they attack or dislikes it.
Agreed. But that is not what really goes on in here for most people, is
it Jack?
Glen
|
| 20.1076 | Not the person, the behavior | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | aspiring peasant | Wed Jan 25 1995 19:40 | 13 |
| Jack,
The response Mr. Griffis received was quite warranted *beacuse* of the
sophistication of this group then and now. You apparently missed the
whole issue at hand. Most people do not care one whit what your
beliefs are until they intrude upon their own. The response from the
audience was quite justified in light of the way the message was
delivered and the value judgements it placed upon the recipients that
may not have held the same beliefs. This was the whole point of that
little exercise. Shall we redebate it so you can understand more
clearly that thumper behavior can be annoying and offensive to some?
Brian
|
| 20.1077 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Jan 25 1995 19:45 | 7 |
|
Brian, Jack already admitted to that fact, but then he disputes it a
little later. Go figure! He admitted the dems have changed, after he said he
didn't. If he would stop talkin out of that mile wide thang (sorry 'tine), life
would be so much better for him.
|
| 20.1078 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Jan 25 1995 20:25 | 42 |
| re .1071, that's a little bit better George. Now, at least you're
approaching the issue at hand, instead of just calling people who
disagree with you 'prolifers on the side of the Nazis' or whatever you
said. Since you're now addressing the topic, I'll point a few of your
more egregious errors and then let the rathole drop.
>DougO you're splitting hairs over the word legitimate.
Yes. I am. "Legitimate" has a very narrow sense when applied to the
concept of government. You were using it incorrectly.
> First, Hitler had himself appointed both prime minister and chancellor
> and it's not all that clear that it was legal under German law at that
> time.
Wrong. Hitler was *elected* chancellor, in accordance with the laws of
the Weimar Republic.
Now, what followed certainly did not follow the rest of the laws of the
Weimar Republic, but they changed those laws in order to found the Third
Reich. This does not change the fact that the Nazis were legitimately
elected to be the party in power in the Weimar Republic, and that
therefore all of Germany was responsible for what they did. If you try
to argue that they were not the legitimate government, you have to
define in what way their election was unlawful and from whom they stole
power. Since it wasn't unlawful, and they didn't steal power, you can't.
Suggesting that they were illegitimate is tantamount to suggesting that
Germany was not responsible for the excesses of the Nazis; when the
truth is that Germany was very much responsible for putting them in
power and has therefore reacted very differently (in shame) for most of
the past 50 years. Compare this to the Japanese, who have never as a
nation faced up to their collective responsibility for the outrages in
Manchuko, Burma, and throughout the Pacific in WWII, and who even now
have terrible trouble dealing with issues such as the revelations of
the 'comfort women' lawsuits (women involuntarily enslaved and made to
serve the Japanese Army as prostitutes in several occupied Asian
nations during the war.) The Germans *know* they put the Nazis in
power. Your revisionism denies 60 years of history.
Am I splitting hairs over the word "legitimate"? Damn right I am.
DougO
|
| 20.1079 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Wed Jan 25 1995 20:36 | 11 |
| >Thumper is a pejorative term used generically for bible believing
> Christians who insert part of their faith statement in everyday
> discussion
...and who disrespect others to the point of wanting to ram their
religious belief systems through in the form of public policy.
That's who I mean when I say 'thumper'; those who can't separate their
constitutional right to practise their religion from my constitutional
right to be protected from their religion.
DougO
|
| 20.1080 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Jan 25 1995 21:02 | 3 |
| I will respond to this tomorrow.
Have a good one!!
|
| 20.1081 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Jan 26 1995 09:41 | 10 |
| DougO,
Thanks for beating me in correcting the gross error of Hitler
appointing himself chancellor (doncha love the historians in
here).
Can someone help me here... what does the Nazi govt's legitimacy have
to do with this topic?
Chip
|
| 20.1082 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Jan 26 1995 09:44 | 10 |
| Jack, Jack, Jack... wehn you speak for society please don't include me.
I've got a strong suspicion that msot folks in here will strongly
disagree with your statement (.1068) that society looks to their
government as God.
You didn't even address my statement, but went off some tangent.
(again)
Chip
|
| 20.1083 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jan 26 1995 10:58 | 13 |
| >
> Can someone help me here... what does the Nazi govt's legitimacy have
> to do with this topic?
>
Just as the Germans as a nation were responsible for the laws of their
legitimate government which did not respect the weakest individuals
in society, dehumanized them, and killed them, we, too, have an
obligation as a nation to change the abortion laws to protect as
many of our weakest individuals as possible, without endangering
the lives of their mothers.
/john
|
| 20.1084 | | REFINE::KOMAR | My congressman is a crook | Thu Jan 26 1995 10:59 | 9 |
| While at a bar last night, I noticed a warning label on a beer one
of my friends was drinking saying that pregnant women should not drink
excessively (or smoke from other warning signs I've seen). Sooo, why
do we have these warning signs if the unborn child is not a person?
Sarcasm alert: Perhaps you want an abortion, you could spend several
straight days drinking and smoking while you are pragnant.
ME
|
| 20.1085 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Jan 26 1995 11:03 | 4 |
| -1 how 'bout it assumes the individual's intent is to carry to term
and produce a healthy offspring?
Chip
|
| 20.1086 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Duke of URL sez: `TCL my GUI!' | Thu Jan 26 1995 11:09 | 6 |
| HairSplitting Alert! "individual" .NE. Citizen .NE. Person
Implicit acknowledgement was given above. Don't let that pass
unabsorbed, O all Zero of you who have not formed an opinion about this
before ever using DECnotes for the First time.
|
| 20.1087 | | REFINE::KOMAR | My congressman is a crook | Thu Jan 26 1995 12:04 | 20 |
| RE: .1085
Ahah! Exactly.
Now follow my logic:
The mother is pregnant and smokes or drinks. I have often heard
that when a pragnant person eats, she eats for two. I would say that
if she drinks and/or smokes, she also drinks and/or smokes for two. It
can therefore be assumed that the child in the mother's womb could be
addicted to the alcohol and/or cigarettes (although the "crack baby" is
clearly more prelevent and also makes my case). Now, as far as I know,
only things that are alive can become addicted to anything. Therefore,
I will state that the child in the womb is alive based on that it can
be addicted to something.
There may be some gaps, and if there are - I'm sure that someone
will point them out.
ME
|
| 20.1088 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Jan 26 1995 13:16 | 12 |
| 20.1089 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Jan 26 1995 14:45 | 7 |
| .1087 this only works if you subcribe to your opinion that it's
a person (a discrete person) and not an organic part of
the host (please excuse my wording).
if you don't subscribe, then it doesn't fit.
Chip
|
| 20.1090 | | REFINE::KOMAR | My congressman is a crook | Thu Jan 26 1995 20:06 | 10 |
| RE: .1089
Your wording is excused.
However, the warnings clearly state that the unborn CHILD is
in danger.
A child, born or unborn, is IMHO, a PERSON.
ME
|
| 20.1091 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Thu Jan 26 1995 20:12 | 10 |
|
>> However, the warnings clearly state that the unborn CHILD is
>>in danger.
So, let's see here. You're saying that beer companies are
authorities to whom we should look for guidance in these matters?
Oooookay. Right. ;>
|
| 20.1092 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jan 26 1995 20:37 | 5 |
| The beer companies?
Wasn't the text of these warnings specified in the legislation requiring them?
/john
|
| 20.1093 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | aspiring peasant | Thu Jan 26 1995 20:39 | 3 |
| Yes, as were the lame and lamer tobacco warnings.
Brian
|
| 20.1094 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Jan 27 1995 10:11 | 3 |
| thanks Di', ya beat me to it!
Chip
|
| 20.1095 | Answer these questions, please | REFINE::KOMAR | My congressman is a crook | Fri Jan 27 1995 10:48 | 8 |
| While the warnings may be indeed lame, can you deny that the
warnings use the word "child"? Also, since these warnings were
rewquired by the federal government, doesn't that mean the unborn are
children? And if they are indeed children, as deemed by the federal
government in the smoke and alcohol warnings, why is it okay to just
cut them off with a surgical procedure?
ME
|
| 20.1096 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Jan 27 1995 11:00 | 6 |
| "...doesn't that mean the unborn are children?"
evidently not, since the law doesn't. i guess that means anyone's
explanation is as goos the next.
Chip
|
| 20.1097 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Jan 27 1995 11:01 | 6 |
| ... just a thought, maybe it's like the "meat sauce" descriptor
on Ragu... you only need a molecule to claim "meat"...
ya, that's it...
Chip
|
| 20.1098 | ex | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | aspiring peasant | Fri Jan 27 1995 11:56 | 8 |
| No, I am not going to get in to the argument of the unborn being real
people or not. I am in the middle of a very good rat hole here and you
are doing your level best to spoil it :-). Now, that being said, the
warnings are lame because they are watered down as to the hazards they
present to *humans* in general regardless of their status i.e. in or
out of the womb.
Brian
|
| 20.1099 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Jan 27 1995 18:37 | 7 |
| ><<< Note 20.1080 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur">>>
>
> I will respond to this tomorrow.
promises, promises.
DougO
|
| 20.1100 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Jan 27 1995 19:16 | 4 |
|
1100 aborted snarfs and counting!
|
| 20.1101 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Fri Jan 27 1995 19:21 | 8 |
| DougO:
I can't respond to this because I found the last version of Soapbox
has been destroyed. I was going to take the first ten replies to Greg
Griffis basenote just to show what a bunch of fearless men and women we
have in the conference!!!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.1102 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Jan 27 1995 22:27 | 6 |
| Seems to me, Jack, that .1079, to which it looked like .1080 was a
promise to respond, is sufficiently short that you ought to be able to
answer it directly without recourse to archives. If you're into
keeping promises, that is.
DougO
|
| 20.1103 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Jan 27 1995 22:43 | 8 |
| Geez, Doug. Why don't you just say what it is you're saving up
to drop on Jack if he says what you expect him to say? Why play
this game?
Besides, from my perspective .1080 seemed to be responding to a
whole series of replies that were addressing the perjorative use
of thumper and other terms, and not specifically to your entry.
You just happened to be at the end of the line.
|
| 20.1104 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Fri Jan 27 1995 23:10 | 9 |
| I wasn't saving up any big anvil to drop, that's over in the 'politics
of the right' topic. I thought he was responding directly to me as
mine was the note with the most succinct response to the question.
If not, oh well. I'm still waiting for anybody who wants to debate
just what it means when I use the term 'thumper'. 'Twould be a shame
if its been so badly misinterpreted as indicating 'fear' (ha!) all this
time. Anybody wants to pick up that gauntlet, start with .1079.
DougO
|
| 20.1105 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Jan 30 1995 01:22 | 1 |
| That'll probably be yet another Dougo gauntlet duly ignored...
|
| 20.1106 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 30 1995 12:20 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.1101 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| I can't respond to this because I found the last version of Soapbox has been
| destroyed. I was going to take the first ten replies to Greg Griffis basenote
| just to show what a bunch of fearless men and women we have in the conference!
Jack, that would not have proven anything like that. All it would have
proven was people were sick of him coming in here, starting outrageous
basenotes, and then only coming back every now and then when the topics started
to die. It would have also shown that many thought he was a loon.
Glen
|
| 20.1107 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 30 1995 12:21 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.1103 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| Geez, Doug. Why don't you just say what it is you're saving up to drop on Jack
| if he says what you expect him to say? Why play this game?
I'm surprised to hear this from you Joe. The Game Master himself.
Glen
|
| 20.1108 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 30 1995 12:53 | 23 |
| >> Jack, that would not have proven anything like that. All it would have
>> proven was people were sick of him coming in here, starting outrageous
>> basenotes, and then only coming back every now and then when the topics
>> started to die. It would have also shown that many thought he was a loon.
Yes it would have. I do remember the content of Greg's basenote. The
message of the note was congruent and actually made the point well.
Now subsequent replies by Greg varied from time to time...and it was
then that perhaps at times he was somewhat over zealous...I don't deny
that. But what I found particularly interesting about Gregs
note..."Are Your Children Prepared to Meet Jesus" was that the first 15
replies or so were of a defensive posture and there were individuals
including lord Haag who vehemently wanted moderator action to ensue.
There were then digs by our atheist/agnostic/evolutionist element who
did nothing less than ridicule the whole question brought forth. I
intervened a few times and asked Greg to please post in
Yukon::Christian and even asked the attackers to please continue their
dialog there or please hit next unseen! 700 replies later....
Doug, I was going to cross post these replies but have found out by
Princess Di that the last version has been aborted...no pun intended!
-Jack
|
| 20.1109 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 30 1995 13:10 | 43 |
| | <<< Note 20.1108 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Yes it would have. I do remember the content of Greg's basenote.
Well, if you remember it so well, why can't you go into it for Doug
then? Hmmmmm??????
| The message of the note was congruent and actually made the point well.
Was that the one where he was condeming those who he felt weren't saved
Jack?
| Your Children Prepared to Meet Jesus" was that the first 15 replies or so were
| of a defensive posture and there were individuals including lord Haag who
| vehemently wanted moderator action to ensue.
Jack-e-boy, people were sick of hearing the thumper theme. It does not
mean that they were afraid or feared anything. Until you prove that point, you
don't have a leg to stand on. You know Christians have a Religious Right stigma
thrown onto them. (I know many who dilike this too) People will hear something
religious, and get turned off. Not scared, but turned off. You can see the
difference, right?
| There were then digs by our atheist/agnostic/evolutionist element who did
| nothing less than ridicule the whole question brought forth.
Let's see, they don't believe in religion, so they are gonna support
what he says? Come-on Jack. That would be like you supporting their ideas. Here
is a good example for you to see what was happening. Look at how you talk about
the dems. Is that really any different than how the people above were reacting
towards Greg's topic???
| I intervened a few times and asked Greg to please post in Yukon::Christian and
| even asked the attackers to please continue their dialog there or please hit
| next unseen!
Will you be doing this on all the topics on dems? If you don't, how can
you expect anyone else to do the same for you? The answer to the 50 million
dollar question is ya can't.
Glen
|
| 20.1110 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 30 1995 13:34 | 11 |
| >> Was that the one where he was condeming those who he felt
>> weren't saved Jack?
Was he condeming or was he stating what he thought was a biblical
position on salvation vs. condemnation?
If people are really annoyed at the thumping, which I admit they most
likely are, then the most effective way to stop the thumping is to hit
next unseen...verses giving Greg the satisfation of 700+ replies!
-Jack
|
| 20.1111 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 30 1995 13:40 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.1110 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| If people are really annoyed at the thumping, which I admit they most
| likely are, then the most effective way to stop the thumping is to hit
| next unseen...verses giving Greg the satisfation of 700+ replies!
Jack, please address the rest of my note. You know, where it asks you
about the dems. What your asking above could be asked of you. But you and I
both know that this is SB, and if anyone wants to say stuff, they will. So
please address that and we'll see if you stand by what you say, or just say it
to blow wind out of your mile wide butt! :-)
Glen
|
| 20.1112 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 30 1995 14:06 | 30 |
| >> Look at how you talk about
>> the dems. Is that really any different than how the people above were
>> reacting towards Greg's topic???
Politics and religion are both emotionally based; however, religion is
driven by a faith system, an intangible. Politics is driven by
theories of the past/present that can be tested and proven to work or
not work. I find the responses to Greg's base note laughable because
they were pure emotion...don't tell me I'm going to hell...blah blah
blah....instead of something like, "Greg, your base note is without
prescedent and I base this on the following. 1. I am an atheist and I
don't believe in God. 2. I don't believe in hell therefore my children
will not be going there..it's fictitious. 3. God is an intangible,
therefore, the existence of God cannot be proven.
Guess what Glen, instead of 700+ whining replies, you get possibly 15
or so thought out concise entries. Greg goes away and the discussion
is closed.
Now for the politics part. Glen, I admit that politics is generally a
prejudiced topic. I for one am guilty of clumping party members
together, i.e. the only good democrat is an unemployed democrat. I
forget about the southern democrats who are more to the right than some
northern republicans. However, my arguments toward the democrat party
as a whole are based on historical evidence and not a faith system. I
have a right to oppose views with you on tax hikes, affirmative action,
whatever because I can grab a tangible and bring it forth as proof of a
claim. Yet you continue to tell me to tuen my back to it because it is
for the betterment of society. Two wrongs make a right and all that
liberal doggrel!
-Jack
|
| 20.1113 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 30 1995 15:33 | 60 |
| | <<< Note 20.1112 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| Politics and religion are both emotionally based; however, religion is driven
| by a faith system, an intangible. Politics is driven by theories of the
| past/present that can be tested and proven to work or not work.
Politics is driven by a belief system Jack. Just like religion. Belief
that the candidate or what the candidate stands for. No difference.
| I find the responses to Greg's base note laughable because they were pure
| emotion...
Jack, you aren't going to tell me that your views on the dems aren't
based on emotion, are you? Considering that last week alone you admitted a lot
of what you thought wasn't fact, but just your own thought projections based on
the past..... gee.... doesn't that sound like how some view Christians... based
on what they have seen/heard in the past? Hmmmmm.....
| "Greg, your base note is without prescedent and I base this on the following.
| 1. I am an atheist and I don't believe in God. 2. I don't believe in hell
| therefore my children will not be going there..it's fictitious. 3. God is an
| intangible, therefore, the existence of God cannot be proven.
Jack, if someone thought it was a joke to begin with, why would they
respond so curteously? Be real. BTW, your above analogy does nothing to prove
your view that fear made them write what they did. Will you be doing that soon?
| Guess what Glen, instead of 700+ whining replies, you get possibly 15 or so
| thought out concise entries.
Jack, we're back to your view on the dems again. Remember when you were
whining about the big bad dems wanting to keep everyone on welfare, and then
later you admitted they want reform??? It is no different Jack.
| Now for the politics part. Glen, I admit that politics is generally a
| prejudiced topic. I for one am guilty of clumping party members together, i.e.
| the only good democrat is an unemployed democrat.
Then you aren't any different than the others who complained about
Greg's notes. And you still haven't proven the fear theory yet.
| However, my arguments toward the democrat party as a whole are based on
| historical evidence and not a faith system.
Do you believe in the dems views? Do you have faith in the dems? It
ain't no different Jack. Look at your faith system. Look at the bad that has
become of it in the past. Should we view your faith as one that is hateful and
murderous? I don't think so. There is no difference between the 2 Jack, and
thanks for helping prove it.
| I have a right to oppose views with you on tax hikes, affirmative action,
| whatever because I can grab a tangible and bring it forth as proof of a claim.
Are you saying God isn't a tangible Jack?????
Glen
|
| 20.1114 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 30 1995 16:33 | 71 |
| >>Politics is driven by a belief system Jack. Just like religion. Belief
>>that the candidate or what the candidate stands for. No difference.
Yes, a belief system with proven results. If we repeat the great society,
then a thirty year history proves it will again fail.
>Jack, you aren't going to tell me that your views on the dems aren't
>based on emotion, are you?
Yes..in the sense that a leopard never changes its spots and that I see them
screwing you on a regular basis...then yes it is emotion. But it is emotion
again based on what is historically proven.
>>Considering that last week alone you admitted a lot
>>of what you thought wasn't fact, but just your own thought projections based on
>>the past..... gee....
Provide pointer please.
>Jack, if someone thought it was a joke to begin with, why would they
>respond so curteously? Be real. BTW, your above analogy does nothing to prove
>your view that fear made them write what they did. Will you be doing that soon?
Glen, Perfect Love casts out all fear. The opposite of love isn't hate, it is
fear. And you should know that fear is generated by that which we don't
understand. Hate of something is the manifestation of fear. I never stated
if you disagree, you fear. I said if you attack without provocation, you fear
it!
>>Jack, we're back to your view on the dems again. Remember when you were
>>whining about the big bad dems wanting to keep everyone on welfare, and then
>>later you admitted they want reform??? It is no different Jack.
No..I'm afraid I don't. What I stated was that Bill Clinton campaigned heavily
on education and welfare reform. He then put these items on the back burner.
His tangible actions conveyed a message to the country that he is not a
proponent of welfare reform. Why should my feelings on this surprise you?
| Now for the politics part. Glen, I admit that politics is generally a
| prejudiced topic. I for one am guilty of clumping party members together, i.e.
| the only good democrat is an unemployed democrat.
>Then you aren't any different than the others who complained about
>Greg's notes. And you still haven't proven the fear theory yet.
Glen, faith in politics is measurable through historical data. Religious faith
will only come to fruition once we die.
| However, my arguments toward the democrat party as a whole are based on
| historical evidence and not a faith system.
>Do you believe in the dems views? Do you have faith in the dems?
>ain't no different Jack. Look at your faith system. Look at the bad that has
>become of it in the past. Should we view your faith as one that is hateful and
>murderous? I don't think so. There is no difference between the 2 Jack, and
>thanks for helping prove it.
Oh, it absolutely is. I can guess the outcomes fairly accurately if Ted
Kennedy were president and congress were full of Kennedy clones. The outcome
of my eternal destiny has to be taken purely on faith.
| I have a right to oppose views with you on tax hikes, affirmative action,
| whatever because I can grab a tangible and bring it forth as proof of a claim.
>>> Are you saying God isn't a tangible Jack?????
Well, when was the last time you shook hands with Him? God's power is manifest
through His word and through nature. God is a spiritual being. If we were to
behold God, we would die!
-Jack
|
| 20.1115 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 30 1995 17:35 | 85 |
| | <<< Note 20.1114 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| >>Politics is driven by a belief system Jack. Just like religion. Belief
| >>that the candidate or what the candidate stands for. No difference.
| Yes, a belief system with proven results. If we repeat the great society,
| then a thirty year history proves it will again fail.
Same with the belief of religious folk. It could have been wrong
before, and if it is repeated again, it will still fail. Again, thanks for
helping me show they are the same.
| >Jack, you aren't going to tell me that your views on the dems aren't
| >based on emotion, are you?
| Yes..in the sense that a leopard never changes its spots and that I see them
| screwing you on a regular basis...then yes it is emotion. But it is emotion
| again based on what is historically proven.
Are you saying God is unproven????
| >>Considering that last week alone you admitted a lot
| >>of what you thought wasn't fact, but just your own thought projections based on
| >>the past..... gee....
| Provide pointer please.
Jack, I did mention about the dems and welfare... remember?
| Glen, Perfect Love casts out all fear. The opposite of love isn't hate, it is
| fear. And you should know that fear is generated by that which we don't
| understand. Hate of something is the manifestation of fear. I never stated if
| you disagree, you fear. I said if you attack without provocation, you fear it!
They attacked because they didn't want to hear the same save crap they
hear from him. They based it on his past history Jack, you know, like that same
thing you've been pushing the last few notes? They didn't want it to go the
failed way it went before. Again, thanks for helping me prove this. You're so
helpful!
| >>Jack, we're back to your view on the dems again. Remember when you were
| >>whining about the big bad dems wanting to keep everyone on welfare, and then
| >>later you admitted they want reform??? It is no different Jack.
| No..I'm afraid I don't. What I stated was that Bill Clinton campaigned heavily
| on education and welfare reform.
Errr.... jack, it was in the abortion topic I believe, and you stated
dems wanted welfare, and later admitted they were wanting reform. Remember I
kept needling you about it. Getting to the fine points? Even Lady Di made a
crack about the needling in a different note. I know it brought a <grin> out of
me.
| Glen, faith in politics is measurable through historical data. Religious faith
| will only come to fruition once we die.
Historical data is only good if it is repeated. It can help us prevent
mistakes by looking at the past. Religions run the same way Jack.
| Oh, it absolutely is. I can guess the outcomes fairly accurately if Ted
| Kennedy were president and congress were full of Kennedy clones. The outcome
| of my eternal destiny has to be taken purely on faith.
"You can guess", Jack, thems are the KEY words. You can guess when it
comes to your faith too. Your faith will be proven if/when you'r in heaven/hell.
Your talk about Kennedy/clones will be proven when it happens, and are not fact
based beforehand. No difference Jack. Again, thanks for helping.
| >>> Are you saying God isn't a tangible Jack?????
| Well, when was the last time you shook hands with Him?
You ask this question, but then assert the following:
| God's power is manifest through His word and through nature.
If we can't shake hands with Him, how can we know where His power
manifests from?
| God is a spiritual being. If we were to behold God, we would die!
Is that a tangible fact Jack, or a faith thing?
Glen
|
| 20.1116 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 30 1995 17:55 | 5 |
| Well Glen, per usual you're full of hot air and I'm talking out of my
mile wide...so I guess you win!!! I'm sure all our viewers would agree
your logic definitely outshines my logic!
-Jack
|
| 20.1117 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 30 1995 18:06 | 4 |
|
Gee Jack, I was using your logic to prove you were wrong.... so I guess
each logic is equal......
|
| 20.1118 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Mon Jan 30 1995 18:11 | 8 |
| Glen:
Politics - Tangible
Religion - Intangible
By the way, sorry you feel the gospel is crap! Have a good one!
-Jack
|
| 20.1119 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Jan 30 1995 18:16 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.1118 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| By the way, sorry you feel the gospel is crap! Have a good one!
You know I don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God, but the word
written by men. So the above statement is an accurate one when people try to
claim it's "the" word to follow.
Glen
|
| 20.1120 | Talk Hard | SNOFS1::DAVISM | And monkeys might fly outa my butt! | Mon Jan 30 1995 21:37 | 9 |
| I used to 'next unseen' this note 'cause it was boring. But, after
a conversation I had with some folks in a bar last week I have
discovered that I do have strong opinions on this subject. So here
goes.....
Abortion SUCKS! Shouldn't be allowed unless under extreme
circumstances. There I said it, boy I feel better now.....
It's not humane.
|
| 20.1121 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 31 1995 00:25 | 7 |
| Sounds like an idea that came from a bar.
The depth of analysis resembles something from a bar.
A tad short on theory, but tall in "spirit" if you catch my drift.
George
|
| 20.1122 | Talk Hard | SNOFS1::DAVISM | And monkeys might fly outa my butt! | Tue Jan 31 1995 01:19 | 5 |
| <-- :^)
I haven't got time to put forward my thoughts and revelations etc etc
at the moment. I will however plan my defence and attack with heart
and confidence etc etc etc..blah blah blah
|
| 20.1123 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 31 1995 12:03 | 100 |
|
Glen:
On the testimony of four prominent noters in Soapbox, I now submit the
following proof that people fear that which they don't understand. If anything,
it's a win win for me. If you concede defeat here, then I have made my point
adequately. If you prove me incorrect, then the term homophobe will never
be used by you again in a serious light. It will be a PC term used strictly
to promote victimization!!
<<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 56.186 Gay Issues Topic 186 of 199
SMURF::BINDER "gustam vitare" 2 lines 30-JAN-1995 16:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i hope frank's skin is thicker than armey's. we don't need closet
homophobes governing what's left of this country.
<<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 56.189 Gay Issues Topic 189 of 199
PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" 4 lines 30-JAN-1995 17:11
-< homophobia >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aagagagag. Scott, it's an aversion to the lifestyle of gays
or lesbians. You don't think such an aversion exists???
Surely you jest.
<<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 56.190 Gay Issues Topic 190 of 199
HELIX::MAIEWSKI 5 lines 30-JAN-1995 17:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there are no people who hate gays, then how do you explain gay bashing?
Group boxing?
George
<<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 56.191 Gay Issues Topic 191 of 199
SMURF::BINDER "gustam vitare" 4 lines 30-JAN-1995 17:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.187
a slip of the tongue like that betrays what's in the back of a person's
mind, andy.
<<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 56.192 Gay Issues Topic 192 of 199
SMURF::BINDER "gustam vitare" 18 lines 30-JAN-1995 17:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.188
> One term I can not stand is "homophobes"...
> give me a break... that term is a joke, and means nothing in my book.
so fine. ignore the realities of the world. i can make you a deal on
sand for playing ostrich.
it's bunk, but then so was hitler's insistence that jews are inferior
by nature. people have a deep-seated need to divide things up into
"us" and "them."
<<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 56.196 Gay Issues Topic 196 of 199
WMOIS::GIROUARD_C 13 lines 31-JAN-1995 06:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott, i'm not entire sure what your phobic reacton to the word is
all about, but...
it's recognized as proper word (n), has a definition attached, and
was probably labeled that by some clinician to describe the condition.
Chip
|
| 20.1124 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 31 1995 12:35 | 23 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1123 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
>On the testimony of four prominent noters in Soapbox, I now submit the
>following proof that people fear that which they don't understand. If
>anything, it's a win win for me. If you concede defeat here, then I have made
>my point adequately. If you prove me incorrect, then the term homophobe will
>never be used by you again in a serious light. It will be a PC term used
>strictly to promote victimization!!
Tell me if we agree or disagree here, I'm trying to understand your point
of bringing those notes into this string.
With regard to your point above, the activity of homophobs (regardless if
they really have a phobia or not) are proof that people fear what they do not
understand. Bigots don't understand gays which makes them fear gays and that
leads to hatred toward gays. If you support gay bashing then you are promoting
victimization.
Is that the point you are trying to make?
Regardless if it is or not, what does it have to do with abortion?
George
|
| 20.1125 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Tue Jan 31 1995 12:50 | 15 |
| >> Regardless if it is or not, what does it have to do with abortion?
George:
Absolutely nothing!!! The string went off into a tangent. I am
addressing the issue here that if people hate gays out of fear, if this
truly be the case, then people can also hate Christians for the same
exact reasons. If Glen insists this is not the case, then homophobia,
as you so eloquently put, is merely a slang term that is misused.
So, if Glen disagrees with me, then homophobia is a poor term and
should not be used toward people just because they don't agree the gay
activity is morally correct!
-Jack
|
| 20.1126 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 31 1995 13:50 | 19 |
|
Jack, nice try, but it doesn't work here. You see, what is really
different between the two is YOU CLAIMED the reasons people were up in arms
over Greg's notes was that they feared either him, religion in general, while
the other one talked about real cases, like the one I presented about myself.
What you didn't take, or won't take into consideration is that they just could
be sick of listening to religion put forth like it has been (thump thump thump)
or that Greg's history of putting in outrageous notes plays into all this.
(remember your hisory of the dems theory) YOU have attributed it to FEAR, which
if you really think about it, you just fit Scott's definititon of how he views
homophobia. Something that you throw everyone into that disagrees with something
It isn't right with homophobia, and it isn't right with what you are doing. You
can assert the fear theory all you like, but it doesn't make it real. You have
never even come close to proving it. All you have done is help show us that
homophobia isn't the only fear that can be wrongly applied to people.
Glen
|
| 20.1127 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Tue Jan 31 1995 13:52 | 3 |
|
.1126 precisely, Glen dear
|
| 20.1128 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Jan 31 1995 14:00 | 16 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1125 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
> So, if Glen disagrees with me, then homophobia is a poor term and
> should not be used toward people just because they don't agree the gay
> activity is morally correct!
Remember there is a big difference between religion and sexual orientation.
Religion is voluntary like being a Democrat or a Republican. Sexual orientation
is based on physical properties just like being black or white.
Personally I think it's bigotry to hate someone for belonging to a chosen
group like a religion or political party just as much as it's bigotry to hate
someone who is born into a group such as a race or gays. As the note says,
a little tolerance goes a long way.
George
|
| 20.1129 | Quorum call... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Jan 31 1995 14:43 | 3 |
|
Four "prominent" noters ? Are there that many here ? bb
|
| 20.1130 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 31 1995 15:39 | 4 |
|
And he thought Chip was one ta boot! Shows he knows not what he
speaketh... :-)
|
| 20.1131 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Jan 31 1995 15:52 | 3 |
| yeah, what a ninnie, hey, wait a minute... :-)
Chip
|
| 20.1132 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Jan 31 1995 15:53 | 3 |
| .1107> I'm surprised to hear this from you Joe. The Game Master himself.
Maybe some day you can be too, Glen.
|
| 20.1133 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Jan 31 1995 16:09 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.1132 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| .1107> I'm surprised to hear this from you Joe. The Game Master himself.
| Maybe some day you can be too, Glen.
Nah, I'd have to change completely to do that.
Glen
|
| 20.1134 | | CSOA1::LEECH | I'm the NRA. | Tue Jan 31 1995 19:19 | 7 |
| re: .1128
Unproven assertion.
Why don't we take this back to the proper topic and discuss it there?
-steve
|
| 20.1135 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Wed Feb 01 1995 13:49 | 58 |
|
Re: BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" 19 lines 31-JAN-1995 10:50
>>Jack, nice try, but it doesn't work here. You see, what is really
>>different between the two is YOU CLAIMED the reasons people were up in arms
>>over Greg's notes was that they feared either him, religion in general, while
>>the other one talked about real cases, like the one I presented about myself.
Glen, I confirmed this very thing in note 20.1070. See below.
>> Jack, could it POSSIBLY be that these people are just tired of
>> listening to people preach, or that they do not believe in religion, or
>> are from
>> a different religion, and that they do NOT fear the words in a book?
>> YES or NO?
> Yes...it could be. And I wouldn't have even brought it up except for
> the fact that almost all of Greg Griffis strings in the former version
> of Soapbox have a very high amount of replies. This tells me they
> aren't tired of it...otherwise, they would have ignored the whole
> string!
I realize that probably the majority of people in this conference are just
sick and tired of the topic. Humerous though since it is hardly ever brought
up but that's neither here nor there.
>What you didn't take, or won't take into consideration is that they just could
>be sick of listening to religion put forth like it has been (thump thump thump)
>or that Greg's history of putting in outrageous notes plays into all this.
As I again said in a previous response, Greg is a zealot to say the least and
quite outspoken at times. But again, I remember the tone of his base note and
the question he put forth was coherent and he backed his points up with
scripture. The topic should have been ignored or discussed in a mature manner.
>Something that you throw everyone into that disagrees with something
>It isn't right with homophobia, and it isn't right with what you are doing. You
>can assert the fear theory all you like, but it doesn't make it real. You have
>never even come close to proving it. All you have done is help show us that
>homophobia isn't the only fear that can be wrongly applied to people.
I concede this and AGAIN, I never really said any different. We addressed
this in 20.1072. See below.
| Yes...it could be.
>> THANK-YOU!!!! Now please don't put everyone into the same catagory when
>>it is not the case, and you even realize it is not the case.
But now I would like to go back to the latest replies in the gay issues string.
As you remember, one boxer stated he hoped Barney Frank had a thick skin, and
that Dick Armey was a homophobe. This opinion was affirmed by a moderator and
two other prominent boxers. See 20.1123 as a pointer. My question to you Glen
is, were these boxers right in the assertion or wrong? Keep in mind that fag
and thumper are both perjorative remarks carrying equal weight. Thanks.
-Jack
|
| 20.1136 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur | Thu Feb 02 1995 14:43 | 10 |
| >> My question to you Glen
>> is, were these boxers right in the assertion or wrong? Keep in mind that
>> fag and thumper are both perjorative remarks carrying equal weight.
>> Thanks.
I'll take your silence to mean they are right!
Thanks,
-Jack
|
| 20.1137 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Feb 03 1995 16:09 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.1136 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| I'll take your silence to mean they are right!
No, it means I was out sick. But thanks again for showing us that you
talk out of the mile wide butt of yours. I'm now understanding why it's that
wide.... it's because there is so much talking out of it if the thing was any
smaller you'd explode. Maybe you should think about expanding??? :-) luv ya
Jack!!!!! heh heh
|
| 20.1138 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | Thirty on Thursday..Proud of it. | Fri Feb 03 1995 16:11 | 6 |
|
<-----Ouch! I bet that hurt, huh Jack! For a second I thought I was
even having sympathy pains for you, but then I burped, and the pain
went away..... :*)
|
| 20.1139 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Feb 03 1995 16:16 | 49 |
| | <<< Note 20.1135 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>
| >>Jack, nice try, but it doesn't work here. You see, what is really
| >>different between the two is YOU CLAIMED the reasons people were up in arms
| >>over Greg's notes was that they feared either him, religion in general, while
| >>the other one talked about real cases, like the one I presented about myself.
| Glen, I confirmed this very thing in note 20.1070. See below.
| > Yes...it could be. And I wouldn't have even brought it up except for
| > the fact that almost all of Greg Griffis strings in the former version
| > of Soapbox have a very high amount of replies. This tells me they
| > aren't tired of it...otherwise, they would have ignored the whole string!
Jack, you said yes, and then went on to state otherwise, with ZERO
proof. All you offered was your view of what could have been meant. Doesn't
work Jack.
| >What you didn't take, or won't take into consideration is that they just could
| >be sick of listening to religion put forth like it has been (thump thump thump)
| >or that Greg's history of putting in outrageous notes plays into all this.
| As I again said in a previous response, Greg is a zealot to say the least and
| quite outspoken at times. But again, I remember the tone of his base note and
| the question he put forth was coherent and he backed his points up with
| scripture. The topic should have been ignored or discussed in a mature manner.
Jack, again, you're too funny. Have you been mature when it comes to
the dems? Not all the time. You can't equate how someone should treat any given
topic anymore than you equating the reasons they responded. Different people
react differently. They may or may not react the way you want them to. Does it
make how people responded right? No. It says nothing about either thing. It
also says nothing about them responding as they did to be = to fear.
| But now I would like to go back to the latest replies in the gay issues string.
| As you remember, one boxer stated he hoped Barney Frank had a thick skin, and
| that Dick Armey was a homophobe. This opinion was affirmed by a moderator and
| two other prominent boxers. See 20.1123 as a pointer. My question to you Glen
| is, were these boxers right in the assertion or wrong? Keep in mind that fag
| and thumper are both perjorative remarks carrying equal weight. Thanks.
If you had read my notes Jack you would realize that I think it is
wrong to call him that. It's wrong because we really don't know his mind (which
is what I said in my notes). So that means.....
Glen
|
| 20.1140 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Feb 03 1995 17:08 | 15 |
| Don't worry about it Terry. Glen just has this affinity for my butt
cuz he always talks about it.
Glen, to bring this to closure.
1. Some boxers fear religion and need to ridicule what they don't
understand. Same with the gay issue.
2. Most boxers are just sick of being preached at.
3. Most people should have ignored it instead of contributing to 700+
replies.
Did I miss anything?!
Arright I tell you what I do I bring my tools and I start work tomorra.
What do you say Bill....How bout it Fred. I'M THE BEST!!!
|
| 20.1141 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | Thirty on Thursday..Proud of it. | Fri Feb 03 1995 17:11 | 4 |
|
Jack(ie) you spelled my name wrong.....
|
| 20.1142 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Feb 03 1995 17:18 | 5 |
| Sorry Terri...Freudian slip over the net!
By the way, let's quit kidding ourselves. I know you have been
enfatuated with me ever since I was convicted of that awful crime
against Barney!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111
|
| 20.1143 | | GAVEL::JANDROW | brain cramp | Fri Feb 03 1995 17:22 | 5 |
|
you got it wrong again, jacko...
|
| 20.1144 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | Thirty on Thursday..Proud of it. | Fri Feb 03 1995 17:46 | 9 |
|
Um, Jackaroo.....try again.....
TerrIE
|
| 20.1145 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Feb 03 1995 18:29 | 35 |
| | <<< Note 20.1140 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Don't worry about it Terry. Glen just has this affinity for my butt cuz he
| always talks about it.
Yeah, if you lay on your side, you could be as high as Mile High
Stadium. :-)
| 1. Some boxers fear religion and need to ridicule what they don't understand.
Agreed. But that's not what happened here. YOU stated that was their
reason for riduculing, but you have yet to prove it. What you ended up doing is
wrongly using the word Christianphobia. You don't KNOW that was the cause, but
you keep pushing it was though. That is what I am talking about here Jack. But
can this really be brought to a closure if you can't see this and keep bringing
it up?
| 2. Most boxers are just sick of being preached at.
Agreed.
| 3. Most people should have ignored it instead of contributing to 700+ replies.
WRONG Jack. ANYone can express their thoughts in this file. It does not
mean they are all correct, but they have the right to say it. Even the people
that have Christian-Homo-Hetero-Color-Ethnicphobias can express their views. So
Jack, on this you're wrong. Otherwise you wouldn't contribute to all the notes
that you do where someone, or a group get bashed.
| Did I miss anything?!
Just the point.
Glen
|
| 20.1146 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Hi. | Fri Feb 03 1995 18:33 | 2 |
| Yeah, Jack, I bet you are spelling Terry's name wrong on purpose! Fess
up!
|
| 20.1147 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Feb 03 1995 18:45 | 5 |
|
Steve Leech. Your personal name makes me think you just bought a Neon.
Did you????
|
| 20.1148 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Feb 03 1995 19:53 | 7 |
| Uhhhh..oh...sorry. It was Raq that was enfatuated with me, not Terri.
Glen, the evidence is that Greg opened the discussion. Lord Haag et al
bitched and moaned for mod action...vehemently I might add...and then
proceeded to put in 700+ replies. I don't see the consistency here!
-Jack
|
| 20.1149 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Hi! | Fri Feb 03 1995 19:59 | 10 |
| re: .1147
Uh..no. Just ran out of ideas for a p_name. Why would I want a new
car when I have this wonderfully ugly 13 year old Jetta? (the perfect
snow cruiser...go ahead, hit me! 8^) )
Maybe next summer, if I get some bills paid off.
-steve
|
| 20.1150 | | GAVEL::JANDROW | brain cramp | Fri Feb 03 1995 21:00 | 5 |
|
jacko...guess again...put a little something Extra into it this time...
|
| 20.1151 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Feb 03 1995 22:30 | 2 |
| Infatuated
|
| 20.1152 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Feb 04 1995 19:53 | 17 |
| Lovely rhetoric:
"When will Americans see that the anti-abortion ideology
is a collective psychosis masquerading as religion,
which has become a political force threatening democratic
society?"
Warren M. Hern, M.D.
Director
Boulder Abortion Clinic
Boulder, Colorado
29 January 1995
And what anti-democratic means does he plan to employ to "cure" this
"psychosis".
/john
|
| 20.1153 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | DEC: Triumph of Open Innovation | Sat Feb 04 1995 20:37 | 3 |
| One hopes that it will be less anti-democratic than the means currently
being employed by some to "cure" womens' right to choose...
|
| 20.1154 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Feb 06 1995 13:08 | 17 |
| | <<< Note 20.1148 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Uhhhh..oh...sorry. It was Raq that was enfatuated with me, not Terri.
raq.... if this is true, we must talk.... :-) Terrie, I knew it
couldn't be you!!!! (I still can't believe it was raq!)
| Glen, the evidence is that Greg opened the discussion. Lord Haag et al bitched
| and moaned for mod action...vehemently I might add...and then proceeded to put
| in 700+ replies. I don't see the consistency here!
Jack, explain to me if you will, how what you wrote above proves that
they feared what Greg was saying? You can keep saying it does, but you still
have not offered one piece of evidence that could prove this. Just assertions.
Glen
|
| 20.1155 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Feb 06 1995 14:19 | 1 |
| Forget it Glen...we're getting nowhere!!!!
|
| 20.1156 | Hey! This is the 'Box, fer cryin' out loud! | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Feb 06 1995 14:22 | 2 |
| (Please don't tell me you've only just noticed, Jack. :^)
|
| 20.1157 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Feb 06 1995 19:47 | 7 |
|
Then I hope you won't keep making that claim about their fearing Greg,
Jack. Cause it ain't anything you can prove.
Glen
|
| 20.1158 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 06 1995 20:50 | 38 |
| I have presented the fact that abortion for any reason throughout all nine
months of pregnancy was made legal in the United States by the companion
cases Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
Here is some further information about this fact:
"..no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in
the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason
during any stage of her pregnancy." --From the conclusion in a report
from the US Senate Judiciary Committee, 98-149, 7 June 1983, p.6.
"Thus, the Court nominally allowed the state to prohibit
post-viability abortions except in apparently limited cases, but it
actually defined the limitation in a way that bars a state from
prohibiting such abortions if physicians are willing to perform them."
Mark Tushnet, "The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey", Abortion,
Medicine, and the Law, 1986, p. 162.
"In sum, the Court has substantially restricted the kinds of
regulations a state may adopt to protect potential life by requiring
that abortions be allowed where necesssary to protect the woman's life
or health and then by giving "health" a broad definition." Mark
Tushnet, "The Supreme Court on Abortion: A Survey", Abortion,
Medicine, and the Law, 1986, p. 164.
That "broad" definition given in Doe v. Bolton is so broad that any doctor
willing to perform a third trimester abortion cannot, by law, be prevented
from doing so:
in Doe v. Bolton,... the Court defined 'health' to include
'all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and
the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient.'
Although many medical procedures can only be performed after a second opinion
has been obtained, the Court will not permit second opinions in the case of
abortion, even in the case of abortion after fetal viability.
/john
|
| 20.1159 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Feb 14 1995 15:29 | 53 |
| AP 13 Feb 95 20:42 EST V0107
Copyright 1995. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A federal appeals court upheld the law against
blocking access to abortion clinics on Monday, rejecting arguments that
the law infringes on free-speech rights.
The three-judge panel's unanimous ruling in two cases, brought by an
anti-abortion group and a protester, is the first appellate decision on
the act President Clinton signed into law on May 26, 1994.
One challenge was filed by Joyce Woodall, an abortion protester who was
arrested after kneeling in prayer at the door of a Falls Church clinic.
The second was filed by the American Life League, a Stafford
anti-abortion group. The league's lawyer argued that protesters can
say anything they want as long as they don't threaten or assault
people or block entrances.
Judge M. Blane Michael, writing for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, said the law protects people seeking or providing abortions
without infringing on anyone's First Amendment rights.
The act "strikes a balance among competing rights holders" while "those
opposed to abortion or to any other reproductive health service retain
the freedom to express their deeply-held moral or religious views in a
peaceful, non-obstructive way," Michael wrote.
Ms. Woodall's lawyer, Wendell R. Bird, said he will ask the U.S.
Supreme Court for a review.
"A protester can block a nuclear power facility entrance and that's not
a federal crime. A protester can block the cutting of old trees in a
forest and that's not a federal crime," he said. "But if a protester
does the exact same action in front of an abortion clinic, they are on
different grounds where the rules change and it is a crime."
But in its ruling, the appeals court said the protesters' agenda is
irrelevant.
"The Act forbids the obstructive conduct not because of the content of
any message that conduct might convey, but because of its harmful
effects," Michael wrote.
The 4th Circuit delayed consideration of one issue in the case of Ms.
Woodall, who argued that the act is unconstitutional because it
authorizes prior restraints on speech.
The 4th Circuit said the issue was raised prematurely.
Violators of the law face prison terms of six months to life and fines
of up to $250,000.
|
| 20.1160 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Feb 14 1995 15:33 | 9 |
| And it seems that the court will continue to uphold that there should
be no 'legal barriers', as John seems to curiously adamant to specify.
In fact, the courts are making it plain that legal barriers should be
emplaced to defend the right to abortion from those who blockade
clinics.
Cheers,
DougO
|
| 20.1161 | | CSOA1::LEECH | hi | Tue Feb 14 1995 15:47 | 2 |
| Funny how the law isn't eqully applied to tree huggers, animal rights
fanatics, and nuclear power protesters...
|
| 20.1162 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Feb 14 1995 15:52 | 11 |
| > Funny how the law isn't eqully applied to tree huggers, animal rights
> fanatics, and nuclear power protesters...
>>"The Act forbids the obstructive conduct not because of the content of
>> any message that conduct might convey, but because of its harmful
>> effects," Michael wrote.
Guess them Earth-First!ers, PETA-fanatics, and anti-nukers aren't so
recognisably harming other people's interests, huh, Steve.
DougO
|
| 20.1163 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Feb 14 1995 15:55 | 26 |
| | <<< Note 20.1161 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>
| Funny how the law isn't eqully applied to
Steve, there is an easy explaination for that.
| tree huggers,
The loggers cut them up with saws, so no arrests are needed.
| animal rights fanatics,
A good dog with sharp teeth and a big hunger is all that is needed...
no need to arrest them.
| and nuclear power protesters...
They use them as fuel rods. No need to arrest them....
See..... see how simple it is all explained? They can't abort the
pro-life people because they chain themselves to all the fixtures, which means
they can't perform any abortions for that day.....
Glen
|
| 20.1164 | Who remembers this ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Feb 14 1995 15:59 | 13 |
|
That reminds me of the real-life incident where some protester
(maybe 10 years back - it was in the news) lay down in front of
a bulldozer to "symbolically stop" the destruction of something or
other. Unfortunately, he did this while the driver was distracted,
and the mirrors did not allow him to be seen. The engine was too
loud too hear his "protests" and the result was a horrified driver
and a much flatter deceased protester.
Asked if he didn't feel something was in his way, the driver said
something like, "well, it did seem kind of crunchy..."
bb
|
| 20.1165 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Tue Feb 14 1995 16:35 | 5 |
| >Guess them Earth-First!ers, PETA-fanatics, and anti-nukers aren't
>so recognisably harming other people's interests,
Or the President doesn't feel there's any political hay to be made by
preventing those particular protestors...
|
| 20.1166 | not true Mr Leech | TIS::HAMBURGER | REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS | Tue Feb 14 1995 16:41 | 11 |
|
> > Funny how the law isn't eqully applied to tree huggers, animal rights
Actually a lot of states have passed anti-hunter-harrassment laws to keep
the more violent/offensive animal-rights gangs in check.
It is also law in many states(maybe a fed law, not sure) that driving spikes
into trees, damaging logging equipment or injuring loggers is criminal
act punishible by jail/fines/etc.
Amos
|
| 20.1167 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Feb 14 1995 16:45 | 3 |
|
And then there's RICO....
|
| 20.1168 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Feb 14 1995 16:47 | 1 |
| Rico suaveyyyyyyyy
|
| 20.1169 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Feb 14 1995 16:48 | 11 |
| Mark,
that's the same thing. If other people's interests were being harmed,
there'd be political capital in pandering to the aggrieved, or you
could say that as 'being responsive to constituent concerns'. like
Newt, for example, with gunowners and the NRA.
The mere existence of political support for a position does not
discredit it.
DougO
|
| 20.1170 | Idjit!! | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Feb 14 1995 17:07 | 3 |
|
RE: .1168
|
| 20.1171 | Equality is good | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Feb 14 1995 17:07 | 3 |
| I would have absolutely no objections if they made tree-hugging, anti-nuke
protesting and Animal rights fanaticism all Federal crimes.
|
| 20.1172 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Feb 14 1995 17:09 | 3 |
|
How about proteting civil rights violations?
|
| 20.1173 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Feb 14 1995 17:14 | 1 |
| Why thank u andy.... happy v-day!
|
| 20.1174 | Don't forget to pray for me!! | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Feb 14 1995 17:21 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.1175 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Feb 14 1995 17:27 | 4 |
|
Oh... how could I forget to do that!!?? I will pray for you Andy.
|
| 20.1176 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 14 1995 17:46 | 8 |
| So Dougo, your willing to protitute the first ammendment for you r
little PC agenda? Don't worry DougO, racial gerrymandering screwed the
liberals in the last election and this too will bite you in the ass
sometime up the road.
Rgds.,
-Jack
|
| 20.1177 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, SDSC West, Palo Alto | Tue Feb 14 1995 18:04 | 7 |
| I'm certainly willing to take the first amendment a lot farther than
you are, Jack, inasmuch as freedom to practise religion also means
freedom not to be forced to practise someone else's, which clinic
blockades are attempting. Seems the courts agree that the blockades
constitute 'harm' to other people's interests.
DougO
|
| 20.1178 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Feb 14 1995 18:23 | 7 |
| things to wonder about:
why is it the rest of us who have engaged in civil disobedience knew we
could expect jail time, as well as getting our heads busted, but the
"pro-life{ movement finds it unfair for them to get similar treatment?
meg
|
| 20.1179 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 14 1995 18:27 | 14 |
| The patrons should have free access to the clinic. They should be able
to walk a stright line without being touched or harrassed. The 30 yard
rule is a violation of the 1st ammendment and freedom of access of
public property...that being the sidewalk. You are willing to sell out
on this issue.
It kind of reminds me of the perverbial town meeting where 95% of the
people vote a tax hike to raise the pay of their teachers. What the
idiots don't realize is that their property taxes just went up and the
value of their homes just went down. If anybody is willing to sell out
on 1st ammendment rights for their petty PC agenda, then they have sold
America out in my book!
-Jack
|
| 20.1180 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 14 1995 18:29 | 8 |
| Meg:
I just saw your reply. I wouldn't expect anything other than jail and
maybe even get a belt in the face. I would expect that from the pro
abortion side of the fence. I just don't see how anybody would be
willing to sell out the Bill of Rights...for this itty bitty exception!
-Jack
|
| 20.1181 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Tue Feb 14 1995 18:32 | 10 |
| .1180
> I would expect that from the pro
> abortion side of the fence.
egad, now where is that p&k note?!! the pro-abortion side of the fence
has nothing to do with jail time or belts in the face, except when
they've been on the receiving end of them. just like the people who
got whacked and slammed in stir for standing up for the right of people
of color to be human, too.
|
| 20.1182 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Feb 14 1995 18:33 | 19 |
| > You are willing to sell out on this issue.
Given the twisted way you defined it, disagreeing with you isn't
selling out the First Amendment at all. Read .1159 again; the judge
addressed this specifically:
> The act "strikes a balance among competing rights holders" while "those
> opposed to abortion or to any other reproductive health service retain
> the freedom to express their deeply-held moral or religious views in a
> peaceful, non-obstructive way," Michael wrote.
If the judge sees that people retain their rights to express their
views, just not right in the face of those choosing to patronize a
certain business, then I can see it, too.
And I noticed you dodged the First Amendment implications of forcing
other people to practise your religious views.
DougO
|
| 20.1183 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Feb 14 1995 18:37 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.1176 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Don't worry DougO, racial gerrymandering screwed the liberals in the last
| election and this too will bite you in the ass sometime up the road.
Yeah, like the Religious Right screwed over the repubs in '92. Once
they start up for the next election, it will cost the repubs another one..
|
| 20.1184 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Feb 14 1995 18:46 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.1180 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| I wouldn't expect anything other than jail and maybe even get a belt in the
| face.
Jack, I wanna go to the next rally with you! Maybe it will be like
Batman, the tv series.... BAM! BIFF!
Glen
|
| 20.1186 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Feb 14 1995 19:05 | 4 |
| > You think that Dan Quayle
> screwed the republicans...but Dan Quayle was right wasn't he Glen.
You mean it _is_ spelled "potatoe?"
|
| 20.1187 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Feb 14 1995 19:09 | 5 |
|
RE: .1183
Dream on little man...
|
| 20.1188 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Feb 14 1995 19:12 | 24 |
| | <<< Note 20.1185 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| No Glen, Clinton won in 1992 because the nation was pussy whipped into
| believing that Bill Clinton was a new democrat and that he was going to
| do the opposite of George Bush...which didn't happen.
That played into it too jack, but the repub convention did more damage
to George Bush than one would have ever expected to see. Ross Perot played into
it as well.
| You think that Dan Quayle screwed the republicans...but Dan Quayle was right
| wasn't he Glen.
About....... (details would help me to know where you are coming from.
Please try to use them when possible)
| Racial gerrymandering made the democrats looked baaaaad Glen.
You crack me up Jack. Things were quite stale, and with the repubs
blowing their trumpet, they got heard. Good pr for the repubs helped them.
Glen
|
| 20.1189 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Feb 14 1995 19:12 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.1187 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>
| Dream on little man...
Can I be the dream weaver?
|
| 20.1185 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 14 1995 19:31 | 19 |
| No Glen, Clinton won in 1992 because the nation was whipped into
believing that Bill Clinton was a new democrat and that he was going to
do the opposite of George Bush...which didn't happen. People fell for
the famous Bubba..."Golly Gee" lines. You think that Dan Quayle
screwed the republicans...but Dan Quayle was right wasn't he Glen.
Donna Shalala admitted it why can't you? Our conservative man from
Crossfire who ran against Bush in the primary....what exactly did he
utter that was incorrect Glen? There is a hell of alot of class
warfare going on in America and ohhh how disgusting and hypocritical Al
Gore sounded at the United Auto Workers meeting. Same with
Gepfart...disingenuous hypocrite!
Racial gerrymandering made the democrats looked baaaaad Glen.
Especially where alot of these zones voted republican. What a boot in
the ass for Bill!
-Jack
|
| 20.1190 | | CSOA1::LEECH | hi | Tue Feb 14 1995 19:47 | 3 |
| re: .1178
You didn't have gangster laws used against you, that's why.
|
| 20.1191 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Llamas are larger than frogs | Tue Feb 14 1995 20:28 | 16 |
| There's been a lot of angry rhetoric between the "religious right" and
the Republicans lately. It seems that a large portion of the RR are
holding the Repubs to the flame on the abortion issue.
Personally, I think this is the issue that will ultimately divide and
conquer the Repubs enough for the Dems to regain control. No other
issue is as emotional in American politics.
For this reason (among others), I would like to see abortion dealt with
outside the political arena. It may seem like political cowardice, but
I would encourage the Repubs to simply wash their hands of the abortion
issue. After all, eliminating goverment's role in abortion is more in
line with the overall Republican philosophy than would be attempting
to legislate it out of existence.
-b
|
| 20.1192 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 14 1995 20:30 | 3 |
| I agree with this. Don't vote for a candidate based on one issue.
-Jack
|
| 20.1193 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Feb 15 1995 11:44 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.1190 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>
| You didn't have gangster laws used against you, that's why.
Well.... stop coming off as gangsters and it won't happen....
|
| 20.1194 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Feb 15 1995 11:47 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.1192 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| I agree with this. Don't vote for a candidate based on one issue.
Jack, what you said above..... isn't it a leeeeeeeetle hypocritical???
How many dems did ya vote for me boy? Did you vote all repub just cause they
weren't dems?
Glen
|
| 20.1195 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Feb 15 1995 12:11 | 14 |
| And now, without a single vote, without any legislation, without any
answerability to the general public...
The organization which accredits ob/gyn residency programs has ordered
those 1/3rd of all current programs which do not provide abortion training
to either do so or to contract with other hospitals or clinics (such as
Planned Parenthood).
The number of programs not providing abortion training had increased from
7.5% to over 30% in the past few years; and this purely because the doctors
running these programs find abortion disgusting: a legal but illegitimate
procedure.
/john
|
| 20.1196 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Feb 15 1995 13:05 | 24 |
| >> Jack, what you said above..... isn't it a leeeeeeeetle
>> hypocritical???
>> How many dems did ya vote for me boy? Did you vote all repub just cause
>> they weren't dems?
Since JFK, 1...the distinguished president of Boston University John
Silber when he ran against Weld for governor. John Silber spoke his
mind and didn't adhere to the sensitivity crap...which I happen to
like. He effectively ran a large distinguished University in Boston
and is effectively operating the Chelsea Public School system, alot
better than it was in the past.
Glen, I'm not sure if you were referring to the recent election or
elections since I was of voting age. This would be from Jimmy Carter
to present. I will just make a blanket statement and say that I don't
vote for candidates who adhere to the viewpoints of Lenin, Stalin,
or McGovern. This just so happens to include Clinton, Dukakis,
Mondale, Carter I can't figure out, definitely LBJ, and most definitely
FDR. FDR was a kook and a socialist! Truman was a mobster and JFK was
a womanizer, a foreign policy imbecel but a great speechmaker.
Well, I hope that covers all my bases. I have more if you need it.
-Jack
|
| 20.1197 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Feb 15 1995 13:11 | 19 |
|
Jack, I'm not talkin JUST Presidential races. I'm talking any elected
seat. If Silbur is the ONLY one you voted for who isn't a repub, then it seems
you chose to vote for people other than dems for almost every single election
you ever voted it. That does make what you stated sound hypocritical.
| I will just make a blanket statement and say that I don't vote for candidates
| who adhere to the viewpoints of Lenin, Stalin, or McGovern. This just so
| happens to include Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter I can't figure out,
| definitely LBJ, and most definitely FDR.
Ok Jack, how about doing something for me. You took the time to list
these guys as having the viewpoints of Lenin, Stalin or McGovern. Now could you
do me a big favor? Could you go through each person and list those viewpoints
that led you to this conclusion? I'd really like to know.
Glen
|
| 20.1198 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Feb 15 1995 13:15 | 5 |
| > Truman was a mobster
That's the first I'd ever heard this. I don't dispute it, but I'm curious
to learn more.
|
| 20.1199 | | POWDML::LAUER | Intoxicatingly Connected | Wed Feb 15 1995 13:18 | 4 |
|
I thought John Silber was Republican.
Where is my brain today?
|
| 20.1200 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Feb 15 1995 13:19 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.1199 by POWDML::LAUER "Intoxicatingly Connected" >>>
| I thought John Silber was Republican.
It must have been his temper that made you think that. :-)
|
| 20.1201 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Feb 15 1995 13:50 | 47 |
| >> Jack, I'm not talkin JUST Presidential races. I'm talking any elected
>>seat. If Silbur is the ONLY one you voted for who isn't a repub, then it seems
>>you chose to vote for people other than dems for almost every single election
>>you ever voted it. That does make what you stated sound hypocritical.
Glen, the only choice I ever had was the person against Barney Frank until I
moved to NH 2 years ago. The only choice I had in the senate was anybody
against Kennedy, I wrote in my retarded cousins name once. When I was younger
I didn't vote in primaries or local government. I'm not hypocritical, I
never had a choice.
>> Ok Jack, how about doing something for me. You took the time to list
>>these guys as having the viewpoints of Lenin, Stalin or McGovern. Now could you
>>do me a big favor? Could you go through each person and list those viewpoints
>>that led you to this conclusion? I'd really like to know.
Yes but first, Jack...Truman was affiliated with the Irish mob in Missouri.
The were known as the Prendergast gang and were quite big in the bootlegging
industry...similar to Joe Kennedy but they handles the central region.
Mondale, Clinton, and Dukakis are all pretty much from the same mold in the
running of government and economic policy. They are all proponents of big
government as we all know. Dukakis gave us three major state tax hikes in
Massachusetts, Clinton was probably one of the worst governors in the country
according to multiple articles in the Arkansas Gazette and of course we all
know about Bill Clintons war record so we all realize he is in light with Hanoi
Jane. So far Bill has penalized the "rich" with the fair share crap that you
so duly fell for...oh, yeah, that was a real capitalist move on his part. I
never got offered a job from a poor man that's for sure. Mondale set the
prescedent for Bill Clinton as Mondale made the mistake of telling the public
he would have to raise taxes. Bill learned from that mistake didn't she?
Mondale followed all the precepts of liberal socialistic policy...that's why he
lost in 49 states. High taxes, gutted defense, gun control...all the proven
failed policies of the US.
FDR and LBJ...new deal democrats with good intentions. "New Deal Democrat"
is considered a bad thing to be these days. Not needed anymore and alot of
the programs should have been destroyed years ago.
Carter...very nice man...that's about it.
If I lived in other parts of the country, I would definitely voted for Samm
Nunn, many southern democrats, Congressman Penny out in the midwest. I am not
a one party person Glen, but remember, I've lived in Massachusetts most of my
life!
-Jack
|
| 20.1202 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Feb 15 1995 14:10 | 5 |
| >industry...similar to Joe Kennedy but they handles the central region.
Apparently he didn't have the knack for managing money that Joe did, either.
Harry died a poor man, relatively speaking, no?
|
| 20.1203 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Feb 15 1995 14:24 | 1 |
| Hey, that's his problem!
|
| 20.1204 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Feb 15 1995 14:46 | 32 |
| > The number of programs not providing abortion training had increased
> from 7.5% to over 30% in the past few years; and this purely because
> the doctors running these programs find abortion disgusting: a legal
> but illegitimate procedure.
"purely"...ha ha ha ha ha! And how do you know so "purely" what
motivates the curricula (30%-7.5%) of ob/gyn programs, John? Do you
have so-called pro-life stooges on the staff of 22.5+% of all ob/gyn
programs, reporting on the decisions of the curricula committees?
"purely"...ha!
>The organization which accredits ob/gyn residency programs
Izzat the AMA? Or some arm thereof?
Funny how it was the physicians' desire to turn themselves into a
professional self-regulated body in the 19th century that led them to
the fight against self taught practitioners at a time when not one
doctor in ten had a diploma, and that not so coincidently they chose
abortions as the centerpiece of their strategy; by getting laws passed
against abortions except as recommended by licensed (by whom?)
physicians, they secured a professional status previously reserved to
lawyers and clergy. They did it with a campaign against women's rights
to control their own bodies, in order to gain power of self-regulation
over their profession. Political pimps.
And now they make political choices in the opposite direction? Funny
how what goes around, comes around. Your old comrades, John, swaying
in the opposite political breeze, incite you to rail against them?
tough noogies...you should beware who you crawl into bed with.
DougO
|
| 20.1205 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Feb 15 1995 15:00 | 74 |
| | <<< Note 20.1201 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Glen, the only choice I ever had was the person against Barney Frank until I
| moved to NH 2 years ago.
Are you saying no repub governers ran? no repub tresurer, etc? Surely
you jest Jack.
| The only choice I had in the senate was anybody against Kennedy, I wrote in my
| retarded cousins name once.
Gee, that showed such responsibility.
| Yes but first, Jack...Truman was affiliated with the Irish mob in Missouri.
| The were known as the Prendergast gang and were quite big in the bootlegging
| industry...similar to Joe Kennedy but they handles the central region.
So that had to do with the big 3 names how Jack? How was this made into
his policies? You made the statement, now try to stick with the subject please.
| Dukakis gave us three major state tax hikes in Massachusetts,
I remember the 1st one made it so he did not get reelected, and I
remember the last one cuz he wasn't going to run, but where was the 2nd one? I
must have missed that. :-) (and I'm just curious as to when, not curious as in
doubt)
| Clinton was probably one of the worst governors in the country according to
| multiple articles in the Arkansas Gazette
Jack, you're trusting in the press? The very same press that you
destroy because you think they're not printing the truth? Is this press ok when
they agree with your position only? Not very strng thing to back your claim. I
mean, in both Dukaka and Clinton's case, you failed to mention policies that
match the big three guys you compared them to. Hopefully you will intend to do
that soon.
| and of course we all know about Bill Clintons war record so we all realize he
| is in light with Hanoi Jane.
Uh huh.... how have you heard about his record again? Through that
media which you say distorts?
| So far Bill has penalized the "rich" with the fair share crap that you
| so duly fell for...oh, yeah, that was a real capitalist move on his part. I
| never got offered a job from a poor man that's for sure.
Jack, you may not like the policy, but how does that equate him to be
put in the starlin crowd?
| Mondale set the prescedent for Bill Clinton as Mondale made the mistake of
| telling the public he would have to raise taxes.
How does it = stalin & co????
| FDR and LBJ...new deal democrats with good intentions. "New Deal Democrat"
| is considered a bad thing to be these days. Not needed anymore and alot of
| the programs should have been destroyed years ago.
Oh, so something that did good when it was introduced that needs to be
overhauled for todays world, makes them in the group with Stalin? How does it
do that Jack?
| Carter...very nice man...that's about it.
And this puts him in their company? Uh huh.....
Jack, hopefully you will tie all this in with salin & company. You
know, with policies and stuff. Really jack.... you must do better.
Glen
|
| 20.1206 | context | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Feb 15 1995 15:18 | 67 |
| AP 14 Feb 95 14:19 EST V0480
Copyright 1995. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
ROSEMONT, Ill. (AP) -- The group that governs physician training voted
unanimously today to direct that obstetrical residents be taught how to
perform abortions.
It acted because of reports that abortion training is being neglected
at teaching hospitals.
The 23-member Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education said
unless residents have a moral or religious objection, "experience with
induced abortion must be part of residency training."
If a residency program has a moral or religious objection to providing
the training, it can opt out, but it must contract with another
institution to do the teaching.
The current requirement says only that residents are "required to learn
clinical skills in family planning," said Dr. John Gienapp, executive
director of the council, based in Chicago. That has always implied
abortion but never spelled it out, he said.
Without referring to any specific figures, Gienapp said, "There've been
surveys and press reports that residents have not been getting as much
training as were mandated in our standards."
Exact data on the number of doctors performing abortions isn't
available.
In 1976, 7.5 percent of the nation's 270 residency programs did not
offer abortion training. By 1991, that figure rose to 31 percent,
according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization
that gathers data on reproductive issues and favors abortion rights.
During the same period, the percentage of residency programs that
required abortion training fell from 26 percent to 12 percent,
according to the institute.
The council is an independent body made up of representatives from
medical organizations such as the American Medical Association and the
American Hospital Association.
The council can withhold accreditation from those who don't meet its
standards. Accreditation is necessary for hospitals to get reimbursed
by the federal government for patients that residents treat.
Dr. Norman Gant, executive director of the American Board of Obstetrics
and Gynecology, said his group supported the change.
"It's not a perfect answer. I don't think there's a perfect answer to
this," he said. "Our board was divided on this. We have some people who
are strongly anti-abortion. I'm strongly anti-abortion personally, but
pro-choice. How schizophrenic is that?"
But in the final analysis, "until we no longer have rapes, child
molesting, damaged and defective children and failure to provide
contraceptive services for a huge segment of our population, we're
going to have abortion. ... Somebody should be able to provide the
service," he said.
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly disagreed.
"Coercing people and institutions to participate in the destruction of
innocent life is a great evil," Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles
said on behalf of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
|
| 20.1207 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Feb 15 1995 15:19 | 8 |
| > The current requirement says only that residents are "required to learn
> clinical skills in family planning," said Dr. John Gienapp, executive
> director of the council, based in Chicago. That has always implied
> abortion but never spelled it out, he said.
The change that isn't a change.
DougO
|
| 20.1208 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Feb 15 1995 15:26 | 2 |
| This can't be implemented at...say...St. Elizabeths Hospital in Boston
can it? They're only directing this to State hospitals right?
|
| 20.1209 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 15 1995 15:45 | 15 |
| re .1208:
From today's Globe:
The new rule permits obstetrical residency programs to opt out of providing
abortion training for religious, moral or legal reasons. But those that do
must arrange for another institution to provide the training for any resident
who wishes it.
...
Dr. Alan DeCherney, chief of obstetrics at New England Medical Center, said
the new rule will not affect NEMC residents who receive part of their training
at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Brighton, where abortions are not done. "Our
residents get plenty of abortion training at NEMC and Cambridge," he said.
|
| 20.1210 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Feb 15 1995 15:55 | 19 |
| They are directing it at all hospitals.
The change, which specifically requires abortion training, requires
a Roman Catholic teaching hospital to either provide abortion training
for its residents or contract for them to be trained in abortion at
another hospital or clinic.
Note that the article Gerald posted talks about residents at NEMC,
who get part of their training at St. Elizabeth's. The article does
not discuss residents at a Roman Catholic hospital.
The problem occurs for any hospital whose staff are morally opposed to
abortion. For example, assuming the administrator is Roman Catholic, s/he
is not permitted by canon law (canon 1398) to in any way procure an abortion,
or s/he is automatically (without the imposition of a sentence) excommunicated.
Signing a contract involving the procuring of an abortion is the same as
procuring one.
/john
|
| 20.1211 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Feb 15 1995 16:02 | 10 |
| >The change, which specifically requires abortion training,
which was implicit in the earlier requirement. Why do you suppose
the vote was unanimous to make it explicit? Too many programs were
ostensibly 'training' ob/gyns who lacked requisite skills. So the
catholic ob/gyn training programs which don't offer proper training can
either improve their programs or lose their accreditations. What's the
problem?
DougO
|
| 20.1212 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Feb 15 1995 16:18 | 7 |
| The problem is that people who are morally opposed to participating in
abortion are being forced to violate their own moral codes.
Of course, DougO, I realize you'd like nothing better than to see 31%
of all ob/gyn programs in the United States shut down.
/john
|
| 20.1213 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Feb 15 1995 16:26 | 6 |
| I fail to see what the big deal on this training is Doug. Delivering a
baby requires great training. Poisoning a baby and delivering it
dead...or chopping it up into pieces and evacuating the corpse...now
what kind of specialized training is involved here?
-Jack
|
| 20.1214 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Wed Feb 15 1995 16:30 | 5 |
| .1213
another example of why anybody with a coathanger can be an abortion
practitioner, after all, you don't need to know anything like about how
to keep the woman alive and aseptic.
|
| 20.1215 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Feb 15 1995 16:39 | 11 |
| re: .1213
Yes, goodness, why should these physicians know anything
about tubal ligations or D and C's? Abortions are only
those things that evyl wimmin use for birth control right?
They deserve to die, right? No such thing as a medical
emergency around here.
Sheesh.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1216 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Feb 15 1995 16:39 | 18 |
| > The problem is that people who are morally opposed to participating in
> abortion are being forced to violate their own moral codes.
Only if they want to be certified to practise ob/gyn by an accredited
facility, for which professional standards must be maintained. Hey,
these blokes got their 'profession' recognized on the backs of women,
its about time the worm turned.
> Of course, DougO, I realize you'd like nothing better than to see 31%
> of all ob/gyn programs in the United States shut down.
Nobody'll force 'em to shut down. Of course, nobody will hire people
certified from non-accredited institutions, either, so the free market
might shut 'em down. If they want to maintain their UNSEEMLY PROFITS
for training ob/gyns, they'll simply have to maintain professional
standards.
DougO
|
| 20.1217 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 15 1995 16:52 | 8 |
| > Only if they want to be certified to practise ob/gyn by an accredited
> facility, for which professional standards must be maintained. Hey,
> these blokes got their 'profession' recognized on the backs of women,
> its about time the worm turned.
Except that no resident who's morally opposed to abortion will be forced
to perform one. I don't see that performing an abortion will be a litmus
test [cough, cough] for getting certified.
|
| 20.1218 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Feb 16 1995 01:07 | 7 |
| >Except that no resident who's morally opposed to abortion will be forced
>to perform one. I don't see that performing an abortion will be a litmus
>test [cough, cough] for getting certified.
Not this year, at least.
/john
|
| 20.1219 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Feb 16 1995 14:03 | 3 |
| I find it intrusive for the AMA et al to coerce private hospitals who
want no part to have to subcontract another hospital to teach the
butchery process. Why can't people mind their own business!
|
| 20.1220 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Thu Feb 16 1995 14:18 | 10 |
| .1219
because the ama is an association of doctors. they do not wish to have
the standards of their profession degraded by people who desire to
dictate, from their morals, the standards of behavior and medicine for
people who do not necessarily share those morals.
doctors who are not trained to do abortions are uanble to perform
THERAPEUTIC abortions, and the result of such a lack in their training
is the people who NEED abortions will die unnecessarily.
|
| 20.1221 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Feb 16 1995 14:34 | 6 |
| Bullspit. Any competent OB/GYN trained in the methods of today can
quite adequately tend to a patient who is miscarrying or bleeding
severely. That's a bunch of horsepucky spewed off by Planned
Parenthood!
-Jack
|
| 20.1222 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Feb 16 1995 14:37 | 4 |
| Jack,
Where do these "competent" practitioners get their training in
therapeutic abortion?
|
| 20.1223 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 16 1995 14:51 | 5 |
| I read an article in the Globe a few weeks ago about the lack of abortion
training in ob/gyn residencies. A resident said that she had never had
abortion training, but the other stuff she was taught enabled her to
perform abortions competently. If I remember, I'll ask my friend the
ob/gyn about this.
|
| 20.1224 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 16 1995 14:52 | 8 |
| >Any competent OB/GYN trained in the methods of today
unless they were trained at one of those 31+% of clinics that DON'T
train in those particular methods. That's the point, Jack. What you
believe to be true of all ob/gyns should indeed be true; and the
profession is now policing itself to ensure that it will be true.
DougO
|
| 20.1225 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:03 | 3 |
| Doesn't matter. The military medical field shunned Patsy Schroeder
(much to my delight). Same thing will happen here. You cannot
legislate morals remember?
|
| 20.1226 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanshauung | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:41 | 4 |
|
the AMA is being pressured by the pro-abort groups.
jeff
|
| 20.1227 | more terrorism | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:42 | 57 |
| AP 15 Feb 95 21:57 EST V0537
Copyright 1995. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (AP) -- A suspected arson fire destroyed a
Planned Parenthood center early Wednesday, the state's third
suspicious blaze in a week at facilities where abortions are
performed, authorities said.
The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were
investigating all three fires along the coast as probable arson,
Justice Department spokesman John Russell said.
Their findings will go to the department's task force on anti-abortion
violence, he said.
The task force is using a grand jury to probe anti-abortion violence
around the country, but authorities said it was too soon to know if
the three fires were connected.
The fire that gutted the Planned Parenthood center near downtown was
reported at about 1:50 a.m. and took about an hour to extinguish.
A week ago, a fire caused $1,000 damage at the Family Planning
Associates Medical Group clinic in Ventura. Small containers of a
flammable substance were placed in a tire and ignited.
A similar fire broke out Saturday at a Santa Barbara doctor's office
where abortions are performed. That fire did little damage, said Frank
Iarossi, supervising agent at the FBI's Santa Maria office.
It wasn't known if a tire was set afire at the Planned Parenthood
center, and the two earlier fires shared some similarities not found
in the latest fire, investigators said.
On Feb. 1, federal agents investigated an arson fire at a business
complex housing a Planned Parenthood office in Modesto. No abortions
are performed at that clinic and investigators said they weren't sure
if Planned Parenthood was targeted.
Abortion rights advocates had little doubt that the fires of the last
seven days were connected.
"We think it's a conspiracy and anti-abortion terrorists are behind
it," said Pamela J. Maraldo, president of the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America.
Police throughout the area said they would increase patrols near
women's health centers.
Planned Parenthood has heightened security in the wake of violence at
clinics around the country. In December, a gunman killed two
receptionists at two abortion clinics in Brookline, Mass.
The 900 Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide provide health care and
counseling, including checkups, cancer screenings and contraception.
Not all offer abortions.
|
| 20.1228 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:43 | 6 |
| .1226
yeah, like we are being pressured by hackers to develop better methods
of computer tampering.
you seem not to understand the phrase "professional standards."
|
| 20.1229 | AP Poll on Foster | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:44 | 89 |
| SURGEON GENERAL-POLL
NEW YORK (AP) -- Americans overwhelmingly reject the notion that Dr.
Henry Foster is unfit to be surgeon general because he performed
abortions and gave different accounts of how many, an Associated Press
poll finds. Seventy percent of the 1,008 adults in the poll think the
abortions themselves should not disqualify the Tennessee obstetrician
from serving as the nation's chief advocate for public health.
Twenty-two percent say the abortions should disqualify him; 8 percent
aren't sure. President Clinton nominated Foster on Feb. 2.
AP 16 Feb 95 0:34 EST V0609
Copyright 1995. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
By The Associated Press
The Associated Press poll on the surgeon general nomination was taken
Feb. 10-14 among a random sample of 1,008 adult Americans in all
states except Alaska and Hawaii.
Interviewing was done by telephone by ICR Survey Research Group of
Media, Pa., part of AUS Consultants.
The results were weighted to represent the population by key
demographic factors such as age, sex, region and education.
No more than one time in 20 should chance variations in the sample
cause the results to vary by more than 3 percentage points from the
answers that would be obtained if all Americans were polled. This
margin of sampling error is larger for responses of subgroups, such as
age categories.
There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the
wording and order of questions. Here are the AP poll questions:
(Because of rounding, sums may not total 100.)
1. Do you support or oppose Dr. Henry Foster to be surgeon general?
-- Support: 36 percent.
-- Oppose: 22 percent.
-- (Volunteered) Not enough information to have an opinion: 29 percent.
-- Don't know-no answer: 13 percent.
2. Do you think the fact that Dr. Foster has performed abortions should
disqualify him from serving as surgeon general?
-- Yes: 22 percent.
-- No: 70 percent.
-- Don't know-no answer: 8 percent.
3. As you probably know, Dr. Foster has given different accounts of the
number of abortions he has performed. Do you think this represents a
lack of truthfulness on Dr. Foster's part, or just innocent
misstatements?
-- Lack of truthfulness: 33 percent.
-- Just innocent misstatements: 43 percent.
-- (Volunteered) Not enough information to have an opinion: 11 percent.
-- Don't know-no answer: 13 percent.
4. Which comes closer to your view?
-- Dr. Foster's credibility has suffered so much that President Clinton
should withdraw his nomination: 19 percent.
-- Dr. Foster deserves a full hearing so that the Senate can decide
whether to confirm his nomination: 73 percent.
-- Don't know-no answer: 8 percent.
5. If a woman wants to have an abortion and her doctor agrees to do it,
should she be allowed to have an abortion, or not?
-- Allowed: 65 percent.
-- Not allowed: 22 percent.
-- (Volunteered) Depends on circumstances: 11 percent.
-- Don't know-no answer: 2 percent.
|
| 20.1230 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:45 | 15 |
| > >Any competent OB/GYN trained in the methods of today
>
> unless they were trained at one of those 31+% of clinics ...
So great. One out of three OB/GYNs aren't trained to do abortions.
That means that 2 out of three are. If one is needed IMMEDIATELY
(and that is often not the case) call in the specialist on an
emergency basis. Otherwise, schedule the procedure.
Not all OB/GYNs do c-sections. In fact, not all OB/GYNs do
deliveries either. Nor do all of them do sterilizations or
hysterectomies.
I don't see why it should be expected that all of then do
abortions.
|
| 20.1231 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:48 | 8 |
| from the article in .1227:
> The 900 Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide provide health care and
> counseling, including checkups, cancer screenings and contraception.
> Not all offer abortions.
Sounds like PP itself knows the stigma of abortion and has to
add the apology-like appendix to its description...
|
| 20.1232 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:48 | 13 |
| > I don't see why it should be expected that all of then do abortions.
I'm sure you'll forgive me for not being bothered to explain it to you.
Do you go to the doctor, Joe? Is your doctor certiied by the AMA to
practise medicine? Are the specialists recommended by your GP to treat
you and your family certified in their specialties?
If you trust those certification boards, why do you dispute this one?
Clearly not for any consistency in your stance regarding medical
competence.
DougO
|
| 20.1233 | | CSOA1::LEECH | hi | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:50 | 4 |
| re: .1227
Why is the BATF involved?
|
| 20.1234 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:50 | 8 |
| >Sounds like PP itself knows the stigma of abortion and has to
add the apology-like appendix to its description...
I'm sure you understand that they'd use any tactic which might deter a
terrorist from firebombing them; if the terrorist wasn't sure that a
particular PP clinic performed abortions, he might not bomb it.
DougO
|
| 20.1235 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:51 | 5 |
| >Why is the BATF involved?
Set a terrorist to catch a terrorist. I don't know.
DougO
|
| 20.1236 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:53 | 8 |
| re .1229
One has to wonder about the quality of a poll where write-in
(volunteered) answers sometimes outnumber the poll choices given
to participants.
And personally I would have drawn some different conclusions from
what was concluded in .1229 about the polling results.
|
| 20.1237 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:56 | 6 |
| .1232
Why must abortion be part of the general OB/GYN practice? Why
can't it be a specialty like so many other OB/GYN services?
Why must you be so nasty in your replies?
|
| 20.1238 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:57 | 4 |
| > Why is the BATF involved?
Because it might have been caused by a cigarette?
Because there's "fire" in its name?
|
| 20.1239 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:01 | 16 |
| .1234
> I'm sure you understand that they'd use any tactic which might deter a
> terrorist from firebombing them; if the terrorist wasn't sure that a
> particular PP clinic performed abortions, he might not bomb it.
First of all, the "terrorists" also attached a PP facility
that didn't perform abortions, so your speculation missed
the mark.
Secondly, that apology appendix is added by PP not only when
the issue of terrorism is raised, but in any discussion about
PP. It was being used even before there were abortion clinic
shootings and bombings. No, it seems to me that PP really
does understand the stigma of abortion and is trying to apply
some cosmetics to hide that stigma.
|
| 20.1240 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:03 | 19 |
| Joe:
You have to understand something here. Doug isn't stupid, and if we
ever meet at a boxbash, he'd prolly be a cordial guy.
Abortion is a politically driven PC issue. Doug is the typical
abortion advocate who feels that a segment of the population should
have all the rights, even if it means chitting on the Constitution and
the general taxpayer. The word coersion also comes to mind. We all
need to stay out of the victims business as long as we pay for it and
allow beaurocratic coersion to interfere with private institutions.
So Doug, why don't we ask the grand question this way. If you had a
candidate for a job in your organization and within a week you discover
a few major discrepencies in his resume and what he conveyed to you at
the interview, would you hire him? Of course keeping the interests of
Digital in mind and all that!
-Jack
|
| 20.1241 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:05 | 9 |
| ZZ "We think it's a conspiracy and anti-abortion terrorists are behind
ZZ it," said Pamela J. Maraldo, president of the Planned Parenthood
ZZ Federation of America.
I saw her on Charlie Rose two nights ago. This ass of a person was an
embarrassment to the integrity of Planned Parenthood never mind women
in general.
-Jack
|
| 20.1242 | Many assertions by Benson, never any proof by him though | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:06 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.1226 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanshauung" >>>
| the AMA is being pressured by the pro-abort groups.
And part of the pro-life crew is endangering pro-choice people's lives.
So what's your point? More to the fact, what's your proof? My proof is easy.
The name Salvi mean anything to you?
Glen
|
| 20.1243 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:07 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.1231 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| Sounds like PP itself knows the stigma of abortion and has to add the
| apology-like appendix to its description...
And I guess it doesn't work for the likes of you Joe.... ya can't even
give them credit for not having something you're against. You're a real piece
of work Joe......
|
| 20.1244 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:10 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.1241 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| I saw her on Charlie Rose two nights ago. This ass of a person was an
| embarrassment to the integrity of Planned Parenthood never mind women in
| general.
Could you be more specific Jack? Like how?
|
| 20.1245 | | POWDML::LAUER | Intoxicatingly Connected | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:13 | 6 |
|
She was an embarassment to women in general?!
That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in eons, and I've heard
plenty.
|
| 20.1246 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:16 | 5 |
|
I wonder if this makes Jack M. an embarrassment to men in general.
hmmmm.
|
| 20.1247 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:20 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.1245 by POWDML::LAUER "Intoxicatingly Connected" >>>
| That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in eons, and I've heard plenty.
Deb (twin sister of Matt), please stop talking about what I say. :-)
|
| 20.1248 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:21 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.1246 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "too few args" >>>
| I wonder if this makes Jack M. an embarrassment to men in general.
My Lady, take out the, "to men" and ya got it right.... or is that
Right? :-)
|
| 20.1249 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:41 | 27 |
| re .1229
>There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the
>wording and order of questions.
Quite true. Consider the question used in this poll:
>5. If a woman wants to have an abortion and her doctor agrees to do it,
>should she be allowed to have an abortion, or not?
I am sure that _some_ of the respondents heard the telephone pollster say
"and her doctor agrees" and thought "medical necessity".
Or can you think of another way to explain the difference between the
response to this poll and the CBS poll just last month in which 58 percent
of those polled (a solid majority) answered that abortion should either
be banned or more strictly limited.
That poll shows that current abortion legality in the United States is
not the will of the majority: that the courts have imposed a minority
position on the states, overriding the will of the people as expressed
through their legislatures.
I am glad to still be in the majority of people in this country who want
to see the law changed to prevent many current abortions.
/john
|
| 20.1250 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:47 | 17 |
| | <<< Note 20.1249 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| Or can you think of another way to explain the difference between the
| response to this poll and the CBS poll just last month in which 58 percent
| of those polled (a solid majority) answered that abortion should either
| be banned or more strictly limited.
It's called how it's worded John. If they went with JUST those who want
to see abortions stopped, the figure would be MUCH lower. If you went with
those who want to see abortions left as is, you would see a big drop there too.
The careful wording in both polls has to do with those who want some sort of
change in the laws. They are, by my guess, the same people in both camps. It's
like the Bible, it's all a matter of interpretation.
Glen
|
| 20.1251 | Tangential... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:50 | 23 |
|
If I can slightly change the debate for a second, way back I think
the question was asked "How much do you trust tha AMA about ...?"
Exactly as much as we trust the electric company, the government,
pro baseball, or any other monopoly.
The AMA is a specifically countenanced combination in restraint of
trade. At the first sign of competition (chiropractors, midwives,
faith healers, acupuncturists, etc...), they try to slander and ban
the threat. This is only human nature, given that they charge vastly
inflated prices for routine procedures which many people could do
themselves.
On the other hand, they have a commercial stake in appearing to know
what they are talking about - if you are Intel, the Pentium FDIV bug
costs you a gigabuck, and in not ticking off any powerful political
groups who could threaten the security of their lucre.
I trust doctors to do what is in their own interest. I employ them
when I think my own interests co-incide with theirs.
bb
|
| 20.1252 | Where have we heard this before? | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:56 | 15 |
| We must listen to different polls together or something. One I heard the
results of last week said that 62% of Americans favor the continuation
of abortions being legal. And, no, I cannot give you a specific source
other than "I heard it on WRKO's 7:30AM newscast on the way in to work
one day last week while I was at a particularly hazardous intersection
in Amherst waiting to make a turn". Now, since that's the best I can
come up with for a source, you are, of course, free to tell me that
I am "making it up" (which I'm not, of course), or "lying" (which I
also am not).
The point of the matter is that for any poll you can quote saying that
the majority feel one way, there _are_ contrary polls demonstrating
the opposite. Neither is any more valid than the other, and neither
proves a damn thing.
|
| 20.1253 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Feb 16 1995 17:13 | 5 |
|
Jack, see .1250 for the answer to the polls being different. BTW, I had
heard your version as well.
|
| 20.1254 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:07 | 11 |
| RE: .1242
RE: Salvi
Idjit!!! They determined Salvi did this all on his lonesome.... no
"crew" involved...
Yeah, so he went to a few rallies.. big deal....
How this must piss off all the pro-aborts out there!!!
|
| 20.1255 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:14 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.1254 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>
| Idjit!!! They determined Salvi did this all on his lonesome.... no "crew"
| involved...
He is part of the pro-life group. Unless everyone is exactly the same
when it comes to beliefs, he is part of it. He believed it was wrong to abort
PERIOD. Many in the pro-life group hold this same belief. They are still part
of the group.
| How this must piss off all the pro-aborts out there!!!
Why would it?
|
| 20.1256 | BATF | TIS::HAMBURGER | REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:19 | 5 |
|
BATF has a great deal of expertise in the identification of explosives and
arson devices. They get called in when locals do not have the knowledge or
equipment to do the testing. Or when the crime may violate a federal law.
Amos
|
| 20.1257 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:20 | 19 |
| Mz. Debra:
The president of National Planned Parenthood was on Charlie Rose show
with 1 other pro choice woman. The other woman represented a national
womans group that provided statistical data in every aspect of
reproductive rights. She and the woman from PP were so polarized in
what they were stating it was reprehensible. The woman from Planned
Parenthood came across like a hysterical female - spewing out hate
toward men...she was the model victim. Her stats were shot down
continually.
I admired the other woman for her sobriety and honesty. Deb, if you
don't honestly think there is an agenda out there for ultra feminist
dogma in society, then you seriously need to wake up and smell the
coffee. Everybody is entitled to their beliefs and opinion, as long as
it's founded with reason and logic. The PP Pres was a cheap imitation
of a lady and a perpetual victim...incredulous to say the least.
-Jack
|
| 20.1258 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Weird Canadian Type Geezer | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:24 | 1 |
| Freshly fixed French Roast?
|
| 20.1260 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:25 | 6 |
| > Why must abortion be part of the general OB/GYN practice? Why
> can't it be a specialty like so many other OB/GYN services?
OB/GYN *is* a specialty.
DougO
|
| 20.1261 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:28 | 3 |
| > Kurt Waldheim, an embarassment to Jews in general.
Umm, I think you're a little confused here.
|
| 20.1262 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:29 | 2 |
|
Thanks, Gerald. I was frothing 8^).
|
| 20.1259 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:29 | 9 |
|
Oh but Jack, really. "An embarassment to women in general". How lame.
John Salvi, an embarassment to men in general.
Kurt Waldheim, an embarassment to Austrians in general.
Colin Ferguson, an embarassment to Blacks in general.
Jim Bakker, an embarassment to Whites in general.
Are you with me here?
|
| 20.1263 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:31 | 27 |
| > First of all, the "terrorists" also attached a PP facility
> that didn't perform abortions, so your speculation missed
> the mark.
I said it might deter some terrorists. "might", "some". How do we
know how many other looney so-called pro-lifers haven't bombed clinics
for just such a reason, that they knew PP didn't necessarily mean
'abortions perfromed here'? Just because some terrorists are so
obviously bereft of common decency doesn't mean that some others
haven't been deterred.
> Secondly, that apology appendix is added by PP not only when
> the issue of terrorism is raised, but in any discussion about
> PP. It was being used even before there were abortion clinic
> shootings and bombings.
How long ago are you talking? There've been terrorist attacks against
clinics for many years. And if you're so sure it predates the attacks,
then its old news, why are you bringing it up now? And finally, for a
third reason this is a non-issue, PP says it because ITS TRUE. They
offer a FULL RANGE of reproductive health services. Due to the charged
politics of abortion, they recognize the danger that their mission and
purposes will be misunderstood, collateral damage of the insane smear
tactics of the radical right. Why shouldn't they seek to clarify just
who they are?
DougO
|
| 20.1264 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:33 | 4 |
| DougO:
Sounds like Planned Parenthood has a real Baaaad PR problem. Maybe
part of it is putting victim feminists behing the presidential pulpit?
|
| 20.1265 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:34 | 6 |
|
>> Are you with me here?
Hoho, Debster. I dare say anyone who uses the term "hysterical
female" is not, how you say, with you. ;>
|
| 20.1266 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:36 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.1264 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Sounds like Planned Parenthood has a real Baaaad PR problem. Maybe
| part of it is putting victim feminists behing the presidential pulpit?
I don't know what's worse. The picture Jack paints of feminists, or his
dislike for them.
|
| 20.1267 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:39 | 8 |
| I am all for women's rights. I am against feminism as defined today by
groups like NOW. I believe feminism bears a big responsibility for the
break up of the American family. Dysfunctionalism at its best!
I'm sorry Diane...you had to see it. The woman was completely
irrational!
-Jack
|
| 20.1268 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:39 | 32 |
| > Doug isn't stupid, and if we ever meet at a boxbash, he'd prolly be a
> cordial guy.
Thanks, Jack. Its happened; here in Silicon Valley, and at a pizza
joint in Maynard, many years ago.
>Doug is the typical abortion advocate who feels that [...]
oops. You got it wrong, pal, when you paint me as 'chitting' on the
Constitution. I find the same penumbra of privacy rights there that
the US Supreme Court does, so I find my defense of reproductive rights
to be perfectly in keeping with the Constitution. Be careful not to
misrepresent my arguments.
> So Doug, why don't we ask the grand question this way. If you had
> a candidate for a job in your organization and within a week you
> discover a few major discrepencies in his resume and what he conveyed
> to you at the interview, would you hire him?
Whoa. What 'few major discrepancies' do you allude to? His record on
piloting a program for combatting pregnancy in teenagers in Tennessee
is well known; George Bush praised him for it while he was president.
The allegation that he performed 700 abortions is from a hearing
transcript that was never verified by Foster after his talk, and which
he insists is an incorrect transcription. No medical records have been
turned up indicating anything like that allegation. So, political
opponents have attempted a smear job; would I back down from my
selection just because of dubious muckrakers? G'wan; prove these "few
major discrepancies" really exist, and aren't just manufactured by
dirty politics.
DougO
|
| 20.1269 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:43 | 16 |
| > Or can you think of another way to explain the difference between the
> response to this poll and the CBS poll just last month in which 58
> percent of those polled (a solid majority) answered that abortion
> should either be banned or more strictly limited.
Has the question in the CBS poll been made public? If we're going to
examine allegedly slanted wording from the AP poll, and then compare
the results of the two polls, the lack of scrutiny of the CBS poll's
questions becomes glaring.
> I am glad to still be in the majority of people in this country who
> want to see the law changed to prevent many current abortions.
Yeah, suuuuuuuuure you are.
DougO
|
| 20.1270 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | too few args | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:57 | 8 |
|
>> I'm sorry Diane...you had to see it. The woman was completely
>> irrational!
"The woman was completely irrational" beats the heck out of
"...hysterical female", but I'm not sure if you can see the
difference. I would hope so.
|
| 20.1271 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Feb 16 1995 18:58 | 6 |
| Oooops...semantics. Sorry! I guess hysterical female carries a
helpless frenzied stigma to it! Completely totally irrational.
Thanks,
-Jack
|
| 20.1272 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Feb 16 1995 19:03 | 4 |
|
Ahhhh My Lady, me thinks Jack might not really READ his own notes
before he enters them.... :-)
|
| 20.1273 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Feb 16 1995 19:57 | 11 |
| .1260
> > Why must abortion be part of the general OB/GYN practice?
>
> OB/GYN *is* a specialty.
You limit yourself, Doug. Not all OB/GYNs do deliveries. Or
sterilizations. (I've been through this before. Why do you
ignore it?) So call them sub-specialties. All "specialties"
in medicine (and other fields) have them. Why can't abortion
be one?
|
| 20.1274 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Feb 16 1995 20:01 | 18 |
| .1263
> I said it might deter some terrorists. "might", "some".
Yeah, yeah. And "specialties" too. Don't waste my time
backpedalling from semantics. Your meaning was clear.
> And if you're so sure it predates the attacks,
> then its old news, why are you bringing it up now?
It was posted in the article today. It stood out. It still
stands out.
> And finally, for a
> third reason this is a non-issue, PP says it because ITS TRUE.
And it still looks like an apology. I agree with whoever it
was back there that said that PP need better PR.
|
| 20.1275 | It gets noticed. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Feb 16 1995 20:02 | 5 |
| .1266> I don't know what's worse. The picture Jack paints of feminists, or his
>dislike for them.
... or your dogging of practically every entry Jack makes in
notes...
|
| 20.1276 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Feb 17 1995 12:52 | 6 |
| Don't worry Joe. Glen has always seen me as an advocate for the big
bad capitalistic pigs and he is Supppper-Glen....hero of all today that
are oppressed and belittled in society. Able to leap two barstools at
a single bound!!!
|
| 20.1277 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Feb 17 1995 13:11 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.1275 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| .1266> I don't know what's worse. The picture Jack paints of feminists, or his
| >dislike for them.
| ... or your dogging of practically every entry Jack makes in notes...
Now ya said it.... now prove it oh mighty one of assertions.
|
| 20.1278 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Feb 17 1995 13:13 | 6 |
| Glen:
My fiew of the feminist movement is echoed by most rational thinking
members of society....and most of them women themselves!
-Jack
|
| 20.1279 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Feb 17 1995 13:16 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 20.1276 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Glen has always seen me as an advocate for the big bad capitalistic pigs
Jack..... that's not true.... I've always seen you as someone who states
his opinions as fact, and later have to retract what you said or change it to
how it should have been stated in the 1st place, as your opinion.
| and he is Supppper-Glen....
Jack, when I do eat it, I have one supper, not many.
| hero of all today that are oppressed and belittled in society.
Hero? Nah..... I'm more like the shoe shine version of Underdog.
| Able to leap two barstools at a single bound!!!
Well Jack, leaping IS in my blood! But I prefer to skip around them.
Glen
|
| 20.1280 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Feb 17 1995 13:32 | 7 |
| No Glen, I'm no different than you. I just admit my mistakes when I'm
wrong that's all!! I'm an opinion maker and your just a critic of
everybody's opinions!!
Ahaa!
-Jack
|
| 20.1281 | Is the woman you speak of fact, or JM opinion? | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Feb 17 1995 13:46 | 18 |
| | <<< Note 20.1278 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| My fiew of the feminist movement is echoed by most rational thinking members
| of society....and most of them women themselves!
Jack, I somehow think you might have opened a heap of trouble for
yourself. You see, you have your OPINION of a feminist. You have taken that
OPINION and somehow made it into fact. Now it would seem, anyway, from what you
wrote above, that OTHERS agree with your OPINION. Why are they rational? I have
seen your OPINION, and I have talked to and have many feminist women friends.
Your version just doesn't seem to fit. (imho) Could it be that you need to
readdress this issue?
Btw, who are these women you speak of?
Glen
|
| 20.1282 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Feb 17 1995 13:47 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.1280 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| No Glen, I'm no different than you.
You're a fag?
| I'm an opinion maker and your just a critic of everybody's opinions!!
ONLY if they state their OPINIONS as some sort of fact.
Glen
|
| 20.1283 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Feb 17 1995 14:03 | 31 |
| >> ONLY if they state their OPINIONS as some sort of fact.
My older sister use to call me a fag all the time but that's neither
here nor there.
Now to address the issue of opinion/fact. Glen, you have this habit of
(figuratively of course) going up peoples butts with a fine tooth comb.
I'm sorry Glen but if I know something to be a fact, I don't have a
library of documentation behind me to refer to. Alot of times you ask
for documentation...just to be a pain Glen...you know it, I know it...
and the whole world knows it. And furthermore, the exact same thing
can be said for you; I just don't pursue it that much due to lack of
interest or time or what have you! Sometimes you're like the town
crier Glen. You've made two things clear to me in your noting style.
-Substance is secondary to your loyalties. Take abortion for example.
You're supposedly prolife but you identify yourself as an agitator
toward anybody else in here who seems to be. Maybe it's because most
of us prolifers are anti gay rights...I don't know what your problem
is.
-You know the issues I bring up are at least substantive or worthy of
further discussion for the most part...even if I'm at least proven
wrong. You seem to be daily bent on trying to erode my credibility.
I know I've seen it over the months but I take it with a grain of salt
because even though my Soapbox family is important to me (you
included), the fact is that one day we all will fade away only to go
into another segment of our own lives. Soapbox will become a distant
memory then fade away.
-Jack
|
| 20.1284 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Feb 17 1995 14:30 | 76 |
| | <<< Note 20.1283 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Now to address the issue of opinion/fact. Glen, you have this habit of
| (figuratively of course) going up peoples butts with a fine tooth comb.
It ain't anything I deny Jack. If I were talking face to face with
someone, it would be easy to find out what they mean in a very short period of
time. In a forum such as this, it ain't always easy. There are too many ways
things can be taken. I would rather take out the comb than to go off on a
tangent. (and even the comb doesn't mean a tangent can't/doesn't happen)
Now on the other side of it, if someone states something, but doesn't
back it up, is it a fact or an opinion? I will also take out the comb for that
too. I like things to be clear, and in this type of forum, it is harder to find
that out.
So yeah, I like my comb. I will always use it too.
| I'm sorry Glen but if I know something to be a fact, I don't have a library of
| documentation behind me to refer to.
Jack, how many things have you said in here, and elsewhere, that
started off as some sort of fact, that later turned out not to be? MANY.
Reread the 2nd paragraph I wrote above.
| Alot of times you ask for documentation...just to be a pain Glen...you know
| it, I know it...and the whole world knows it.
Well Jack, then someone should have told me that I believe I am doing
it to be a pain. Cause I am NOT doing it for that reason. Reread paragraph 2
above. BTW, you just provided an EXCELLENT example of you stating something as
fact, when in reality, it is not.
| And furthermore, the exact same thing can be said for you; I just don't pursue
| it that much due to lack of interest or time or what have you!
Errr..... Jack..... you lost me on this one....
| -Substance is secondary to your loyalties. Take abortion for example. You're
| supposedly prolife but you identify yourself as an agitator toward anybody
| else in here who seems to be.
Jack, this is funny. Look at the things I address about abortion when
you refer to the agitator part. They have to do with condemning PP as a whole,
when they do much MORE than abortions for women, wanting to address the
back-alley abortions issues when most pro-life people don't even think it is or
will be a problem. To REALLY look at the adoption issue, which for white babies
there is a waiting list for babies, but with babies of colour there is a
waiting list for parents. If I choose to look at the whole picture, and not
condemn everyone and everything in the process, that's my perogative. It does
not change how I feel about abortions for birth control, but it does allow me
to not look at it from one tiny view, but from a much bigger one.
| Maybe it's because most of us prolifers are anti gay rights...I don't know
| what your problem is.
Jack, this is absolutely ridiculous. What does anti-gay rights have to
do with abortion? They are two seperate issues. Hell, if I went by your
analogy, I wouldn't even be against abortion, I would vote strictly for the
dems, etc. But I have a mind, I have opinions, views, beliefs. They are not
tied into any one group, but based on facts that have been presented.
| -You know the issues I bring up are at least substantive or worthy of further
| discussion for the most part...even if I'm at least proven wrong.
Agreed.
| You seem to be daily bent on trying to erode my credibility.
Jack, if you have a fact, state it as so. (and list your source) If you
have an opinion, state it as so. If you look back at our discussions, is there
something else I am looking for or just those two things?
Glen
|
| 20.1285 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Feb 17 1995 17:55 | 27 |
| Article: 1731
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill
From: jbs@ee.duke.edu
Subject: Reach Out and Grope Someone
Keywords: smirk, sexual, ads
Approved: funny@clarinet.com
Path: jac.zko.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!looking!funny-request
Message-ID: <S7d9.2a3c@clarinet.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 19:30:03 EST
Lines: 15
You've probably noticed the Yellow Pages of your phone book being well-padded
with little comments from the publisher: "Advertise all of your products and
services in the YELLOW PAGES," "KEEP IN TOUCH with good friends and favorite
relatives out of town by telephone," etc.
In the Durham, N.C. 94/95 phone book's Yellow Pages, imbedded among the ads
listed in the ABORTION SERVICES category, are these words of advice:
"Has SOMETHING SPECIAL happened to you? Tell them yourself, by Long Distance."
-joe
--
Selected by Maddi Hausmann Sojourner. MAIL your joke to funny@clarinet.com.
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible. A Daemon will auto-reply.
Remember: Only ONE joke per submission. Extra jokes may be rejected.
|
| 20.1286 | terrorists hit Santa Cruz | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Feb 22 1995 16:04 | 72 |
| No major damage as abortion clinic is arsonist's target
By Lee Quarnstrom
Mercury News Staff Writer
The feisty manager of a Santa Cruz abortion clinic defiantly refused
Tuesday to express fear less than 12 hours after a would-be arsonist
tossed three lighted road flares onto the facility's roof.
``Hey, you can't scare me out of here,'' said Genevieve Grein, manager
of the Choice Medical Group. ``They can't intimidate women anymore.''
Grein said she was called to the clinic shortly after a neighbor of the
building called authorities about 2:30 a.m. to report an ``orange
glow'' on the roof of the clinic, at 3323 Mission Drive near Dominican
Hospital. She praised sheriff's deputies and firefighters from the
Central Fire District who responded to the incident.
Although the flares caused little damage to an asphalt composition
portion of the clinic roof, they did fill the building with smoke,
Grein said. No one was in the clinic, and damage was minimal.
Neither Grein nor investigators, including the FBI and detectives from
the sheriff's department, would link the arson attempt with a recent
series of abortion clinic fires and explosions in Southern California.
But FBI spokesman Rick Smith said there were ``some very similar
patterns'' in this incident and in the others, which included fires at
clinics in Ventura and Santa Barbara and a blast that gutted a San Luis
Obispo clinic a week ago.
But, Smith said, ``from an evidentiary standpoint, we have no evidence
at this time'' linking the events.
He said the FBI has been working with federal marshals in a program
helping 75 Northern California abortion facilities to improve their
security.
And, he said, his agency is working to determine ``if this is part of a
national conspiracy . . . not just in an ideological way, but we're
trying to see if we can connect individuals'' involved in a nationwide
series of abortion clinic killings, bombings and fires.
Investigators from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
and FBI agents have joined with the U.S. Marshals Service in an
abortion task force that has been looking into the recent spate of
violence at clinics throughout the country. The task force is involved
in the Choice Medical Group investigation, according to the sheriff's
department.
Grein said Tuesday her staff was continuing to see clients but that no
abortions had been scheduled for the day.
``We've gotten used to the fact that we're targets,'' she said. ``It
doesn't feel very good.''
But, she said, supporters had been calling all morning with messages of
encouragement.
She said that while the clinic often receives harassing calls, there
had been no recent threats of violence.
Choice Medical Group was picketed regularly by abortion opponents until
a local judge issued a temporary restraining order just over a year ago
ordering protesters to stay off the clinic's property and not to
interfere with clients entering or leaving the facility.
Sheriff's investigators asked anyone with information about the
incident to contact them at (408) 454-2311.
Published 2/22/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.
|
| 20.1287 | Gov Wilson asked to involve himself | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Feb 23 1995 17:35 | 43 |
| Danner, Keeley take concerns over clinic arsons to the top
By Lee Quarnstrom
Mercury News Staff Writer
In the wake of an arson attempt this week at a Santa Cruz abortion
clinic, two officials in the area have asked California's governor and
attorney general to condemn ``this targeted violence.''
District Attorney Art Danner and Fred Keeley, chairman of the board of
supervisors, sent letters to Gov. Pete Wilson and Attorney General Dan
Lungren urging the state officials ``to take all necessary steps to
assist in prevention of further acts of violence.'' They also asked for
assistance in catching the individuals responsible for the attempted
firebombing.
An arsonist threw three lighted road flares onto the roof of the Choice
Medical Group's clinic in the dark early morning Tuesday. The flares
filled the clinic with smoke, but caused little damage, and no one was
hurt.
But it was the fourth attack on abortion clinics in California coastal
communities in recent weeks, leading FBI investigators to consider the
possibility that the incidents are linked. FBI spokesman Rich Smith on
Wednesday said, ``Nothing is new, there's nothing to report.'' He said
the probe is continuing, and involves investigators from the U.S.
Marshal's office, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the
Santa Cruz County sheriff's office.
Danner and Keeley note in their letter that the board of supervisors
earlier this year adopted a resolution condemning acts of violence at
health clinics.
In their letter, Danner and Keeley say the Choice Medical Group
incident ``appears to have a disturbing similarity to other arson
attempts in Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.
``Whether these acts are in fact related . . . is not known. However,
we are very concerned that whoever is responsible for these illegal
acts against facilities which are providing legal health services to
women should be identified, arrested and prosecuted.''
Published 2/23/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.
|
| 20.1288 | AAAAHHHHAAAA..It's 5 till nine!!! | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Feb 27 1995 11:56 | 74 |
| Z It ain't anything I deny Jack. If I were talking face to face with
Zsomeone, it would be easy to find out what they mean in a very short period of
Ztime. In a forum such as this, it ain't always easy. There are too many ways
Zthings can be taken. I would rather take out the comb than to go off on a
Ztangent. (and even the comb doesn't mean a tangent can't/doesn't happen)
Yeah, but your as guilty of ambiguity as everybody else chum!!!!
Z Now on the other side of it, if someone states something, but doesn't
Zback it up, is it a fact or an opinion? I will also take out the comb for that
Ztoo. I like things to be clear, and in this type of forum, it is harder to find
Zthat out.
Oh yeah Glen, like you are the model of being concise in your replies too..
So yeah, I like my comb. I will always use it too.
Z Jack, how many things have you said in here, and elsewhere, that
Zstarted off as some sort of fact, that later turned out not to be? MANY.
ZReread the 2nd paragraph I wrote above.
Well, the burden of proof is on you pal. I have plenty of witnesses who will
say I'm right all the time and you are wrong most of the time!! :-)
| Alot of times you ask for documentation...just to be a pain Glen...you know
| it, I know it...and the whole world knows it.
Z Well Jack, then someone should have told me that I believe I am doing
Zit to be a pain. Cause I am NOT doing it for that reason. Reread paragraph 2
Zabove. BTW, you just provided an EXCELLENT example of you stating something as
Zfact, when in reality, it is not.
Well, if you can't tell the diff between fact and conjecture, then that's your
tough noogies.
| And furthermore, the exact same thing can be said for you; I just don't pursue
| it that much due to lack of interest or time or what have you!
ZZ Errr..... Jack..... you lost me on this one....
In other words, you conjecture as much as I do!@!!!!
| -Substance is secondary to your loyalties. Take abortion for example. You're
| supposedly prolife but you identify yourself as an agitator toward anybody
| else in here who seems to be.
| Maybe it's because most of us prolifers are anti gay rights...I don't know
| what your problem is.
Jack, this is absolutely ridiculous. What does anti-gay rights have to
do with abortion? They are two seperate issues. Hell, if I went by your
analogy, I wouldn't even be against abortion, I would vote strictly for the
dems, etc. But I have a mind, I have opinions, views, beliefs. They are not
tied into any one group, but based on facts that have been presented.
Well, ok...if you say so!!
| -You know the issues I bring up are at least substantive or worthy of further
| discussion for the most part...even if I'm at least proven wrong.
ZZ Agreed.
Good
| You seem to be daily bent on trying to erode my credibility.
Z Jack, if you have a fact, state it as so. (and list your source) If you
Zhave an opinion, state it as so. If you look back at our discussions, is there
Zsomething else I am looking for or just those two things?
Oh alllright!!
-Jack
|
| 20.1289 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:36 | 10 |
| The following replies are a list of all of the member groups for the
National Women's Coalition for Life. Founded in 1992, the NWCL is an
umbrella organization for national women's groups that oppose abortion.
They have a total membership of over 1,800,000.
National Women's Coalition for Life (NWCL)
NWCL National Headquarters:
PO Box 1553 Oak Park, IL 60304
(708) 848 5351
Jeannie W. French, Dir. Executive Affairs
|
| 20.1290 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:37 | 10 |
| AMERICAN VICTIMS OF ABORTION: educating the public about abortions
devastating effects on women and families.
Olivia Gans, President
419 7th Street N.W.
Suite 402
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 626-8832
networks throughout the U.S.
|
| 20.1291 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:37 | 8 |
| CAPITOL HILL WOMEN FOR LIFE: uniting women working in the legislative
sector to advocate for the unborn and their mothers.
Diana Merrifield, President
c/o Congressman Dornan
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2965
|
| 20.1292 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:38 | 10 |
| CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: promoting orthodox Jewish and Christian
family values in law and public policy.
Beverly LaHaye, President
370 L'Enfant Promenade S.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024
(202) 488-7000
chapters in all 50 states
|
| 20.1293 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:39 | 9 |
| FEMINISTS FOR LIFE: continuing in the tradition of pro-life feminism
condemning abortion as another victimization of women.
Rachel MacNair, President
811 E. 47th Street
Kansas City, MO 64110
(816) 753-2130
chapters in nearly every state
|
| 20.1294 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:39 | 10 |
| FORTRESS INTERNATIONAL: assisting women who have become pregnant
through rape or incest as well as children conceived through sexual
assault.
Julie Makima, President
P.O. Box 7352
Springfield, IL 62791
(217) 529-9545
members throughout the U.S.
|
| 20.1295 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:39 | 10 |
| INTERNATIONAL BLACK WOMEN'S NETWORK: motivating and strengthening
black women to address the various needs in the black community,
including spiritual and familial.
Pastor Jean Thompson, President
P.O. Box 90972
Washington, D.C. 20090-0972
(301) 277-1122
contacts in several states
|
| 20.1296 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:40 | 9 |
| LIFE AFTER ASSAULT LEAGUE: offering Christian victim-to-victim
assistance to sexually abused adults and children.
Kay Zibolsky, President
1336 W. Lindbergh
Appelton, WI 54914
(414) 739-4489
contacts throughout the U.S.
|
| 20.1297 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:40 | 12 |
| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRO-LIFE NURSES: seeking to nurture all life
and to protect the rights of the nurses who refuse to participate in
unethical medical procedures.
Jodie Breakiron, President
8434 Lamanto Avenue S.
Jacksonville, FL 32211
(904) 724-1581
_Pulse Lines_ (NAPN Newsletter)
P.O. Box 82
Elysian, MN 56028-0082
|
| 20.1298 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:40 | 10 |
| NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC WOMEN: acting through its affiliated
organizations to educate and organize Catholic women in spirituality,
leadership and service.
Annette Kane, Executive Director
1275 K Street N.W. Suite 975
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 682-0334
parish groups in all 50 states
|
| 20.1299 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:41 | 11 |
| PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S NETWORK: representing women from a variety of
professional and business fields who respect the sanctity of human
life.
Irene Estevez, National Director
P.O. Box 14682
Chicago, IL 60614-6842
(312) 362-1620
members in 25 states, chapters in Delaware, Illinois, Ohio and
Pennsylvania
|
| 20.1300 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:41 | 9 |
| VICTIMS OF CHOICE: providing support for women who have suffered as a
result of the deceit of the abortionists and their proponents.
Nola Jones, President
P.O. Box 6268
Vacaville, CA 95696-6268
(707) 448-6015
contacts throughout the world
|
| 20.1301 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:41 | 11 |
| WOMEN AFFIRMING LIFE: voicing the commitment of Catholic women in
supporting women and the dignity of life and motherhood.
Frances Hogan, President
Federal Reserve Plaza
600 Atlantic Avenue
Suite 2700
Boston, MA 02210
(617) 523-6655
members in forty states
|
| 20.1302 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:42 | 10 |
| WOMEN EXPLOITED BY ABORTION: working to expose the horror and trauma
of abortion and supporting women who mourn the loss of their children.
Kathy Walker, Executive Director
Route 1, Box 821
Venus, TX 76084
(214) 366-3600
chapters in all 50 states
|
| 20.1303 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:42 | 7 |
| WOMEN FOR FAITH AND FAMILY: affirming the intrinsic sacredness of all
human life, consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Helen Hull Hitchcock, Director
P.O. Box 8326
St. Louis, MO 63132
(314) 863-8385
|
| 20.1304 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:42 | 9 |
| WOMEN FOR WOMEN: a Marian organization assisting women in the
transition between the workplace and home.
Janice Weber, President
P.O. Box 937
Kings Park, NY 11754
(516) 269-0844
friends in 26 states, Canada, India
|
| 20.1305 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 27 1995 18:43 | 115 |
| National Women's Coalition for Life
Statement of Commitment
Adopted April 3, 1992
Today 4,400 American children will die from abortion. They will never
be held, giggle or play house. They will never go to school, read a
book, learn a nursery rhyme. They will never hold jobs, never vote,
never have families, and never have dreams. Some of these children
will lose their lives because their mothers are scared, and have lost
hope of overcoming their isolation, poverty, or youth. Other children
will die because they are sick, handicapped, or "not quite right".
Today some American children will even lose their lives because they
are little girls and their parents hoped they would be little boys.
These children will not be given names, and their deaths will not be
marked by anything more than the grief their mothers and families will
one day feel.
But these children are not forgotten. The tragedy of ending these
lives today and everyday cannot be overlooked, justified, or ignored.
Today, the National Women's Coalition for Life speaks on behalf of the
children of America and their mothers. We are a coalition of over 1.5
million women from all over the country, from all age groups,
political ideologies, and experiences. We are single and married
women. We are women with and without children. We are birthmothers and
mothers of adopted children. We are full time parents, working women,
and heads of households. We are women who have had abortions, and even
women who have been raped, or were conceived in rape. Yet we are all
committed to societal change which supports the critical role of
motherhood and reflects the dignity of the life of every child.
We are tired of the rhetoric which denies the humanity of children
yet-to-be born, and asks us to forget who they are, and what they
might become. We know what motherhood feels like. Through modern
technology, we have seen our children before birth and heard their
hearts beating. We have felt them alive within us; We will not be told
that they are not there.
We have seen that ending lives through abortion does not solve
anything. We have lived through 19 years of abortion on demand. Over
that time, we have watched more women and children slip into poverty,
and witnessed a rise in child abuse and infant mortality. We see that
resources used for abortion sap precious resources from and disguise
real issues. We know that many women seek abortion in desperation;
Unable to eliminate the real crises in their lives, they do what
society suggests will work; they eliminate their children. And their
poverty, their pain, their despair continue.
And we refuse to believe that children's lives must be lost so that
women can be free. We well-remember that many times in human history,
even in our lifetime, human beings -- whether black, Jew or female,
the handicapped or the elderly -- have been discriminated against and
dehumanized. Today, we are witnessing the ultimate dehumanization of
the most defenseless class of people -- unborn children. We must learn
from these grave injustices. We will not stand idly by while our
government and our society urge us to treat unborn children as
property. We know that women are better than this. We know that real
women's rights means a societal Commitment to the unique roles women
are living out, including motherhood. We will not give up our right to
motherhood, nor will we trivialize its responsibilities.
We will not tolerate being told that abortion is a simple and safe
procedure. We know the pain women and families face after an abortion.
We know the physical scars that render many women sterile after this
procedure. We know that hundreds of women have died, and will continue
to die from legal abortion. We have seen the ugliness of the abortion
industry from the inside. We have been there, and we grieve for those
women who also have been victimized by it. We seek to console aborted
women, and to bring an end to the deceit and greed which define the
abortion business.
The National Women's Coalition for Life will not remain silent while
society looks away from the children and women abortion destroys.
Furthermore, we will not tolerate misrepresentation by a vocal
minority of women who claim to speak for us on a national level.
American women deserve more.
Within the National Women's Coalition for Life is a place for all
women who realize that when society's answer for families in distress
and women in crisis is to encourage them to dispose of their children,
something is drastically wrong. We welcome women who recognize that
each of us is imperfect, and that a person's worth is not conferred on
them by others, but is an inherent part of being human. We welcome
women who understand the responsibilities that are a part of
womanhood, and motherhood. We have a place for all women who seek real
women's rights, who work to eliminate discrimination, mistreatment,
and who understand that abortion only blinds us to these real issues.
And we welcome women who have been abortions other victims.
Today, we redouble our efforts in the many services we offer to hear
the wounds of abortion, and reach out in compassion to women and
families in pain. We will continue to provide emotional, financial,
medical, and practical support to women and families who are facing
parenthood with limited resources. And we will communicate to the
people of America, including our elected officials and community
leaders, what we know is the truth: The answer to crisis pregnancy is
to eliminate the crisis, not the child. Abortion kills.
Signed:
AMERICAN VICTIMS OF ABORTION, Washington, D.C.
CAPITOL HILL WOMEN FOR LIFE, Washington, D.C.
CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA, Washington, D.C.
FEMINISTS FOR LIFE, Kansas City, MO
FORTRESS INTERNATIONAL, Springfield, IL
INTERNATIONAL BLACK WOMEN'S NETWORK, Washington, D.C.
LIFE AFTER ASSAULT LEAGUE, Appelton, WI
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PRO-LIFE NURSES, Rochester, MN
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC WOMEN, Washington, D.C.
PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S NETWORK, Chicago, IL
VICTIMS OF CHOICE, Vacaville, CA
WOMEN AFFIRMING LIFE, Boston, MA
WOMEN EXPLOITED BY ABORTION, Venus, TX
WOMEN FOR FAITH AND FAMILY, St. Louis, MO
WOMEN FOR WOMEN, Kings Park, NY
|
| 20.1306 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Feb 27 1995 19:00 | 1 |
| how nice.
|
| 20.1307 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Feb 27 1995 19:19 | 5 |
| Better than anything you've come up with Dick!!!!
Your buddy,
-Jack
|
| 20.1308 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Tue Feb 28 1995 10:15 | 2 |
| .1307
How come you didn`t list them in one note?
|
| 20.1309 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Feb 28 1995 10:35 | 2 |
| Impact.
|
| 20.1310 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Feb 28 1995 11:01 | 4 |
| LIFE AFTER ASSUALT WOMEN'S LEAGUE? sounds like something Chechnya
could use...
Chip
|
| 20.1311 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 28 1995 13:02 | 8 |
| Heard Lamar Alexander this morning. He says that the federal
government should get completely out of the abortion issue and leave it
up to the individual states.
I believe this to be a step in the right direction. I hear pro
choicers always saying to keep the government out of my bedroom.
-Jack
|
| 20.1312 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Mother is the invention of necessity | Tue Feb 28 1995 14:09 | 4 |
| >LIFE AFTER ASSUALT WOMEN'S LEAGUE? sounds like something Chechnya
>could use...
Ban assualt women.
|
| 20.1313 | assault | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Tue Feb 28 1995 14:09 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.1314 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Mother is the invention of necessity | Tue Feb 28 1995 14:17 | 1 |
| Yes, that was the point my dear...
|
| 20.1315 | 8^) | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Tue Feb 28 1995 14:23 | 2 |
|
What makes you think I was talking to you?
|
| 20.1316 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Feb 28 1995 14:30 | 3 |
| ...i guess she was assaulting me?
:-)
|
| 20.1317 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Feb 28 1995 14:57 | 5 |
| >> .1307
>> How come you didn`t list them in one note?
that would have made too much sense.
|
| 20.1318 | | USMVS::DAVIS | | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:13 | 19 |
| <<< Note 20.1311 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> Heard Lamar Alexander this morning. He says that the federal
> government should get completely out of the abortion issue and leave it
> up to the individual states.
>
> I believe this to be a step in the right direction. I hear pro
> choicers always saying to keep the government out of my bedroom.
This is a cop-out, Jack, and you know it. It can ONLY be a Federal issue,
because it deals with federally protected rights. Either the fetus is a
protected individual with the right to be born (LLatPoH) superceding the
woman's right to choose to carry to term, or the woman's right to privacy
and to LLatPoH is not to be infringed, period.
To pawn this issue off on the states is to admit that you have no solid
constitutional grounds.
Tom
|
| 20.1319 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:15 | 5 |
| RE: .1317
How so?
|
| 20.1320 | | USMVS::DAVIS | | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:17 | 6 |
| Ummm, Mz Debra, would you be so kind as to collect appropriate compensation
from /john for his many posted advertisements? Between Sadin and Covert,
the 'BoxBashes are going to be very well funded. I might even be compelled
to attend one. (Don't worry, I wouldn't spoil the party like that!)
|
| 20.1321 | ? | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:19 | 2 |
|
Did somebody say...
|
| 20.1322 | what don't you get? | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:26 | 5 |
| >> <<< Note 20.1319 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>
>> How so?
how so what?
|
| 20.1323 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:26 | 1 |
| Oh I get it...shut up but pay for it right?
|
| 20.1324 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:32 | 15 |
|
RE: .1322
>-< what don't you get? >-
>> .1307
>> How come you didn`t list them in one note?
that would have made too much sense.
Ummmmm..... How so would it make "too much sense" to list
them in one note ?
|
| 20.1325 | facetiousness | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:37 | 5 |
| >> Ummmmm..... How so would it make "too much sense" to list
>> them in one note ?
okay, it's as i suspected - you're irony-impaired again today. ;>
|
| 20.1326 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:39 | 12 |
|
No... not really...
I guess I knew what you meant but wanted to hear it anyway....
Jack sorta said it all in one word... "impact"...
It made sense to me that it was done the way it was, and it made sense
to you to put it all in one note so one could go on their merry way and
ingore it all in one shot...
Whatever floats your boat...
|
| 20.1327 | you're wrong | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:42 | 6 |
|
>> It made sense to me that it was done the way it was, and it made sense
>> to you to put it all in one note so one could go on their merry way and
>> ingore it all in one shot...
Don't tell me why it would have made sense to me to put it all in one note.
|
| 20.1328 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:46 | 2 |
| I pretty much ignore it any way but I had to get to the other end some
how.
|
| 20.1329 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:53 | 8 |
| Yes...you ignore it because when it comes to abortion you have drawn a
line in the sand and set this paradigm that anything pro life is the
enemy and that's why it is impossible to reason with your ilk. Hence
you bring forth the crazies who fire bomb clinics.
Your stubborness is your own worst enemy!
-Jack
|
| 20.1330 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Feb 28 1995 15:59 | 12 |
|
re: .1327
>Don't tell me why it would have made sense to me to put it all in one
>note.
My apologies...
My sentence should have been broken up into two. The first part was in
reference to you (re: sense)... the second part re: " so one could "
was meant generically...
|
| 20.1331 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Feb 28 1995 16:02 | 9 |
|
>> My sentence should have been broken up into two. The first part was in
>> reference to you (re: sense)... the second part re: " so one could "
>> was meant generically...
what nonsense. even if you were trying to say that it made sense
to _me_ so that _other people_ could ignore it all, that's still
trying to tell me why it made sense to me and it's still not true.
|
| 20.1332 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Feb 28 1995 16:05 | 3 |
| Diane:
Why are being so cranky lately? Are you filling in for lord Haag?
|
| 20.1333 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Tue Feb 28 1995 16:12 | 5 |
| So because I ignore it this might turn you into a fire bomber? I`m not
a stubborn man and I know I`m my own worst enemy but that has nothing
to do with abortions.
Ray
|
| 20.1334 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Feb 28 1995 16:17 | 7 |
|
>> Why are being so cranky lately? Are you filling in for lord Haag?
i'm not being "cranky". mr. krawiecki is being presumptuous.
but i wouldn't expect you to be able to see that, given the
topic.
|
| 20.1335 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Gotta hard salami? | Tue Feb 28 1995 16:19 | 1 |
| People in this corporation generally need decrankification.
|
| 20.1336 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | TechnoCatalyst | Tue Feb 28 1995 16:55 | 4 |
| Someone misused "paradigm" when they prolly meant "criterion."
I *hate* that... The stupid words are misused enough already, fer
cryeye.
|
| 20.1337 | Talk Hard | SNOFS1::DAVISM | And monkeys might fly outa my butt! | Wed Mar 01 1995 00:54 | 1 |
| Ban babies.
|
| 20.1338 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 01 1995 14:07 | 3 |
|
Ban assault babies
|
| 20.1339 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Wed Mar 01 1995 15:25 | 24 |
|
RE: .1331
>what nonsense.
Fine.... take it any way you want to..
>that's still trying to tell me why it made sense to me and it's still
>not true.
I did say "generically".... more that you replied to the topic... If
you want to include yourself in there that's fine. I did say "my
apologies".... guess that isn't food enough for you... fine...
I understand my sentence and/or meaning wasn't clear. I apologized
for that.... Your "what nonsense" could be construed as being just as
presumptuous as you thought I was being...
No problem.... I'm not going to get in a spitting contest with you...
BTW.... I did get 3 inquires via e-mail... 2 serious and 1
semi-serious...
|
| 20.1340 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Wed Mar 01 1995 17:40 | 13 |
|
>> No problem.... I'm not going to get in a spitting contest with you...
Good, because two things would be inevitable if you did:
1) You would lose.
2) I would waste a whole bunch of perfectly good spit. ;>
>> BTW.... I did get 3 inquires via e-mail... 2 serious and 1
>> semi-serious...
You're kidding! Oh brother. 8^)
|
| 20.1341 | more terrorism in California | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Mar 01 1995 19:40 | 104 |
| More terrorism.
DougO
-----
Apparent Arson At Site of S.F. Abortion Clinics
Thaai Walker, Chronicle Staff Writer
A flaming tire caused an early-morning fire yesterday outside a
building that houses two San Francisco family planning clinics, and
investigators fear the apparent arson attempt is related to a string of
blazes set along the California coast in recent weeks at clinics where
abortions are performed.
The fire outside the Cathedral Professional Building at 1801 Bush
Street began shortly after 6 a.m. and caused only minor damage. No one
was in the building at the time, said Mark Logan, an agent with the
U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Investigators also responded yesterday to a possible arson attempt at
the Choice Medical Clinic, a family planning clinic at 2280 Geary
Boulevard. That fire was reported at about 5:30 a.m. and caused minor
damage to the outside of the building. However, investigators are
looking at the possibility that the second blaze may have been a trash
fire rather than an attack on the clinic, Logan said.
``It may be a coincidence,'' he said. ``But we're going to make sure.''
Although the fires caused minimal damage to the buildings,
investigators nonetheless are alarmed because the blazes --
particularly the one at 1801 Bush Street -- seem to fit the pattern of
four other arson attacks on California family planning clinics in the
past three weeks.
The attacks began with a fire at a Ventura County family planning
center February 9. Three days later, a Santa Barbara office was the
target of an arsonist. On February 15, a fire badly damaged the Planned
Parenthood clinic in San Luis Obispo. And on February 21, lighted
railroad flares were thrown on the roof of a Santa Cruz County medical
clinic.
``Tires were used in some of the other fires, and the fires originated
on the outside of the buildings in the other incidents, too,'' Logan
said. ``(The attacks) appear to be moving north.''
Logan said investigators are unsure whether an individual or a group is
responsible for the attacks.
The building at 1801 Bush Street houses both the Pregnancy Consultation
Center and the Buena Vista Women's Center, both of which perform
abortions in addition to providing family planning services, according
to an assistant to Paxton Beale, the building's owner.
Although the clinics have not received any direct threats recently,
protesters have gathered there on weekends over the past few years,
said the assistant, Debey Rubenstein.
Yesterday's fire originated in a window well outside the building. The
window leads to a janitor's closet, which is in the basement as are the
two clinics, Rubenstein said.
According to Logan, the fire shattered the window and set off a
sprinkler system. About $500 to $1,000 in damage -- mostly water damage
-- was caused to the building, he estimated. Rubenstein said the rooms
most heavily damaged were a hallway, the boiler room and the accounting
office.
``This was a very minor fire,'' Rubenstein said. ``It was just confined
to the janitor's closet -- it was not someone destroying the clinics.''
Rubenstein said members of the clinics' staffs were handling the
incident calmly.
``What they are doing right now is looking at ways to bring the
patients in and keep them from feeling threatened,'' she said.
Indeed, as investigators spent the morning scouring the building
grounds for evidence, employees arrived for work and business went on
as usual.
Members of a major state anti- abortion group disavowed any ties to
yesterday's fires.
``Anyone who uses violence and destruction as a means to an end in the
abortion debate is no friend to the pro-life movement or to the child
in the womb,'' said Betsy Powell, president of the California Pro-Life
Council. ``We condemn their actions without hesitation and look forward
to the day when they are behind bars.''
Mayor Frank Jordan, who visited the the clinics at 1801 Bush Street
yesterday, declared in a statement: ``There is no room for violence in
San Francisco.''
``This sinister act of cowardice must be condemned in the strongest
terms possible,'' Jordan said. ``There has been an escalating wave of
violence across the country at abortion clinics, and this cannot be
tolerated.''
The fires are being investigated by a national task force made up of
agents of the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the
U.S. Marshal, Logan said. The task force, organized about six months
ago at the behest of Attorney General Janet Reno, investigates acts of
violence against abortion clinics nationwide.
|
| 20.1342 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Mar 02 1995 12:16 | 26 |
| ZZ ``Anyone who uses violence and destruction as a means to an end in the
ZZ abortion debate is no friend to the pro-life movement or to the child
ZZ in the womb,'' said Betsy Powell, president of the California Pro-Life
ZZ Council. ``We condemn their actions without hesitation and look
ZZ forward to the day when they are behind bars.''
I honestly wonder though if these people, even though they condemn the
act of violence...still don't feel a small sense of
gratification...not in anybody getting hurt by any means...but the fact
that the property was sabotaged. It would be like Bob Dole goiung down
to the wire with Bill Clinton for the presidency. Say Clintons
daughter was diagnosed with Leukemia three weeks before the election
and Bill Clinton drops out of the race. Bob Doles honest feeling is
that he feels very bad for the Clintons...he genuinely does. But at
the same time, he's going to be president.
Let's face it, sabotage to a clinic without anybody getting hurt isn't
beneficial to the prolife movement at all...however, at the same time,
it is detrimental to the pro-abortion camp. It instills fear in
doctors, patients, and clinic workers. It most likely causes property
and liability insurance to skyrocket, and it continues to put in
question the integrity of Planned Parenthood. It is only human nature
to take some sort of satisfaction in this...let's stop kidding
ourselves (If you're prolife that is).
-Jack
|
| 20.1343 | | POWDML::CKELLY | Cute Li'l Rascal | Thu Mar 02 1995 12:44 | 8 |
| so jack, you are saying that at least for you, as long as no one
gets hurt, you get some satisfaction that property and liablity
insurances skyrocket. does it occur to you that it doesn't
necessarily only affect this type of business, that other businesses
may be paying for this as well? And instilling fear in doctors and
patients is a *good* thing? And how does the fire bombing of a clinic
cause damage to the integrity of PP? Or have you got me thoroughly
confused?
|
| 20.1344 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Mar 02 1995 13:02 | 15 |
| Jack
First you say this -
> Let's face it, sabotage to a clinic without anybody getting hurt isn't
> beneficial to the prolife movement at all...
And then you go on to explain all of the benefits it has provided for the
prolife camp, (albeit in the form of detriments to prochoice).
I guess I'm confused, too.
Is your major point that sabotage of a clinic where people DO get hurt is
the ONLY way that prolife is benefitted? I think not, but, please say so.
|
| 20.1345 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Mar 02 1995 13:03 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.1342 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| and it continues to put in question the integrity of Planned Parenthood.
Jack, I was following your note, and I was agreeing with it. But then
this. Could you explain how when someone does something which you yourself has
said was wrong (bombing, etc), how that act all of a sudden puts PP integrity
in question?
Glen
|
| 20.1346 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Mar 02 1995 14:12 | 28 |
| Re: Planned Parenthood
I guess it could actually go both ways. There is no doubt in my mind
that Planned Parenthood simply has a PR problem in this country. There
are books written about Planned Parenthood (all negative) and anytime
somebody is identified as involved with Planned Parenthood (New Surgeon
General Candidate as an example), it seems to be put in a negative
light. I guess one could look at it two ways.
1. If PP keeps getting bombed, then they must be a deceptive
organization.
2. If PP is getting bombed, then they are victimized and we need to
support them.
Another misunderstanding. Jack, no, I don't think hurting people is
beneficial. I think bombing clinics can be counterproductive and put
the prolife element into a terrorist light. I see this as long term
pain for alleged short term gratification.
Tine, good point on the insurance issue. All I was doing in my note
was to ask prolifers to really be honest with their feelings...not
necessarily anybody in the box but prolifers throughout the country.
Nobody likes to see violence but we cannot erase the fact that closing
a clinic for a week can give a prolifer a sense of gratification...the
means were unlawful but the end result is the same.
-Jack
|
| 20.1347 | things that make ya go "hmmmm" | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Thu Mar 02 1995 14:26 | 4 |
|
>>All I was doing in my note
>>was to ask prolifers to really be honest with their feelings...not
>>necessarily anybody in the box but prolifers throughout the country.
|
| 20.1348 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Mar 02 1995 14:32 | 9 |
| > There are books written about Planned Parenthood (all negative) and anytime
> somebody is identified as involved with Planned Parenthood (New Surgeon
> General Candidate as an example), it seems to be put in a negative
> light. I guess one could look at it two ways.
I guess one could, Jack. The "negative" view of Planned Parenthood is not
by any means a universally accepted one. This is beginning to sound like
Bensonism.
|
| 20.1349 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Mar 02 1995 15:29 | 4 |
| Well I don't know why there's resistance here. I figure my note would
offend pro lifers more than anybody else!
-Jack
|
| 20.1350 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Mar 02 1995 16:26 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.1346 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| I guess one could look at it two ways.
| 1. If PP keeps getting bombed, then they must be a deceptive organization.
I agree one could look at it this way. I just got the impression from
your note that this helps PROVE they ARE a deceptive orginization who's
integrety is in question. You have to admit, what you wrote above is worded
MUCH different that what you wrote earlier.
Glen
|
| 20.1351 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Mar 02 1995 16:27 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.1349 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Well I don't know why there's resistance here. I figure my note would
| offend pro lifers more than anybody else!
You guessed wrong Jackel... :-)
|
| 20.1352 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Mar 02 1995 17:47 | 4 |
| How's that? One would assume from my original note I was calling
prolifers disingenuous!
-Jack
|
| 20.1353 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Thu Mar 02 1995 18:25 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.1352 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| How's that? One would assume from my original note I was calling
| prolifers disingenuous!
But Jack, was that what happened? Nooooooo kimosabee... you should
never assume..... :-)
|
| 20.1354 | accept responsibility, sex=babys if you dont want babies, dont have sex. | CALAIS::HALSEY_SEAN | | Sat Mar 04 1995 08:35 | 18 |
| <<<<<<<Men who don't want women to have abortions shouldn't be having
sex with them>>>>>>>>>
once a woman consents to having sex with a man, she should have
already accepted the fact that she will likely become pregnant. it may
be a bit unrealistic, but if a couple is having sex, then they need to
be prepared to accept the fruits of their labors. any one who says
that a woman has the right to deceide what happens with their bodies is
absolutly correct. if a woman has sex and becomes pregnant, she has
given up her right to choose what happens after that. noboby has the
right to deciede for the unborn child when it comes to the CHILDS LIFE.
if a woman can not accept the fact that she could become pregnant, then
she need not have sex. what it all boils down to is this. if a couple
has sex, they need to be prepared to raise a child. if a woman is
fearful of pregnancy, and should it occur, if abortion is an option in
her mind, than sex should not occur, because once she is pregnant, she
isn't just making a decesion that is for her body. one must remenber
the rights of the new life in her body.....
|
| 20.1355 | how nice | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | TechnoCatalyst | Sat Mar 04 1995 11:34 | 4 |
| Must be great to live in such a 2-bit monochromatic world... Think of
the money you save by never needing to buy even a gray-scale monitor,
and COLOR or (heh-heh) even a color TELEVISION? Why bother...
|
| 20.1356 | How pat... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Sat Mar 04 1995 12:24 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.1357 | don't ask why, rather ask how not? | LUDWIG::CRAWFORD | | Sun Mar 05 1995 21:49 | 15 |
| I am usually read only in here and I'll probably get flamed but here
goes:
I keep seeing the question about prolifers as "what gives them the
right to impose their morals on others?"
Speaking strickly for myself as a person who sees all life as sacred,
and I believe in this topic I'm even allowed the opinion that it is a
life that is snuffed in abortion. Should I just turn my back to an act
which I see as murder? Should I not make every non-violent attempt to
protect that which I see as sacred? I don't want to sound preachy but
my morals/ethics/religion will not permit me to turn my back on the
slaughter of innocent souls.
Kathy
|
| 20.1358 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Mar 05 1995 22:26 | 3 |
| re .-1
Join me on the barricades. See you next Saturday morning at 8:30?
|
| 20.1359 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | TechnoCatalyst | Sun Mar 05 1995 23:19 | 6 |
| "See you next Saturday morning at 8:30?" ... as we joyfully cast major
guilt-trips on women who are TOTAL strangers to us and who most likely
want nothing more than to be left alone to deal with what they are
carrying within their own skin... AhYes, we'll have us a wonderful
time.
|
| 20.1360 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Mon Mar 06 1995 10:32 | 3 |
| John,
Have you got your tickets to see the Pope yet. I guess he`ll be here in
October?
|
| 20.1361 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 06 1995 13:01 | 9 |
| Mr. Kalikow:
That's just it. There should be a major guilt trip laid on perfect
strangers. I don't know Susan Smith for example, but I believe the
woman should be hanged. Guilty...guilty...guilty!!!!
Too bad the fathers are usually nowhere to be found.
-Jack
|
| 20.1362 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 06 1995 13:27 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.1358 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| Join me on the barricades. See you next Saturday morning at 8:30?
I hope if you do anything but a peaceful demonstration that you get
arrested.
|
| 20.1363 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 06 1995 13:28 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.1361 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| That's just it. There should be a major guilt trip laid on perfect strangers.
That's probably why ya never went to a rally, right Jack?
| I don't know Susan Smith for example, but I believe the woman should be
| hanged. Guilty...guilty...guilty!!!!
And this has to do with abortion......how?
Glen
|
| 20.1364 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 06 1995 13:37 | 8 |
| Has nothing to do with abortion Glen. Just pointing out that I don't
know her and she doesn't know me.
Kind of silly to say you hope John gets arrested Glen. Has his
behavior in the past ever caused his arrest? If not, then why would
you bring this up now?!
-Jack
|
| 20.1365 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 06 1995 13:38 | 25 |
| re .1361.
And you call yourself "pro-life?"
kathy,
Unless you have walked a mile in the shoes of a woman with an unwanted
pregnancy, it isn't wise to judge a persons motives for or against
continuing the pregnancy.
Note:
Since the relegalization of abortions, the maternal and infant
mortality rate in Romania has fallen significantly. Women with septic
"miscarriages" are back to a rarity. Amazing what can happen to these
statistics when women are allowed aseptic procedures as opposed to old
cathether tubes and coathangers.
Over 200K women a year around the world die as a direct result of
unsafe abortion procedures. Over 2 million are permanently maimed by
these same unsafe procedures. However, even with this knowlege of
possible consequences women who have too many children and no other
form of BC will terminate pregnancies.
meg
|
| 20.1366 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 06 1995 13:42 | 17 |
| | <<< Note 20.1364 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Has nothing to do with abortion Glen. Just pointing out that I don't
| know her and she doesn't know me.
AND SHE IS GUILTY AND SHOULD BE HUNG! :-)
| Kind of silly to say you hope John gets arrested Glen. Has his behavior in the
| past ever caused his arrest? If not, then why would you bring this up now?!
Cuz I think the rallys, when blocking the clinics, when people chaining
themselves to the fixtures inside (of course not mentioning they had to lie to
get in in the first place) is wrong. If John participates in that, then I hope
he gets arrested. I would say the same thing to anyone who attended a rally.
Glen
|
| 20.1367 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 06 1995 14:13 | 5 |
| Glen:
Alot of people do attend rallys without getting into trouble!
-Jack
|
| 20.1368 | | 38099::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 06 1995 14:27 | 7 |
|
I knew that Jack. I just wanted to express what should happen to those
who don't behave.
Glen
|
| 20.1369 | | 57784::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Mon Mar 06 1995 14:27 | 4 |
|
a lot
rallies
|
| 20.1370 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 06 1995 14:33 | 4 |
| Uhhhhhhh...
Sorry
|
| 20.1371 | .1366 <HANGED> :-) | 16134::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Mar 06 1995 14:33 | 2 |
|
|
| 20.1372 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 06 1995 14:36 | 7 |
|
Why thank you Chip. I guess it is another Fuedian slip by me... :-)
Someday I'll catch these things BEFORE I enter them... :-)
|
| 20.1373 | | 18889::MARKEY | Send John Thomas some doughnuts | Mon Mar 06 1995 14:37 | 5 |
|
> Why thank you Chip. I guess it is another Fuedian slip by me... :-)
Elmer Fued?
|
| 20.1374 | | 16134::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Mar 06 1995 14:59 | 3 |
| there's a siwwee wabbit line here somewhere, i just can't find it :-)
Chip
|
| 20.1375 | | CSOA1::LEECH | beware of flaming gerbil projectiles | Mon Mar 06 1995 16:06 | 22 |
| re: .1354
You are quite right. Too bad those who are poo-poo'ing your note can't
understand the simplicity of the situation at its base.
Now, fixing the problems are a lot harder as the mentality of most the
people in this nation does not fall in line with the idea of personal
responsibility...which is at the root of the problem. Therefore, there
will be no solution in this age. I equate it with the AIDS
epidemic...it too is a problem caused by BEHAVIOR, and it most
certainly is preventable (not counting the 1% or so non-behavior
related cases a year), yet even armed with this knowledge the cases
continue to rise (even though AIDS is a death sentence).
It just seems logical that if you do not want to get pregnant, abstain
from sex (married couples that have abortions are not the brunt of the
abortion problem, BTW...far from it). It is the only 100% effective
method of preventing pregnancies. Unfortunately, the idea of
restraining sexual desires is a foreign concept in this day and age.
-steve
|
| 20.1376 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 06 1995 16:18 | 22 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1375 by CSOA1::LEECH "beware of flaming gerbil projectiles" >>>
> It just seems logical that if you do not want to get pregnant, abstain
> from sex (married couples that have abortions are not the brunt of the
> abortion problem, BTW...far from it). It is the only 100% effective
> method of preventing pregnancies. Unfortunately, the idea of
> restraining sexual desires is a foreign concept in this day and age.
I agree with what you are saying but that's not the point. You could just as
well say "If you don't want to get arrested for criticizing the President, just
don't criticize the President" and use that as an excuse to overturn the right
of free speech.
People have a right to privacy and under Roe v. Wade women have a right to
decide for themselves if, when, where, or why they should or should not have an
abortion.
It is only your opinion that life begins at fertilization. Pro-choice
recognizes your right to that opinion, too bad you can't recognizes other
people's right to their opinion.
George
|
| 20.1377 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 06 1995 16:35 | 8 |
| George:
Ya see, the key here is to continue to erode this way of thinking.
Setting a paradigm that abortion is an embarrassment and degrading to
women...and that it is socially repugnant and oh by the way, legalized
butchery.
-Jack
|
| 20.1378 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 06 1995 16:41 | 13 |
| So um....
Jack,
How many born, breathing women are you willing to sacrifice by
recriminalizing abortion?
There is documented proof that legal, sanitary abortions save women's
lives. For those like to ignore our own recent history, there is
Romania as a living lab of death, infertility, abandoned children,
orphaned children, widowed men, septic "miscarriages" etc.
meg
|
| 20.1379 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 06 1995 16:50 | 15 |
| > Ya see, the key here is to continue to erode this way of thinking.
> Setting a paradigm that abortion is an embarrassment and degrading to
> women...and that it is socially repugnant
How many women (or men for that matter) with more than three neurons, who
happen to view it otherwise, do you think are going to buy that, Jack?
Especially when they see it in a completely (not just partially) different
light and are thus 180 degrees out of phase from you?
> and oh by the way, legalized butchery.
Or will agree with you on that matter of opinion?
Wishing won't make it so, you know.
|
| 20.1380 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 06 1995 17:59 | 1 |
| Well, you know the abortion rate is going down, correct?
|
| 20.1381 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 06 1995 18:07 | 8 |
| <<< Note 20.1380 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Well, you know the abortion rate is going down, correct?
Jack, do you attribute that to educating the masses?
Glen
|
| 20.1382 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 06 1995 18:09 | 12 |
| No, I wasn't aware of that, but then I'm not an avid follower of statistics.
However, if they are going down (which is good, btw - I don't think anyone
in here has proposed that "abortion is a wonderful thing and we should
strive for as many as possible"), I can think of a zillion reasons why that
could be the case without necessarily attributing it to the "paradigm"
you espouse. We could start by saying there are fewer because fewer women
are choosing to have them, however whether that is simply because pregnancies
in general are down or whatever is unclear. Trying to ascribe it to their
buying into your "paradigm" is more than slightly underhanded, regardless
of how much you may wish to believe that to be the case.
|
| 20.1383 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 06 1995 18:20 | 20 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1377 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> Ya see, the key here is to continue to erode this way of thinking.
> Setting a paradigm that abortion is an embarrassment and degrading to
> women...and that it is socially repugnant and oh by the way, legalized
> butchery.
The "key" to what, repression?
It's funny how you conservatives claim that you are the ones who favor
freedom then talk about how you are going to "erode this way of thinking". and
make decisions as to what is and what is not "degrading to women".
Why not let each woman decide for herself what is degrading and what is not?
Oh yeah, I keep forgetting, it's because you are a conservative who fights
to protect "freedom".
I often wonder, just what does a conservative think "freedom" means?
George
|
| 20.1384 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 06 1995 18:22 | 12 |
| The teen pregnancy rate has actually been dropping over the last four
years in Colorado. It wouldn't surprise me that the abortion rate
is dropping as well. One of the reasons attributed is the fact that
kids are getting it through their heads to use condoms for disease
prevention. (Condom use is up 13% among teens from the late '80's)
However, I am wondering how long the abortion rate will drop if
all the original provisions of the Contract on Children are put into
place. I understand the birth-rate has dropped among women on AFDC in
NJ, but the pregnancy rate is still about the same.
meg
|
| 20.1385 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 06 1995 18:38 | 11 |
| George:
Its a clash between two freedoms...in which case, even with the written
law, one's freedom must take a back seat to anothers freedom. You
choose the freedom of person A, I choose the freedom of person B. You
use the law as your foundation, I use common sense. We both conjecture
on the personhood of a fetus but if I'm wrong, I only have to answer
for being a complete and annoying Pain in the Arse. If it is the other
way around, you are responsible for the deaths of countless millions.
-Jack
|
| 20.1386 | remember that voting thang? | HBAHBA::HAAS | Plan 9 from Outer Space | Mon Mar 06 1995 18:48 | 6 |
| > ... If it is the other
> way around, you are responsible for the deaths of countless millions.
No more or less than you are, sir.
TTom
|
| 20.1387 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 06 1995 18:50 | 3 |
|
Jack, could you answer .1381 please?
|
| 20.1388 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 06 1995 19:02 | 22 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1385 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> Its a clash between two freedoms...in which case, even with the written
> law, one's freedom must take a back seat to anothers freedom. You
> choose the freedom of person A, I choose the freedom of person B. You
> use the law as your foundation, I use common sense. We both conjecture
> on the personhood of a fetus but if I'm wrong, I only have to answer
> for being a complete and annoying Pain in the Arse. If it is the other
> way around, you are responsible for the deaths of countless millions.
What do you mean "if"? Just who is going to make this decision?
Right and wrong are what ever people decide right and wrong should be. There
are religious definitions, but we live in a state where religion is optional
so we have to rely on law as that place where we decide what is right and
wrong four our society.
If we decide that a woman has the right to choose, then by definition what
ever she chooses is right. If that changes it will not be because we find
out we were "wrong", it will simply be because we changed our mind.
George
|
| 20.1390 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Mon Mar 06 1995 19:05 | 11 |
|
> If we decide that a woman has the right to choose, then by definition what
>ever she chooses is right. If that changes it will not be because we find
>out we were "wrong", it will simply be because we changed our mind.
And with an issue such as abortion the only reason we would change our
mind is because we decide we are wrong to take the life of unborn
children for convenience sake. I can't imagine any other reason one
would change their mind.
jeff
|
| 20.1391 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 06 1995 19:08 | 7 |
| > And with an issue such as abortion the only reason we would change our
> mind is because we decide we are wrong to take the life of unborn
> children for convenience sake. I can't imagine any other reason one
> would change their mind.
I don't know. I don't think Ceacescu (sp?) game a rat's patootie about
the lives of unborn children, but . . .
|
| 20.1392 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 06 1995 19:11 | 11 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1390 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
> And with an issue such as abortion the only reason we would change our
> mind is because we decide we are wrong to take the life of unborn
> children for convenience sake. I can't imagine any other reason one
> would change their mind.
Or we decide we want to do away with religious freedom and impose a strict
brand of morality on the masses.
George
|
| 20.1393 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Mon Mar 06 1995 19:14 | 9 |
|
>I don't know. I don't think Ceacescu (sp?) game a rat's patootie about
>the lives of unborn children, but . . .
He was an evil man, no doubt. Didn't he probably prohibit abortion
because the birth rate in his society had declined beyond long-term
viability rates?
jeff
|
| 20.1394 | MY higher power is who I answer to. | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Mon Mar 06 1995 19:14 | 39 |
| .1385 JMARTIN
If you are wrong you answer to YOUR higher power, if the women who
choose to make a PRIVATE decision decides she doesn't want to have the
child, then SHE ANSWERS to HER HIGHER POWER. Who put Prolife people
here on earth to play GOD with others decisions.
I personally, don't want anyone else answering for me or my offspring.
It does have alot to do with behavior, like that 14 year old Euronpean
girl that was raped by her best friends father and had to fly to
another country to abort this act of violence..
If you illegalize abortion and choice, then you can't tailor it to
match YOUR standard.. "You can have an abortion only if..........."
If you don't excercise your choice that's fine...don't enter
into MY world and make choices for ME or MY children or my childrens
children. No one is saying that abortion is wonderful and lovely and oh
a great way to get out of pregnancy, it's about CHOICE.
Once again. If I were to tell any man that vasectomies were wrong and
immoral and illegal and you have no choice by to abstain from sex for
the rest of your life or use a condom (but then again there's behavior)
I think I'd be told where to go and how to get there. Because MEN are
capable of making solid decisions and appropriate future plans. Thats
why they abstain from sex also..or are these women going to sperm banks
then deciding they don't want to be pregnant. NOT!
I think (IMO) if you dont' want to excercise your choice, that's fine,
but your choice and my choice are different, and because we are
different doesn't necessarily mean we ALL default to YOUR decision. BUt
that doesn't mean I'm going to run out and have an abortion cause it's
the latest craze....I WILL have a choice, many woman died so I could
have that choice. I will fight for my right to choice...but I'll do it
peacefully, don't believe in 1st degree murder of innocent living walking
human beings with families and friends to make a point....apparently the
pro-life (some of)is a bit hypocritical about that side of the arguement.
mm
|
| 20.1395 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 06 1995 19:14 | 3 |
|
I like that.... didn't he probably......
|
| 20.1396 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Mon Mar 06 1995 19:23 | 14 |
|
> If you are wrong you answer to YOUR higher power, if the women who
> choose to make a PRIVATE decision decides she doesn't want to have the
> child, then SHE ANSWERS to HER HIGHER POWER. Who put Prolife people
> here on earth to play GOD with others decisions.
So, what is your higher power? A construct of your mind? If so,
you're off the hook. If not, then this idea of a different higher
power for each of us is nonsense.
It's interesting how even A.A. has spun off a religion of
its own. Bob must be rolling over.
|
| 20.1397 | BIRTH CONTROL!!! | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 06 1995 19:45 | 38 |
| THANK YOU mm, for that well thought out highly emotional knee jerk
reaction...
ZZ It does have alot to do with behavior, like that 14 year old
ZZ Euronpean
ZZ girl that was raped by her best friends father and had to fly to
ZZ another country to abort this act of violence..
Lady, I have stated numerous times in the file, I am pro choice when it
comes to rape, incest, or life endangerment. This is probably one of
the few times I revert to situational ethics. I believe the 14 year
old above was put in a position where she didn't have a choice, and
therefore is entitled to rectify the situation based on her own
personal mores.
Your vasectomy argument of course is nonsensical and silly. You know darn
well we are trying to compare apples to
apples here. From your note, you are comparing a part of the male sex
organ with a fetus?? Considering that most people...even prochoice
people, find abortion to be reprehensible yet necessary, to compare a
fetus to a vas is silly okay....so STOP sputtering Bella Absook
doggeral and start to use the brain that God gave you.
Okay, so your choice and my choice are different...that's fine.
Personally, if you want to have no kids, ten kids, practice birth
control to the hilt...hey...knock yourself out. You want to marry a
man or another woman....go for it. You want to be a yuppie or live in
a commune....I'll fight for your right to do this.
If you can convince me beyond the shadow of a doubt...that the fetus is
not a human being, then I will support your constitutional right. As
far as I'm concerned, your right stops at a line in the sand ms. As a
member and citizen of this country, I HAVE THE RIGHT to petition my
government when your right crosses over somebody elses right...in this
case, you are the bully, not the victim!! Sorry but that's the facts!
-Jack
|
| 20.1398 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 06 1995 20:28 | 19 |
| Jack,
I take it you don't give a rat's behind about currently living,
breathing women and their lives.
Why are you ignoring romania, or the recent history of the US? There
is a reason for safe, legal abortions, and it is the lives of my peers,
my daughters, my possible grandaughters, my nieces and great nieces I
am concernec about. Those who are already breathing, born, and loved
by breathing, born children and family members are far more important
to me than a possible life who has a 1 in 6 chance of getting through
mother-nature's abortions, not to mention the chance of preterm
delivery, still birth, or SID's in the first year of ex-utero life.
Why don't you care about real breathing women? It appears, that like
Ceaucescuea, you are willing to have the blood and infections of real
live women on your hands to save a small percentage of fetuses.
meg
|
| 20.1399 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 07 1995 01:25 | 17 |
| .1378
> How many born, breathing women are you willing to sacrifice by
> recriminalizing abortion?
Far fewer than the slaughter of living, viable babies in the
womb, Meg.
> There is documented proof that legal, sanitary abortions save women's
> lives.
At the expense of magnitudes more of children.
.1398> Why don't you care about real breathing women?
Why don't you care about real, living human beings in the
womb?
|
| 20.1400 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 07 1995 01:29 | 14 |
| .1394
> If you are wrong you answer to YOUR higher power, if the women who
> choose to make a PRIVATE decision decides she doesn't want to have the
> child, then SHE ANSWERS to HER HIGHER POWER. Who put Prolife people
> here on earth to play GOD with others decisions.
The same argument was used about slavery.
> Once again. If I were to tell any man that vasectomies were wrong and
> immoral ...
This would be valid if the discussion here were about making
female sterilization illegal.
|
| 20.1401 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 07 1995 01:31 | 10 |
| .1357
Just a little while ago there was somebody asking in here why
there weren't any pro-life women participating.
Why did you go and have to spoil the demographics in here.
:^)
(Thanks for speaking up, Kathy!)
|
| 20.1402 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 07 1995 01:47 | 12 |
| > Why don't you care about real, living human beings in the
> womb?
By what authority have they been declared real, living human beings,
Joe?
That's what this discussion is about, after all.
I can respect your right to your religious beliefs, but if they
conflict with others, why should yours be given preference?
|
| 20.1403 | | TROOA::TEMPLETON | | Tue Mar 07 1995 02:11 | 21 |
| This reply could fit in any of the different notes but I think here it
might show there are many reasons for a persons opinion.
Many years ago I had a good friend who came from Ireland, in the
fifties her husband and she decided to come to Canada and at that time
getting into the country was not easy, it was found she had a spot on
her lung and would have to stay in Ireland until they thought she
was healthy, she was also pregnant. The baby died, and was decaying in
side her, as her husband was here and not easy to reach, her in-laws
were asked for permission to remove her overies to save her life.
The Mother_in_laws answer was
What good will she be to my son if she can not give him children
I know we are all here to keep the human race going but why does it have
to be so hard on all of us, both male and female, and who laid down the
laws, it looks like every religion has its own ideas on this subject
and every thing you read makes sense. In other words, nothing works,
and nothing ever will, we are cought in a web that just goes round and
round. Who is right, we will never know.
joan
|
| 20.1404 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 07 1995 11:47 | 22 |
| Joe,
You haven't answered these questions:
Do you want a repeat of Romania in this country? Have you a clue on
how many women, possibly including friends of your that could die?
Do you really think abortions didn't happen before RvW?
While I care for children, and love them enough not to beat them, pour
pepper sauce on their tongues, or throw them out of the house because
their behavior disappoints me, I also recognize that there are times
when contraception fails for women who are not in the position to carry
to term. It seems to me that you don't care that these breathing
people may have other children to care for, and you would just as soon
see them maimed, rendered infertile, or dead, and their children left
motherless. I think this is a pretty callous position for a man to
take.
meg
|
| 20.1405 | Higher power...mine not yours!!!!!!! | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Tue Mar 07 1995 11:56 | 39 |
| .1396 benson.
>so, what is our higher power? A construction of your mind?
WHO the HELL are you to QUESTION MY HIGHER POWER???????
First of all, I guess you are making some big assumptions that I ever
attended AA..
I guess if you're narrow minded you should take another look at yourself.
If you can't look at yourself in different lite and put yourself in
others shoes, don't have a conversation with anyone, because everyone
has different views and my higher power gives me the ability to accept
others as they are, knowing I can't change them.
I also have lots more internal peace obviously with myself to be able
to have an EMOTIONAL discussion, KNEE JERKING all over this conference
file because for all you PROLIFE HIPOCRITES, this IS AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE
ISN'T it....or are fetus that you claim to be living breathing humans
not viable enough to have emotion expressed for them??
I have MY higher power, whether you believe or not is not any of my
concern.I just have much pity for someone who can't find a higher power
that they can find peace with and solitude. A higher power that gives
the ability to make decisions based on my inner strength.
I am at peace with myself and my personal inner soul..Apparently
you are not, I believe everyone has the right to make a choice...even you!
but I don't believe that MY choices are the same as everyone elses!
I don't expect you to believe what I believe, so don't expect me to
believe what you believe. I also think that people have a right to
their own opinion but not so far that they can INFLICT their beliefs
upon me. I should have the choice to make decisions for myself.
I don't know if I would excercise my choice to abort, but having that
choice should never go away. I don't have the situation at hand, I
can't tell you what it would be like to be in a situation where that
would come into play. I haven't waked a mile in any of those womans
shoes, so I can't make a judgement or choice for them.
mm
|
| 20.1407 | light | CSOA1::LEECH | a gerbil is a terrible thing to baste | Tue Mar 07 1995 12:10 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.1408 | higher power nonsensical snarf! | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Mar 07 1995 12:12 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.1409 | | CSOA1::LEECH | a gerbil is a terrible thing to baste | Tue Mar 07 1995 12:14 | 11 |
| re: .1405
In other words...there is no right and wrong, it is subject to
circumstance. Your choices and other people's choices are just
different and neither are right or wrong.
Now, this may not be an accurate description of your personal view, but
this is what I get from your .1405.
-steve
|
| 20.1410 | | CSOA1::LEECH | a gerbil is a terrible thing to baste | Tue Mar 07 1995 12:16 | 9 |
| re: .1404
Meg, do you think you could squeeze a bit more loaded emotionalism into
that note? Perhaps you could rationalize that Joe beats his wife in
your next effort.
-steve
|
| 20.1411 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Mar 07 1995 12:20 | 15 |
| Re .1354:
> if a woman has sex and becomes pregnant, she has given up her right
> to choose what happens after that.
Kind of ironic that under this "principle", the only woman in
pseudo-history who had a "right" to an abortion was Mary. Jesus should
never have been born!
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.1412 | | CSOA1::LEECH | a gerbil is a terrible thing to baste | Tue Mar 07 1995 12:21 | 7 |
| I doubt that God gave her the "right" to abort...just as I doubt there
is such a thing as a "right" to kill your unborn child.
I think our "rights" are a bit overstated on this issue.
-steve
|
| 20.1413 | legal vs illegal, right vs wrong | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Tue Mar 07 1995 12:36 | 11 |
| Wow Steve, that's close.
I have been brought up in a strict household. My parents gave me the
basic knowledge of right and wrong. But what is right for me maybe
different for someone else. My dad was a policeman all my life. He saw
the worst of the worst. He brought me up to make my own decisions.
Steve I hate to think you're about to bash me on this one. I do follow
the law. What is legal and what is illegal.
mm
|
| 20.1414 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 13:03 | 39 |
| Dear Michelle:
Yes, thank goodness for ELF. Now I can speak to you on a more personal
basis instead og saying lady, Ms. whatever.
Michelle, once again...as you may not have followed in this string, I
have a very high regard for your privacy and your Constitutional
rights. Now I realize Jack D et al are saying bull s&*t but this is
very much the case. I have tried lately to keep higher authority on
the back burner and deal with this on a common sense level. I've
beaten this example to death but ONCE AGAIN, it pertains very much to
this string.
To promote choice based solely on the written law is fallacy...and it
is dangerous. Remember, if you were a Jew in Europe in the mid 20th
century, you were considered vermon. The ruling party of Germany made
this law. Now would you conform to this because it is the law or would
you rebel. I expect either consistency here in what you said about
abortion being legal...just as mistreatment of Jews (or even blacks in
the 1800's) were...or I would expect you like any other decent
individual to rebel. Now you might say that the Germans interfered
with the rights of other peoples...and you are right. That's exactly
what I'm saying here...in my life...in my era. What makes your reasons
any more noble than theirs were? Whether the Jews were vermon or
blacks were property was obviously based on widespread subjective
opinion....alot of people fell for it too. This attitude of....I would
never have one...or abortion is hideous but we should have the
right....I just don't understand the callousness of this. It tells me
that most people have a conviction of what is going on...but their
sanctioning it anyway. I just find the whole thing disingenuous...
I was driving in yesterday and saw a bumpersticker that said, "Pro
Family...Pro Child...ProChoice" I'm sorry but when I see this I
question the individuals commitment to parenting. Not my fault...this
is the perception you give when putting idiotic bumperstickers like
this one on your car!
-Jack
|
| 20.1415 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 07 1995 13:12 | 14 |
| > Now I realize Jack D et al are saying bull s&*t but this is
> very much the case.
Why, Jack, I'd never say that to you. :^)
> I was driving in yesterday and saw a bumpersticker that said, "Pro
> Family...Pro Child...ProChoice" I'm sorry but when I see this I
> question the individuals commitment to parenting. Not my fault...this
> is the perception you give when putting idiotic bumperstickers like
> this one on your car!
Why do you question their commitment to parenting, Jack? How is it idiotic?
Are you implying that being pro-choice and being a responsible ("good")
parent are mutually exclusive? Why, and how?
|
| 20.1416 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 07 1995 13:14 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.1399 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| Why don't you care about real, living human beings in the womb?
Could it be that she does not consider the fetus at that point a real
human being Joe?
Glen
|
| 20.1417 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Mar 07 1995 13:15 | 15 |
| re edp:
> Kind of ironic that under this "principle", the only woman in
> pseudo-history who had a "right" to an abortion was Mary.
Even if your statement above is true,
> Jesus should never have been born!
The "should" in your conclusion does not follow.
Mary, of course, consented to her mission to be the Mother of God when
she replied, "Let it be unto me according to thy word."
/john
|
| 20.1418 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 07 1995 13:25 | 20 |
| | <<< Note 20.1406 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Oh me of little faith" >>>
Perhaps PROVE IT! we're PROVE IT! all PROVE IT! afraid PROVE IT! Glen PROVE IT!
will PROVE IT! disect PROVE IT! our PROVE IT! notes PROVE IT! into PROVE IT!
one PROVE IT! word PROVE IT! segments PROVE IT! and PROVE IT! shout PROVE IT!
"prove PROVE IT! it" PROVE IT! over PROVE IT! and PROVE IT! over PROVE IT!
until PROVE IT! we're PROVE IT! blind... ? PROVE IT!
Are you blind yet? I will admit I got a chuckle out of that. While we
are both on the same side as far as viewing abortions as being wrong for birth
control, we will differ on the other parts that most pro-life people like to
brush aside as being non-issues. Adoption and back-alley abortions come to mind
on that. And with SOME, it also includes rape, incest and a mothers life being
in danger. I guess when you don't have anything to back your claims, you might
worry about someone asking you to prove things. (ie back alley abortions are
real, adoption is a problem as it only benifits white babies, etc)
Glen
|
| 20.1420 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 13:51 | 23 |
| Jack:
I was reading a portion of Josephus...he was a historian around the 200
AD period. The portion of his book I read was the account of the fall
of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Remember, this is historical, not a religious
reply here. Anyway, it talks about the siege of Jerusalem by Rome.
Rome surrounded Jerusalem and basically starved the inhabitants to
death. He mentions how canibalism took place and when food got scarce,
the mothers and fathers would give their children the few scraps of
bread left...but then out of sheer desparation for their own lives
would actually turn their children on their heads (kind of like what
Moe would do to Shemp), and actually try to force the food out of their
stomachs. Eating the regergitated food of their own children. It
sounds perposterous but this is the account Josephus gives us.
Now I ask you, were these people qualified to be parents? I know we do
things when we're desparate but I find this the height of shame. Maybe
they figured the children were going to die anyway...who knows. I just
find it amazing how adults would lose the love for their own children
in desparate times. And I honestly ask myself, when somebody is pro
family but also pro choice, how pro family are they??
-Jack
|
| 20.1421 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 07 1995 14:02 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.1419 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Oh me of little faith" >>>
| I don't believe I've yet made any claims, Glen.
in here........
|
| 20.1422 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 07 1995 14:33 | 10 |
| > Now I ask you, were these people qualified to be parents?
Well, it certainly isn't an action that I'd list in the top ten indicators
of good parenting, but I fail to see the parallel with being pro-choice.
One can certainly provide a secure, supportive home for one's children
complete with the love, understanding and nurturing that's required to
be a good parent by all standards, while still respecting and supporting
the right of others to choose. There really is no contradiction there.
|
| 20.1423 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 15:17 | 9 |
| My feeling is that anybody who can take part in abortion as a form of
birth control...you have to ask if they would give their all to their
children.
Of course this isn't to say people can't change or grow up. It just
seems to me a person with this mentality would look at the child as A
CHILD and not THEIR CHILD...
-Jack
|
| 20.1424 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 07 1995 15:21 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.1423 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| My feeling is that anybody who can take part in abortion as a form of birth
| control...you have to ask if they would give their all to their children.
Jack, ya gotta take into consideration that not everyone will believe
they are taking a life when they have an abortion. If this is the case, then
yeah, there is nothing to prevent them from giving their all to their children.
And it does not mean that even if they do believe it is taking a life that they
would not still be able to give their all to their children.
Glen
|
| 20.1425 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 15:44 | 17 |
| Glen:
I recall the testimony of a convicted guard at the Treblinka camp
during his post war trial. He was a family man himself and amazingly,
he was able to consciously make a clear distinction between his own
children and the children who died at the camp. As the childrens
corpses lied burning in a ditch, he felt no remorse...he couldn't
identify as a parent because his society taught him that the Jewery in
Europe...although human, were vermon and were stripped of all rights
normally granted to the citizenry of the country. Those who protected
Jews believed in their individual rights and transgressed the law to
protect them. Comparing the 3rd Reisch to abortion today is quite
appropriate...As both of them had an aggressor who justified their
actions, a victim who both suffered the same fate, and a protector who
transgressed the law of the land to protect the victim.
-Jack
|
| 20.1426 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 15:45 | 3 |
| Incidently, the guard at the camp was executed.
-Jack
|
| 20.1427 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 07 1995 15:46 | 15 |
| > My feeling is that anybody who can take part in abortion as a form of
> birth control...you have to ask if they would give their all to their
> children.
You're confusing me even more, Jack. Being pro-choice doesn't equate to "taking
part in abortion as a form of birth control". Supporting the rights of others
to choose isn't necessarily based on having personally been involved in an
abortion, or professing a belief that abortion is a reasonable form of birth
control. I thought we'd been over all of that ground a thousand times. I'm a
very strong opponent of gun control but I've never held a weapon in my hands
in my life.
What I'm hearing is a lot of demonizing based on invalid assumptions and
improperly drawn conclusions.
|
| 20.1428 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Tue Mar 07 1995 16:02 | 3 |
|
Meaty, please, "vermin". I'm not reading your postings, but that keeps
leaping out at me 8^).
|
| 20.1429 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 16:09 | 13 |
| Oh, your ignoring my postings eh? But you picked out my misspellings
eh??! Listen Debra, I know...you are one of those types that speaks
harshly of Barry Manilow but if you were at his concert, you would be
holding up a bic lighter and swaying back and forth.....
You came along....just like a song...and brightened my day....
Who'd have believed that you are part of a dream...now it all seems...
light years away.....
Ya ya ya...you don't like Barry Manilow...you don't read my postings
but you can pick out the misspelled words....yeah...sure!!!!!
-Meaty
|
| 20.1430 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 16:09 | 1 |
| I know I know...you're...not your!
|
| 20.1431 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Tue Mar 07 1995 16:17 | 4 |
|
Meaty, darlin', I like Barry Manilow. I admit freely that I have two
of his albums and I can play _Mandy_ on the piano 8^).
|
| 20.1432 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 16:26 | 7 |
| Shadows of a man..a face through a window...cryin in the night...
the night goes on tomorrows just another day...
happy people pass my way...
look into their eyes..I see a memory...I never realized...
how happy you made me oh Debra.....
Darn...it doesn't rhyme!!
|
| 20.1433 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Mar 07 1995 16:35 | 5 |
|
>> Darn...it doesn't rhyme!!
with what??
|
| 20.1434 | | POWDML::CKELLY | Cute Li'l Rascal | Tue Mar 07 1995 16:36 | 4 |
| jack-
printing BM lyrics in here may be the best way yet you've found to
scare others to the pro-life side, just to make you stop! :-)))))))
|
| 20.1435 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 17:10 | 8 |
| I'm singing to the world...it's time we let the spirit come in....
Let it come on in I'm singing to the world...everybody's caught in a
spin....look at where we've been we've been closing our eyes...year
after year...blinded with pride.....blinded with feeearrrrrr....
And it's daybreak....if you wanna believe it can't be daybreak....
|
| 20.1436 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member in good standing | Tue Mar 07 1995 17:12 | 3 |
|
Oh Mandy, you kissed me and stopped me from shaken.......
|
| 20.1437 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 17:23 | 7 |
| Diane:
memory and Mandy both end phonetically the same "e"
Debra didn't end that way so it doesn't fit as well.
-Jack
|
| 20.1438 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Mar 07 1995 17:29 | 6 |
|
>> memory and Mandy both end phonetically the same "e"
"memory" rhymes with "me", Jack, but that's almost incidental
too. it doesn't have to rhyme with "Mandy".
|
| 20.1439 | | POWDML::CKELLY | Cute Li'l Rascal | Tue Mar 07 1995 17:44 | 2 |
| jack, stop, right now! i'm writing my congressman for pro-life
as we speak :-)
|
| 20.1440 | Altogether now... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Mar 07 1995 17:48 | 7 |
|
If the Right-to_life protesters start blaring Barry Manilow on
ghettoblasters after chaining themselves to clinics, should their
bones be crushed ?
bb
|
| 20.1441 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 17:57 | 3 |
| Sweet Christine, angel of my lifetime, don't worry about. I have the
answer to all answers you can find. I could appease you and build my
world around you. I'll never leave here till prolife is found.
|
| 20.1442 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 07 1995 18:47 | 13 |
| <<< Note 20.1425 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
Jack, understand something. What you said makes absolute sense for that
person. I never said that I thought the people here were right. Their belief in
this area could be different than yours and mine. What I was trying to address
is that just because someone gets an abortion, you should not catagorize them
into not giving it all for the kids they gave birth to. Because it is my belief
that the statement is false.
Glen
|
| 20.1443 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 18:55 | 4 |
| Maybe with some it is false...and maybe with some, especially the
teens, its true simply because they are too immature to be moms.
-Jack
|
| 20.1444 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:04 | 3 |
| re .1442
Same arguments were made for/against slavery.
|
| 20.1445 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:08 | 14 |
| .1402
>By what authority have they been declared real, living human beings,
>Joe?
Science tells us they are living and human. What more do you want?
>I can respect your right to your religious beliefs, but if they
>conflict with others, why should yours be given preference?
There were religious arguments on both sides of the slavery
debate too. The law allowed it. There were conflicting
beliefs. Ultimately the nation cameto its senses. Some
day our social conscience will also finally be heard.
|
| 20.1446 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:08 | 5 |
|
RE: .1444
Forget it Joe... The "neural nets" just ain't clickin'...
|
| 20.1447 | ... round we go | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:10 | 16 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1445 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
> Science tells us they are living and human. What more do you want?
Science also tells us that our appendix is living and human. Science tells
us that human eggs are living and human. Your point?
> There were religious arguments on both sides of the slavery
> debate too. The law allowed it. There were conflicting
> beliefs. Ultimately the nation cameto its senses. Some
> day our social conscience will also finally be heard.
It already has. The state does not have the right to enslave women. They have
the right to control their own reproductive systems.
George
|
| 20.1448 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:11 | 6 |
| re .1404
Break out the violins, Meg. Here's a box of Kleenex for you.
When you can pipe down on your emotionalism a notch, maybe then
I can stomach holding a conversation with you.
|
| 20.1449 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:11 | 7 |
|
Joe...
read:
It's all the republicans fault...
|
| 20.1450 | emotional crap>>>>pooh pooh. | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:27 | 9 |
|
I Love this "quit the emotionalism" crap coming from someone that
thinks a fetus is a human being and shouldn't be aborted...
HELP ME>.but isn't that enough of a reason to be emotional, isn't the
fact that women died because of botched abortion enough of a tragedy
for you to get emotional.....or have you distanced yourself so much
that this issue can't possible be emotional...get a grip!!!
|
| 20.1451 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:27 | 10 |
| George:
Do you find abortion and an appendectomy in the same light? Being in
the same league or do you find abortion more of a negative?
Another thing, why do you always default to this woman are being
enslaved Chit all the time? Repression has little to do with the
matter as far as I'm concerned!
-Jack
|
| 20.1452 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:34 | 8 |
|
RE: .1450
Ah yes!! The "coathanger" scenario...
Talk about getting a grip....
|
| 20.1453 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:39 | 22 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1451 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> Do you find abortion and an appendectomy in the same light? Being in
> the same league or do you find abortion more of a negative?
If a woman chooses to have an abortion before viability then to me that's
the same as an appendectomy, the removal of tissue. I believe that before
viability a fetus is only a person if the woman carrying it decides it's a
person.
> Another thing, why do you always default to this woman are being
> enslaved Chit all the time? Repression has little to do with the
> matter as far as I'm concerned!
If a woman decides against the fact that the fetus she is carrying is a person
then it is effectively slavery if the state forces her to carry that fetus to
term.
Like all liberals, I believe people should be free from government intrusion
into their personal lives.
George
|
| 20.1454 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:43 | 8 |
| re: .1453
>I believe that before
>viability a fetus is only a person if the woman carrying it decides
>it's a person.
And what if the father decides that it is a person?
|
| 20.1455 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 07 1995 19:57 | 7 |
| ZZ Like all liberals, I believe people should be free from government
ZZ intrusion into their personal lives.
But you don't seem to mind taking my money do you George?
-Jack
|
| 20.1456 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 07 1995 21:43 | 7 |
| .1447
> Science also tells us that our appendix is living and human. Science tells
>us that human eggs are living and human. Your point?
See .1446
|
| 20.1457 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Mar 08 1995 13:04 | 6 |
| That's what I thought. You can't handle that question, you have no point,
and you are resorting to empty ad hominem attacks.
When all else fails, "Ha, Ha, Ha, the Monkey Doctor"
George
|
| 20.1458 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Wed Mar 08 1995 13:09 | 39 |
| Joe,
You seem to feel weeping over a fetus to not be emotional, but worrying
about the living, reathing people involved to be emotional? what a
hoot! BTW how do you feel about the republican welfare reform program
which is likely to result in even more abortions or the slow deaths or
breakups of more families?
Jack,
I am pro-child, pro-family, and pro-choice!
It isn't difficult to be a committed, loving parent and still believe
people have a right to choose what is best for them and their currently
living children. Ask my kids, my Brownie troop, and my kids' teachers.
You can also believe in pro-choice and support groups such as
Birthright, who get the clothes I can't find a current need for in my
circle of friends and family.
My niece and nephew are also pro-child, pro-family and pro-choice. She
is not only a parent, but also in early-childhood education, learning
to help other women be able to raise their families while working.
Another neighbor who is also pro-family, pro-child, and pro-choice is a
choir mother, brownie leader, den mother, and general all around
supportive person who people think nothing of leaving their kids with
when they are too busy, to deal with them.
I wish I could say the same for the people down the street with the
anti-abortion stickers who are always too busy to help with a kids'
project, leave their daughter unsupervised for hours at a time, (She is
8) and showed up at an overnighter for the girls in a condition
unsuitable for being around kids as a "responsible" adult.
Sometimes it seems those of us who chose to have our children can
commit to them, those who had them because they "had to" according to
the tenants of their doctrine, don't have that commitment.
meg
|
| 20.1459 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Wed Mar 08 1995 13:15 | 13 |
|
Fetuses live and breathe...
Jim
|
| 20.1460 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Wed Mar 08 1995 13:28 | 7 |
| re: .1457
>That's what I thought. You can't handle that question, you have no
>point, and you are resorting to empty ad hominem attacks.
versus you ignoring questions at your leisure???
|
| 20.1461 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Mar 08 1995 13:55 | 8 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1460 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>
> versus you ignoring questions at your leisure???
I never deliberately ignore questions. If I missed one go ahead and point it
out I'd be happy to give my answer.
George
|
| 20.1462 | .1454 | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Wed Mar 08 1995 14:10 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.1463 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Mar 08 1995 14:29 | 12 |
| As I'm reading these notes I seem to recall the words of some
famous fellow who said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." or
something to that effect.
I guess those words don't carry much weight against personal
and/or moral convictions.
Thanks goodness I've decided not to have any children. It will
save you pro-life supporters from the moral responsibility of calling
me a rotten mother.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1464 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Mar 08 1995 14:31 | 5 |
| > you pro-life supporters
In all fairness, Mary-Michael, I've never heard that claim from anyone
prior to Jack bringing it up yesterday.
|
| 20.1465 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Mar 08 1995 14:53 | 18 |
| re: .1464
This is true, however, I thought it represented a new low
in this discussion.....and as such should probably be noted.
From my rather unique perspective it gets tough to let those
little one-liners pass by unheeded.
It's a lot easier to call faceless people names and second-guess their
decisions.
I don't intend to let that happen here.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1466 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Mar 08 1995 15:21 | 15 |
| > As I'm reading these notes I seem to recall the words of some
> famous fellow who said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." or
> something to that effect.
Bzzzzt. Sound-bite.
He also said to admonish those who do wrong. He made a clear distinction
between passing judgment on persons and passing judgment on actions. He
specifically told his followers to teach right and wrong and responsibility.
I "judge" no woman who has had an abortion. However, I ask her to ask
society for forgiveness for killing her child, and I ask this nation to
stop this bloodshed.
/john
|
| 20.1467 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 08 1995 15:29 | 6 |
| I want to take this opportunity to apologize for my hasty
generalization yesterday. I was referring to women and men who see
abortion as a blase form of birth control..women who have no conscience
at all about it. This is what I meant to convey yesterday.
-Jack
|
| 20.1468 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Wed Mar 08 1995 17:21 | 10 |
| Jack,
No woman looks at abortion as a blase form of birth control unless she
is a total masochist. This is not nearly as painless emotionally,
physically, or financially as getting a new set of artificial nails and
a facial.
I don't know about men, not being one.
meg
|
| 20.1469 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Mar 08 1995 17:25 | 4 |
| We're about the same except that we'd find it physically and emotionally
painful to get the artificial nails and a facial.
George
|
| 20.1470 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Mar 08 1995 19:25 | 16 |
| .1463
> As I'm reading these notes I seem to recall the words of some
> famous fellow who said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." or
> something to that effect.
Well, considering that those of us who speak up for pro-life
have been rather thoroughly judged by you and other pro-choicers
all throughout the abortion threads in this and previous versions
of soapbox, I'd say your version of the scriptural quote has
come to fruition. Given that we're going to be judged anyway,
why shouldn't we speak up?
Or are you really just interested in using scripture (that you
really don't understand) to try to silence us... (as if we
are going to somehow cower to your false thumping...)
|
| 20.1471 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Mar 09 1995 16:38 | 60 |
| RTw 03/08 1839 Irish government wins abortion vote
By Andrew Hill
DUBLIN, March 8 (Reuter) - Ireland's new government won a parliamentary
vote on Wednesday allowing doctors in this staunchly Roman Catholic
nation to give women information on foreign abortion clinics.
The 85-67 vote was the first serious test of Prime Minister John
Bruton's three-party left-right coalition and took place against a
background of renewed soul-searching about whether or not the country
should make abortion easier.
The coalition of Fine Gael and its left-wing Labour and Progessive
Democrat allies which came to power late last year had made a pledge to
push through the legislation.
There will be further votes on the bill later this week but it is
expected to be passed by the weekend.
The government won despite a decision by the main opposition Fianna
Fail party, under pressure from the conservative and Catholic hierachy,
to vote against allowing doctors to give women the names and addresses
of abortion clinics.
Three years ago, 65 per cent of the nation voted against ending a
constitutional ban on the termination of pregnancies but, in a separate
vote, two thirds favoured lifting restrictions on giving related
information.
Bruton's coalition came to power promising its left-wing partners that
it would enact legislation to take account of the referendum result,
despite misgivings about rekindling one of the most controversial
issues on the public agenda.
His government is also committed under the terms of its programme to
carry out a referendum on the legalisation of divorce, currently banned
in Ireland.
Bruton's spokesmen are furious at Fianna Fail, led by Bertie Ahern,
which they say backtracked on pledges it made three years ago to
provide abortion information. They have accused it of trying to score
political points on a highly sensitive issue.
Ahern was faced with a revolt in his traditionally Catholic party over
the issue and decided to give parliamentary members a free vote to
follow their consciences.
The issue has raised a storm in recent weeks with senior members of the
clergy equating the law with the legalisation of abortion and vocal
"pro-life" groups picketing parliament.
The new law will formally allow doctors to do what many in the
fast-modernising country already do -- provide the names and numbers of
clinics in Britain and elsewhere which do abortions.
Many Irish women carrying unwanted babies already travel to Britain for
abortions.
REUTER
|
| 20.1472 | teach by example | LUDWIG::CRAWFORD | | Fri Mar 10 1995 13:13 | 39 |
| Meg,
Yes, I have walked that mile. When I found out I was pregnant
with my daughter, I thought about abortion for about a minute. Then
realized that murder was about the only commandment I can say
I've never broken. (Yes I am a sinner, aren't we all?). Then I
prayed for the next 3 months for a 'natural end' to this trial. I
had no support for this pregnancy. If you think it's tough to take a
two minute walk past the picket line, try a nine month walk against the
tide. There was exactly one person who when I told my news responded
with the enthusiasm and joy which should accompany the news of new
life.
Was I emotionally prepared for this? Was I financially prepared?
No, I had just left my husband and started life as a single mom with
my son. I was about as unprepared as you can get. It is a long,
lonely walk as a single mom. Fortunately I have the company of two
of the greatest kids I know. Will Meghan have all the chances of a
child born to a 'prepared and devoted couple'? No she won't. We will
most likely be at or just above the poverty line level for some years
as daycare takes 1/3 of my pay. But she stands a damn sight better
chance than she would if she were laying in the bottom of a trash barrel.
I am not judging anyones motives. I know how hard it is to do what
is right. It wasn't easy and about the only thing that made it
bearable was my faith. I pity those who don't have a belief and
acceptance for God's word. They don't know what they are missing.
I will cast every vote, sign every petition, make my choices for
life.
Kathy
P.S. Every time my grandmother went to the doctor for another
pregnancy, he would tell her "Well you better get the parlor painted
cause there'll be a waking in there before this one's over." She
had 9 children who lived. Me thinks you bang the 'deadly dangers drum'
too loudly.
|
| 20.1473 | choice.. | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Mar 10 1995 14:37 | 9 |
| Kathy,
what a wonderful story. However, you did excercise your right for
choice. For you it was the right one. I commend you. You are obviously
a wonderful mom.
michelle
|
| 20.1474 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 10 1995 15:07 | 27 |
| karen,
the fact remains that you were free to make the choice to carry to
term. do you realize that if the guvmint gets the right to interfere
in reproductive choices one way, that it could turn around and require
people to make other choices should the need be there?
"Ms. Johns, after the required amnio, we have found that your child has
a defect we don't want carried on in the gene pool. Your abortion has
already been scheduled for tomorrow, and you are now a 'guest' of our
hospital until the procedure is finished."
"Nancy, you are under 20 and pregnant without a husband or the training
to support yourself and the nameless offspring you are carrying.
Sorry, the people can't afford more children that they have to support.
Would you please step this way?"
"Mrs. Jeffries, I know that this is your 3rd child, and the population
is getting out of hand. The government has decided that no children
are permitted after the 2nd baby."
Or you could also have Ceaucescu's little program. No contraception,
no abortion, no prenatal care to speak of, but lots of orphanges. do
you people ever look at what illegal, unsafe abortions have done to
other parts of the world?
meg
|
| 20.1475 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 15:29 | 1 |
| Damn, Meg, you are really stretching for it now...
|
| 20.1476 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Mar 10 1995 15:33 | 3 |
| Every danger Meg painted is real. Governments out of womb control!
DougO
|
| 20.1477 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 10 1995 15:47 | 15 |
| Joe,
Do you deny what happened in Romania under Ceaucescu?
Do you deny what is currently happening in the China?
Both scenarios have happened in the world when the goverments have
decided that they have the ultimate "moral" choice regarding
reproduction. Looking at history I believe even you would have to
agree that hving the goverment involved in uteruses is a bad idea, one
whose time should never return to the US.
meg
meg
|
| 20.1478 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 15:51 | 7 |
| Agreed, Doug. Just don't kill the baby inside.
They can stop the building of a dam for a minnow and shut down
an area's logging industry for an owl (talk about forcing control
on people), but NEVER "force" a woman to nurture a baby for 9 months
(after which time she can give it to someone who wants it and
get on with her life).
|
| 20.1479 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Fri Mar 10 1995 15:57 | 13 |
|
> Do you deny what is currently happening in the China?
My gosh, what's happening in the china? Cups/saucers involved? Salad
and dessert forks mixed up?
|
| 20.1480 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 15:59 | 15 |
| <<< Note 20.1477 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> Do you deny what happened in Romania under Ceaucescu?
>
> Do you deny what is currently happening in the China?
Not at all.
> Both scenarios have happened in the world when the goverments have
> decided that they have the ultimate "moral" choice regarding
> reproduction.
It is you who wants to abandon a morality that would never permit
these things. In the absence of one morality, another (of some
sort) will surely take its place.
|
| 20.1481 | conspiracy suit filed against "Rescue America" | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Mar 10 1995 16:30 | 51 |
| AP 9 Mar 95 22:34 EST V0611
Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) -- The family of slain abortion doctor David Gunn
filed a wrongful death lawsuit Thursday accusing an anti-abortion
activist of orchestrating a conspiracy.
The suit accuses John Burt, regional director of Houston-based Rescue
America, of recruiting and inspiring Michael Griffin to kill Gunn
outside an abortion clinic exactly two years ago, on March 10, 1993.
Burt was leading a protest in front of Pensacola Women's Medical
Services at the time Gunn, 47, of Eufaula, Ala., was shot behind the
clinic.
Gunn's son, David Gunn Jr., held a news conference with civil rights
lawyer Morris Dees and two other attorneys to announce they had filed
suit in state Circuit Court on behalf of the doctor's estate.
"What I am interested in ... is not so much the money but seeing the
parties who are legally responsible for my father's death are brought,
so to speak, to task for what they've done," said the younger Gunn, a
graduate student at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.
The suit does not say how much money is being sought from Burt, Rescue
America and two non-profit corporations: Our Father's House, a home for
troubled women that Burt runs, and Shadowland Inc.
Shadowland owns property Burt uses to hold protests next to the Ladies
Center, a Pensacola abortion clinic where protester Paul Hill killed
another doctor and his bodyguard on July 29.
The suit accuses Burt and his followers of giving Griffin anti-abortion
materials with exhortations to "execute" abortion doctors, including
"wanted" posters featuring Gunn.
Burt and Rescue America national director Don Treshman denied there was
a conspiracy.
"We didn't do anything with Griffin that we don't do with anybody else
that comes in and shows an interest in the abortion issue," Burt said.
"I didn't expect that he would do something like that. Of course, I
didn't expect that out of Paul Hill actually, either."
Both gunmen were convicted of first-degree murder. Griffin, 33, a
former chemical plant worker, is serving a life prison term. Hill, 41,
a former minister, is awaiting execution.
Treshman called the suit "a desperate act from a left-wing cause legal
organization."
|
| 20.1482 | Well, that's about it. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Fri Mar 10 1995 16:31 | 17 |
| The last few responses have been the most hypocritical nonsense I have
heard yet on the issue of choice. Gee, let's take your silly analogies
to other areas of life and you would be the first to be up in arms
about the analogies.
Do you equate the US with either Romania or China? Since abortions
were largely illegal prior to Roe v Wade, and there were serious
discussions about over population, where were the demands of the
government at that time.
Your arguments are hollow and have consistently been refuted, so now
you revert to Chicken Little screams to win support. Semi-logic based
arguments have done little to support your position and these hysterics
will obtain fewer supporters.
How pathetic.
|
| 20.1483 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Mar 10 1995 16:56 | 3 |
| They would have to prove a conspiracy...which they most likely won't.
-Jack
|
| 20.1484 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Mar 10 1995 16:56 | 6 |
| .1472
Great note! Thanks for entering into this fray with some reason and
conviction.
Nancy
|
| 20.1485 | | LUDWIG::CRAWFORD | | Fri Mar 10 1995 17:29 | 8 |
| re:.1473
Michele,
I'm glad you liked my 'story'. Yes, I did excercise my right for
choice, when I became pregnant. When I had my child, I was excercising
my right to be an adult responsable for my own actions. Just because
somethings legal, doesn't make it right.
|
| 20.1486 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 10 1995 17:35 | 10 |
| > In the absence of one morality, another (of some
> sort) will surely take its place.
Now you're doing it too, Joe (over emoting).
The religious right is still the strongest faction in the country according
to what we read in here. /john reminds us weekly that the majority of
Americans are pro-life. Abortions are currently legal and pro-life morality
isn't in the least bit of danger of being usurped.
|
| 20.1487 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 10 1995 17:52 | 19 |
| Joe,
when a country lacks the moral fiber to care for the children already
in the world, what do you think the next step could be if the
government was given ultimate power over reproduction?
The contract on children (oh, yeah for america) that certain people are
pushing is certainly immoral from a pro-life perspective, yet I see
people who purport to be pro-life pushing this. Tossing born people
out to starve is not my idea of being supportive to life. Reducing
nutrition programs (or block grants which have been roven to be
inefficient before) will do damage to many more fetuses than ever come
in contact with a Dr. who performs abortions.
Not pushing child-care, nutrition, education and training for those who
are already on the planet is far less pro-life and pro-child IMO than
those of us who feel we can trust women to make intelligent choices.
meg
|
| 20.1488 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 17:54 | 15 |
| <<< Note 20.1486 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>> In the absence of one morality, another (of some
>> sort) will surely take its place.
>
>Now you're doing it too, Joe (over emoting).
How is that over-emoting? Don't you agree that SOME sort of
morality (maybe mindset is a less-charged term) will be
supported by an entity -- be it individual or group?
Our current society does not support the morality that I support.
(You'd agree with that, I'd suppose.) Don't we have a social
morality nonetheless? It is not "Morality" (the buzzword)
but it is a morality all the same.
|
| 20.1489 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 17:55 | 1 |
| Spare us, Meg.
|
| 20.1490 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 18:05 | 55 |
| re: .1484
Are you implying that people who do not agree with you
lack reason and conviction? That because I walked the
same mile that Kathy did only on a different path, I
was unsure of myself?
Unless you undertake to understand the stories of
every woman who takes control of her own circumstances
during pregnancy regardless of the outcome, you cannot
help but be judgemental.
Did you ever stop and think that perhaps there are some
women who may feel that circumstances were so bleak
and dreary that enough might well be enough? I was a
Catholic for 25 years, and I'm sorry, but there are some
circumstances that the shiny white light of creation just
doesn't cut through, no matter what. Some holes are just
too deep. And I fell in one of them.
I'm lucky I got out of the relationship 6 months later. I
was stalked. I was a straight A college student and
I felt I had no future. I was 19.
Don't give me any crap about tough rows to how. I've had
an entire field. I've been through counseling and I've lit
more candles and cried in more churches than I'd care to count.
And I'm one of the ones that went to confession afterwards.
And believe it or not, even though I've been to hell and back
over this, I would NEVER, EVER think of limiting another's
woman's right to make her own choices.
I don't pretend to have all the answers. No matter what anyone
tells you, no one on this earth does. As a matter of fact, I don't think
anyone, parents, partners or friends, has a right to push any
woman to do what she doesn't want. Be it have the child or
abort it. It has to be YOUR decision. YOUR conviction.
YOUR life. Having the child doesn't make everything right.
You could do that and still wind up miserable for the rest
of your life. Neither does having the abortion. There are
no guarantees. And if you let other people push decisions
on you, all you wind up with are other people to blame for
your problems, and they won't be around when you need help
later.
I'm not the worst of them, I'm sure. There are many more
woman with more dire circumstances than mine who chose
abortion as the right choice and have never regretted it.
And none of you have any right, unless you've walked in
their shoes, felt their hunger, experienced their terror,
shared in their despair, has any right to tell them you
know "better". You don't. I don't care who you get your
information from.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1491 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 10 1995 18:11 | 38 |
| No Joe, I won't.
People choose to ignore things, but that doesn't make it moral not to
care for children that are already alive in this country. Womb to
cradle care doesn't get productive people grown, particularly when
people are looking at cutting back the single most effective prenatal
care available (nutrition).
Refusing to look at the reality of Romania, is refusing to learn what
happens when you make something illegal that there is already a demand
for. Do you think their wonderful"group homes" for unwanted children
are an effective way to raise healthy adults?
China is another reality. The PRC has also taken control of the
uteruses of their people. I don't approve of their "weeding out
defectives" by forcible prenatal testing and subsequent abortions for
all fetuses that don't meet standards or their strict policy regarding
number of children any more than I approved of Romania under Ceaucescu.
I know you are younger than I am, so the cartoons and programs I grew
up with may differ, but I remember when the abandoned infant was a
common place enough event that they were regularly incorporated into
the story lines. Today abandonment of infants is rare enough to make
front-page news. Soaps no longer allude to hysterectomies being
necessary after a "miscarriage", this was common before because of the
number of uteruses damaged by attempts at self-abortion. In the last
five years, the only woman I knew who hemraged after a miscarriage
badly enough that they considered a transfusion had the miscarriage
caused by severe trauma due to an accident. Mom remembers transfusions
as being a fairly normal necessity in GYN wards, as well as
hysterectomy because of perforated uteruses. (Moral, catheter tubes
tend to cause infections, but they at least dont do the perforations
coathangers and knitting kneedles do.)
I really don't want to see this become common place in this country
again.
meg
|
| 20.1492 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas! | Fri Mar 10 1995 18:23 | 7 |
|
RE: .1485
Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| 20.1493 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 18:24 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.1490 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
> and I'm sorry, but there are some
> circumstances that the shiny white light of creation just
> doesn't cut through, no matter what.
I disagree.
But that aside, keeping abortion as it is because of the
rare dark-hole case is unfair to the rest of the cases.
How many should die so that one "who really needs the choice"
can have it?
Let's limit abortion choices to an agreeable subset of dark-hole
cases.
|
| 20.1494 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 10 1995 18:32 | 28 |
| Joe,
How many women have to die so you feel morally justified?
Real, live teenage and adult women die in countries where abortion is
illegal, remember? Real, live teens and adult women leave orphaned
children behind when they die from a botched abortion. Real, live
teens and adult women abandon born babies in trashcans and dumps where
abortion is illegal. Real, live women and teens are rendered
infertile, crippled and worse in large numbers in places where
abortion is illegal, from attempted self-abortions.
Your precious pro-life Reagan helped to continue and increase this with
his Mexico City accord. No one dared train village midwives in safe
abortion procedure, you know minor things like sterilization, washing
hands, and that sharp sticks are not safe dialators? they would have
lost their medical funding. So instead they did hysterectomies,
dispensed massive doses of antibiotics, and prayed over the bodies of
dead and dying women.
does making abortion illegal save lives? No. It is easy to stop the
development of a fetus. it is a little more difficult and taks more
care to also preserve the life of the woman involved.
meg
|
| 20.1495 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 18:38 | 13 |
| re: .1493
If you disagree, you haven't been there.
And if you haven't been there, you have no idea how
many women you're sharing the space with.
All what you're doing amounts to is a bunch of "holier than thou"
hand waving.
Period. End of sentence.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1496 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:01 | 6 |
| <<< Note 20.1495 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
> If you disagree, you haven't been there.
Well, .1472 disagrees, and she HAS been there! (Thanks for
speaking up, Kathy!)
|
| 20.1497 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:06 | 13 |
| <<< Note 20.1494 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> How many women have to die so you feel morally justified?
More than half of the babies aborted are female.
I think it is you who are trying to soothe your chosen morality
in the face of being confronted with the reality of the
slaughter which you so vehemently fight to maintain.
> It is easy to stop the development of a fetus.
It is easy for you. And that's a tragedy.
|
| 20.1498 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:08 | 11 |
| re: .1495
That sounded an awful lot like 'if you disagree with me, then you don't
know what you are talking about...period, end of sentence'.
Of course, I am just another 'holier-than-thou' evyl vindictive
right-winger control monger extremist, though...so my opinion is of
course questionable.
-steve
|
| 20.1499 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:10 | 9 |
| re: .1496
If you think the entire spectrum of women who have
either had or considered having abortions is made up
entirely of people who have circumstances EXACTLY
the same as Kathy's, then you have been raised with
the Brady Bunch and no one should listen to you.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1500 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:14 | 22 |
| Joe,
You continue to seem to ignore the fact that there are born, breathing
women on this planet dyinng because of lack of access to safe abortions
every day! Making abortion illegal and unsafe hasn't stopped
abortions, it has merely made it expensive and/or unsafe in the
countries where it is illegal.
Abortions happened in this country pre RvW, a fact that doesn't seem to
penetrate your liveware. They happen in places where it is currently
illegal, women who can afford it go to other countries in those where
abortion is illegal. Those who can't do that and can't buy a descreet
physician, NP, or midwife, often go to the underground people or
self-abort. These women and the fetuses they carry, male or female
DIE!!! Does it make your agenda any further ahead? You are getting
two for the price of one.
Do you have an explanation for the number of maternal deaths going down
in Romania after abortion became legal again, other than the fact that
women didn't have to self-abort, or go to the local BAB?
meg
|
| 20.1501 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:18 | 21 |
| Meg:
I understand what your saying here...I guess what I'm trying to grapple
with here is this. If I had a conscience as an infant and I was given
the choice of facing almost certain death...and even possibly a
difficult life ahead of me...or the other option of being
aborted...Meg..I have the right to self preservation and self
determination...even if the odds are minimal.
I remember hearing a testimony of a man who survived Auschwitz. He
smelled death around him for two years...he believes it was divine
providence that kept him alive. Every morning he woke and said to
himself..."If I can just survive today!" Truth is, the Nazis had every
legal right to choose to end his life. Now I realize the Nazis were
cold blooded haters...and many women are deeply sorrowed by the
abortion they took part in. I'm not comparing the intent. But I do
draw a conclusion on the result. You have taken it upon yourself to
somebody elses self determination...even if the law is on your side.
Personally, I don't see the justification in this.
-Jack
|
| 20.1502 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:23 | 14 |
| <<< Note 20.1499 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
> If you think the entire spectrum of women ...
That's a strawman of your own making. All I did was disprove
your statement.
> then you have been raised with
> the Brady Bunch and no one should listen to you.
Now what's wrong with the Brady Bunch? Why must you put down
an example of a wholesome family with positive values? Instead
you angrily defend the continued killing of the unborn. Look
at the contrast!
|
| 20.1503 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:25 | 27 |
| re: .1498
You don't know me, you don't know my circumstances,
you don't know my life, how I was raised, you don't know
anything that might or might not bring me to the decision
I made. And you don't know it for any other woman who has
had an abortion either. All you know enough to do is to
applaud when the baby is delivered and cry murder when it isn't.
You have no idea of the pain and suffering the words and opinions you
utter may have on the lives of the people you judge.
I do not believe that bringing a child into this world to be
starved, abused and beaten is morally responsible. You believe
it is. That life of pain, terror, suffering and maiming is the
be all and end all. That a baby born into poverty can somehow
transform it's circumstances after its birth, leaving it
with no need of government sponsored medical care, food,
shelter or welfare.
You cannot be every human's judge because you cannot know
every human's despair. To believe you can is arrogance.
To believe right and wrong are absolutes is arrogance.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1504 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:29 | 12 |
| re: .1502
No, you look at the contrast. You want a "one size fits all"
method of solving the problem. No abortion, no choice. I think
you really believe that all those unwanted pregnancies will
somehow solve themselves, like all the problems in situation
comedies do.
People are difference. Circumstances are different. Problems
don't get solved in 30 minutes. Women need choice.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1505 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:29 | 12 |
| jack,
have some faith in your creator. don't you think if he or she truly
wants a soul to become incarnate they will find a willing woman to
carry said soul?
Or do you have so little faith that you believe god should have given
you the uterus, and us irresponsible women no way to bring life into
the world, or the brains to decide whether we will become parents or
not?
meg
|
| 20.1506 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:33 | 37 |
| <<< Note 20.1500 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> You continue to seem to ignore the fact that there are born, breathing
> women on this planet dyinng because of lack of access to safe abortions
> every day!
It doesn't have to be that way. You see it as a somebody-MUST-
die scenario. There are more loving ways that it can end.
Both can live. Or one can be prevented from ever being created
in the first place.
> Making abortion illegal and unsafe hasn't stopped
> abortions,
It *WILL* reduce the attempts at the procedure. Next it will
encourage the prevention of the need for the procedure in the
first place. Not overnight. Not in entirety. But we have to
make a move towards that better scenario sometime, and until
routine abortion is eliminated, we will never make that step.
> Abortions happened in this country pre RvW, a fact that doesn't seem to
> penetrate your liveware.
But at nowhere near the rate we have today.
> These women and the fetuses they carry, male or female
> DIE!!!
You almost say this with glee. You make it sound like every
illegal abortion ends with the mother dying.
> Do you have an explanation for the number of maternal deaths going down
> in Romania after abortion became legal again, other than the fact that
> women didn't have to self-abort, or go to the local BAB?
And you really cling to this factoid like a teddy bear. You
forget that each abortion ends in at least one death.
|
| 20.1507 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:35 | 14 |
|
.1505
"our" God says He knew us even while we were in the womb (paraphrased)
which leads me (and others acquainted with "our" God) to believe that
He is aware that their is life in said womb.
Jim
|
| 20.1508 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:37 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.1503 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
> I do not believe that bringing a child into this world to be
> starved, abused and beaten is morally responsible.
You make it sould like this is the alternative to abortion.
In reality this is the alternative in only a very few number
of cases. To hide behind those few in an effort to allow
all other abortions is reprehensible and cowardly.
|
| 20.1509 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:41 | 15 |
| <<< Note 20.1504 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
> No, you look at the contrast. You want a "one size fits all"
> method of solving the problem. No abortion, no choice.
That's not what .1493 says.
> People are difference. Circumstances are different.
And the pre-born are human, bottom line.
> Problems
> don't get solved in 30 minutes.
Wasn't the Brady Bunch an hour show?
|
| 20.1510 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:44 | 9 |
| re: .1508
And what you are saying is that you want to be the
judge and jury on which women's cases are extreme
and which aren't.
I say the best judge of that is the woman herself.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1511 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:47 | 9 |
| re: .1509
You can't limit choice without defining who needs it and
who doesn't. And once you start that, whose rules do you
use?
Thankfully, the Brady Bunch only lasted 30 minutes.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1512 | this answers .1511 too. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:48 | 12 |
| <<< Note 20.1510 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
> And what you are saying is that you want to be the
> judge and jury on which women's cases are extreme
> and which aren't.
Me personally? No. Society as a whole can decide. Judges
can make final calls in borderline cases. Or doctors.
> I say the best judge of that is the woman herself.
Maybe not, given the emotional state in which she find herself.
|
| 20.1513 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:48 | 25 |
| Meg:
Well, since you bring God into it...
I find this interesting. Were you implying that if God wanted a baby
to live, then God would choose a mother who would want it? That was
the first question that came to mind when I read your reply.
There was a case in Brooklyn a few years ago where a baby Jane Doe was
born with an arm removed. She was of course a botched abortion. As a
counselor, I would be very interested in how you would counsel the
natural mother of this baby...considering this is something she will
have to live with the rest of her life. But the main point is that
this baby was a victim, yet God wanted her alive!
By the way, my older sister has three beautiful children...all adopted.
That's a choice too.
And Mary Michael, how do you know that Kathy Crawfords circumstances
were equated to a wholesome family life? I mean, they may have been
like the Brady Bunch but isn't it kind of assumptive on your part?
One doesn't always have to live hell on earth to make the abortion
choice.
-Jsck
|
| 20.1514 | ] | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:49 | 7 |
| re: .1509
And no, a fetus is not human, bottom-line, you are wasting
time, disk space and cpu cycles trying to convince me otherwise,
save yourself the trouble.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1515 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:50 | 5 |
| re .1514
They said that about the slaves too.
Biology says otherwise.
|
| 20.1516 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:51 | 5 |
| re: .1509
I'm afraid she has you on this one, Joe...
The Brady Bunch was only a half-hour show.
|
| 20.1517 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:53 | 5 |
| re: .1514
If the fetus is not human, what is it?
Inquiring minds...
|
| 20.1518 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:54 | 8 |
|
The movie's about 2 hours..
Jim
|
| 20.1519 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:55 | 9 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1517 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>
> If the fetus is not human, what is it?
>
> Inquiring minds...
The fetus is human, just like the appendix, human eggs, etc.
George
|
| 20.1520 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:55 | 19 |
| Joe,
I am not gleeful about women dying because of idiot laws. you however
seem to accept this as a good thing.
Joe, when a woman decides to abort she will! As I said, removing the
contents of a uterus is not a difficult thing to do technically.
Knowing women who have decided to abort, the spiritual and emotional
piece is a fairly drawn our process. Honestly, a coathanger, crochet
hook, a plastic tube, connected to a syringe or not, certain drugs, and
certain herbs can be used to cause an abortion.
the better way to prevent abortion is better contraception, better care
for women and children, better oportunities for women, better
childcare, instead of acting as though children not concieved by
someones artificial religious or civil ceremony are a horrible thing
and the woman who is pregnant should be scorned.
|
| 20.1521 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:56 | 10 |
| <<< Note 20.1516 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>
> I'm afraid she has you on this one, Joe...
>
> The Brady Bunch was only a half-hour show.
Well that's a shame, because we could sure use more positive
examples. Instead what we get is the Brady Bunch Movie which
is specifically designed to ridicule family loyalty, kindness,
chastity, honesty, parental respect, etc.
|
| 20.1522 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 19:59 | 16 |
| re: .1512
Society? Are we talking about the ones who made OJ Simpson's
trip up the freeway the most watched segment of television
programming of all time? No thanks, I'm not ready to hand a woman's
mental health over to them just yet. Society can barely decide
what it wants for dinner. Once you hand something over to
society, they start "improving" it. And once "improvement"
sets in, you'll find things much as Meg described, with
the government making ALL your reproductive choices for you.
Saying a woman isn't a good judge due to her emotional state
makes me feel a little queasy, I'll leave that one be.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1523 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Mar 10 1995 20:03 | 11 |
| Mary Michael:
Bang...you have set your belief that it isn't a human....then you act
on that belief. You may think this to be prudent. Others may think
differently. Bottom line is, you want a right based on the foundation
of your belief. So if I insist I believe invalid old women are a
burden to me (like my mother n law for example)...if I truly believe in
my heart that she's an invalid, would you afford me the right to choose
to put her out of her misery? Sincere and reasonable question.
-Jack
|
| 20.1524 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 20:06 | 17 |
| re: .1513
No, I actually think Kathy was very strong and courageous.
She made her decision and stuck by it. That's what I advocate,
woman being allowed to make their own decisions.
One doesn't have to live hell on earth to have an abortion,
but hell on earth is a rather subjective thing. Saying,
"ha, this isn't hell!" to a woman is kind of presumptive,
really.
My Brady Bunch comment was towards Joe, that I felt he
was oversimplifying the problem and trying to impose a
trite solution.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1525 | LEGAL......their definition. | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Mar 10 1995 20:08 | 22 |
| .1523..JMARTIN
NO. Mary Michael didn't say that....the law did. the law that legalized
abortion and choice. If the law even that if for one second that it was
a viable human, it would be first degree murder. Manslaughter at best.
But the law says, it isn't murder and it isn't illegal. Ya..so just
because YOU think it's wrong, doesn't mean someone else thinks it is.
That has to do with the difference in people. I happen to think it's
between no one else but the woman, the man (if they are still there)
and her physician...and of course your higher power( yes, that means
any GOD you believe in..I don't cast religious judgement like I am
seeing that most do in this file.) Your belief isn't necessarily my
belief. I am with the MAJORITY vote. It must be MAJORITY...it's the
LAW!....
Have a nice weekend all you good hearted folks... seems most of you
need some time off..we are all so EMOTIONAL in this file!!!!
michelle
|
| 20.1526 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 10 1995 20:09 | 33 |
| Mary-Michael,
Of course women can't think, we have uteruses instead of them.
Joe, trust women to do the right thing, leave abortion safe and legal,
and work to improve things so fewer women do abort.
Help fund afdc, as well as training, childcare health care, family
leave policies, housing, and nutrition. Put midwives in every square
mile, as well as breast-feeding couselors, etc. make having a child
not the total financial disaster that it is for a single woman, and
just, maybe more women who are pregnant, might not abort. Set up
really safe homes for abused women, enforce child support laws, and
frown at the men who knowck up women, instead of the women, and you
might get somewhere.
Leaving a society that thinks nothing of starving babies, to make
reproductive decisions, will result in something niether of us can
stomache.
Jack,
Regarding the one-armed child. Bring out the full facts on this. The
Dr. she went to did back alley abortions for illegal immigrants. this
was also a 3rd trim pregnancy, which, unless the mother is dying I
don't support anyway. Anywoman sho carries a child that long and then
decides to abort, and doesn't go to a dr trained in procedure, (there
are only three in the country and the Dr in NY wasnt one of them, NY
has strong restrictions around 3rd trim abortions,) is either
desparate, has been able to deny her pregnancy, because of drugs,
fundamentalism, age, or abuse, or has otherissues.
meg
|
| 20.1527 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 10 1995 20:11 | 21 |
| re: .1523
Jack,
Didn't we already have this discussion? I believe people should
be able to choose to die with dignity, of their own accord, without
undue pressure from friends, family of society. I believe it is
very important that people discuss these issues with their families
while they are still of sound mind, and make whatever legal
paperwork they need available to the family for these purposes.
I do not believe an elderly person with Alzheimer's and an
unborn fetus are of equal value, the living breathing human
take precedence.
I believe a woman should be able make her own choices about
her pregnancy without undue pressure from friends, family
or partners.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1528 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Mar 10 1995 20:34 | 20 |
| Z NO. Mary Michael didn't say that....the law did. the law that
Z legalized
Z abortion and choice. If the law even that if for one second that it
Z was
Z a viable human, it would be first degree murder. Manslaughter at
Z best.
Z But the law says, it isn't murder and it isn't illegal. Ya..so just
Z because YOU think it's wrong, doesn't mean someone else thinks it
Z is.
Yes , so you've told us. I commend you for your faithfulness to the
written law of the land. Placing the value of people on what the
government thinks. Apparently my example of Nazism as law in the 40's
either didn't hit home..or you just chose to ignore it. You probaly
voted for Bill Clinton didn't you.
Bye all.
-Jack
|
| 20.1529 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Fri Mar 10 1995 20:58 | 26 |
|
Bravo ::MSCANLON
This is one male who supports both you and ::CRAWFORD for facing your
respective choices and sticking with it. I feel that these are your choices
and, since the things you have to deal with are things I cannot experience,
that the issues around whether you should have those choices are
NONE OF MY BUSINESS!!
I will never have to endure throwing up every morning from pregnancy.
I will have to face a possible loss of a career or educational opportunity
from pregnancy.
I will never find myself barefoot, pregnant, and abandoned.
I will never have my belly stretched, legs swell, back and kidneys strained.
I will not, can not, ever know the emotional stress of having a newborn,
which I have grown, taken away at birth for adoption, without even being able
to see him/her.
And I certainly will never experience having to make the agonizing choice
between all of the above, or risking bleeding to death from the proverbial
coathanger.
The phrase I recently read here about "walking a mile in her shoes" is most
appropriate, IMHO. You guys who wax profound about your moral high ground,
religious beliefs, legal interpretations -
This is all an just intellectual exercise for you !
|
| 20.1530 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | TechnoCatalyst | Sat Mar 11 1995 01:46 | 38 |
| Well said Bruce. From my side of the opinion-fence, shared with you, I
gotta say that as the father of two grown women who was there with
their mother when they were born, I really experienced profoundly how
different are the roles of men & women in the dance and the mechanics
of the continuation of life. And I can't help but opine that those men
who so strongly crow their logic and their human-rights-of-the-unborn
do not really understand what it is to truly love or to truly be a
woman. Perhaps they never have truly loved a woman as an equal. I can
tell you frankly that as a man listening to this sort of talk from
other men, I *do* wonder whether or how any woman could ever truly love
such men. For how could any woman love a man who would coldly condemn
her grown sisters, or herSELF, to privation, sterility, and/or death at
the altar of their logic and/or for the sake of a non-yet-fully-formed
life? And as for the women who join those men in the condemonation (a
typo, but I like it) of pro-choice people, I can't help thinking that
they have bought into the myth of the inferiority of their sex.
OK pro-life folx, time to flame me that you love your spouses &/or
yourselves just as much as pro-choice folx do, but I (resorting to
logic of my own here I guess) don't think that's internally consistent.
Dat's my 2cents, guaranteed not to change any minds of course, but now
that I've called all you pro-lifers idiots I sure do feel better!
(Which reminds me, day before yesterday I made a special point of
passing & staying ahead of a crabby-looking lady in a beat-up Dodge,
complete with Jesus-fish, pro-life bumperstickies & a big crudely-
lettered beat-up sign in the back seat, with some sort of
unrecognizable image surmounted with block letters "HIS LOVE". I
wanted to do the road-equivalent of this SoapBox note, i.e., to make
sure she got a good dose of my "PROUD TO BE A FEMINIST" "PRACTICE
RANDOM KINDNESS AND SENSELESS ACTS OF BEAUTY" bumperstickies, plus of
course my Darwin-Fish. She also made a point of passing ME as soon as
she could, whereupon I let her recede towards the horizon at ~88 mph,
trailing a pall of oily smoke. We'd both made our points...)
|-{:-)
|
| 20.1531 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Mar 11 1995 02:29 | 8 |
| Yeah, well, so what.
The majority of women agree with the minority of us men who are pro-life.
There could very well be more pro-life women than pro-life men reading
Soapbox.
/john
|
| 20.1532 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | TechnoCatalyst | Sat Mar 11 1995 07:34 | 2 |
| :-)
|
| 20.1533 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Sun Mar 12 1995 01:00 | 7 |
| > Our current society does not support the morality that I support.
> (You'd agree with that, I'd suppose.) Don't we have a social
How can I agree with it when Covert keeps insisting that the majority
of American's are pro-life? We all know he's never wrong.
|
| 20.1534 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Sun Mar 12 1995 19:46 | 13 |
| Re .1501:
> Truth is, the Nazis had every legal right to choose to end his life.
No, they did not, which is why many of them were tried and convicted
for their crimes.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.1535 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Mar 13 1995 09:36 | 3 |
| oooooooooooo, this hurts, but ::EDP is absolutely correct.
Chip
|
| 20.1536 | Very strange household... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Mon Mar 13 1995 11:52 | 6 |
|
Actually, the Brady Bunch was wierd. Imagine growing up with a
genetically unrelated member of the opposite sex in the house,
the same age as you. And rich enough to have a servant !
bb
|
| 20.1537 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 12:14 | 13 |
| ZZ Dat's my 2cents, guaranteed not to change any minds of course, but
ZZ now that I've called all you pro-lifers idiots I sure do feel better!
Well Dano, I'm glad you feel gratified now. Looks like the
dysfunctionalism of my family...particularly because Michele and I are
labeled evil by your way of thinking, is certainly a sign that I am in
deep trouble. I am on the road to divorce for sure because I know now
that my wife will become more and more like Bella Absook and I won't
progress at all. In fact, the dysfunctionalism in my family has been
so bad these last few years...why didn't I talk to you earlier??
-Jack
|
| 20.1538 | Jmartin.....who ever or what ever you are. | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Mon Mar 13 1995 12:27 | 30 |
| .1528 JMARTIN
UMMM, boy oh boy, you have to be the most JUDGEMENTAL person I ever
had the unpleasurable experience of noting back and forth with. I need
to address the president thing....NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS
who I voted for, but you'd be saddly mistaken I'm sure.
The other thing...HELLO, we live in America, IN THE YEAR 1995. Wake up,
Hitler was a devil. His ultimate goal was what....what was it mr judge
jury and executioner.....he wanted the arian race, so even you would be
on his chopping block unless you were a white blonde with blue eyes
that was solely controlled by him and his way of thinking....you need
to take off your blinders and realize that the pro-life people are more
like the Hilter's control than pro-choice. Pro-life says it's one way and
that's it..no other way but thier way...Pro-choice says have it anyway
you want..it's all up to you, but these are the alternatives.
Now, because you're not the only one in this note who can't come out of
the cave of ignorance, I guess I'll have to back off my noting. I don't
care to have a personal attack made every time I express my opinion or
fact....LAW IS FACT. It amazes me you try to refute law. My choice of
presidental candidates is my CHOICE of candidate.....that's why we all
go into a private booth to vote, so righteous morons can't make
judgements on our PRIVATE VOTE.
Stay out of my booth, stay out of my womb.
|
| 20.1539 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Mon Mar 13 1995 12:46 | 3 |
|
Jack, please, "Bella Absook"? If you can't spell her name, don't use
it. You're driving me nuts.
|
| 20.1540 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 13 1995 12:57 | 10 |
| re: <<< Note 20.1538 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>
> -< Jmartin.....who ever or what ever you are. >-
> .1528 JMARTIN
> UMMM, boy oh boy, you have to be the most JUDGEMENTAL person I ever
> had the unpleasurable experience of noting back and forth with.
Jack? Gosh - there are are several people in this string you should start
noting back and forth with if you think that Jack is the worst . . .
|
| 20.1541 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 12:59 | 21 |
|
ZZ he wanted the arian race, so even you would be
ZZ on his chopping block unless you were a white blonde with blue eyes
ZZ that was solely controlled by him and his way of thinking....you need
ZZ to take off your blinders and realize that the pro-life people are more
ZZ like the Hilter's control than pro-choice. Pro-life says it's one way and
ZZ that's it..no other way but thier way...Pro-choice says have it anyway
That's silly. I'm prolife when it comes to birth control...that's all.
Oh, and by the way, alot of children are aborted because they have a
genetic problem like downs syndrome, etc. And you don't think that is
is form of eugenics? I think you need to wake up too.
But I was actually making a bigger statement here. I read Megs replies
in here and although I tend to disagree with her point of view, I at
least see her appealing to a sense of humaniity....the hunger of
children...the depravity of single moms, etc. All I've seen from you is
the rights issue...which is old, boring, and overused.
Bye!
|
| 20.1542 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:06 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.1497 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| > How many women have to die so you feel morally justified?
| More than half of the babies aborted are female.
Joe, you still haven't answered the question. You constantly revert
back to aborting babies as your answer. This is one of the big problems with
many pro-life people. That pat answer does not address the issue that was
brought up. Please try and answer it again, and without using aborting babies
as your answer.
Glen
|
| 20.1543 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:08 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.1501 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| If I had a conscience as an infant and I was given the choice of facing almost
| certain death...and even possibly a difficult life ahead of me...or the other
| option of being aborted...Meg..I have the right to self preservation and self
| determination...even if the odds are minimal.
Jack, doesn't this open up that any child, regardless of their age, has
the right to do what they want to? Regardless of what the parents say?
Glen
|
| 20.1544 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:09 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.1502 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| Now what's wrong with the Brady Bunch? Why must you put down an example of a
| wholesome family with positive values?
Cuz their corny..... :-)
Glen
|
| 20.1545 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:14 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.1521 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| Well that's a shame, because we could sure use more positive examples. Instead
| what we get is the Brady Bunch Movie which is specifically designed to
| ridicule family loyalty, kindness, chastity, honesty, parental respect, etc.
Yeah, and Sherwood Swartz, the creator of the Brady Bunch was also one
of the main people behind this movie. They knew how corny the show was, and
they played off it. And if you had seen the movie, you would seen that while
they did show them to be nieve, in the end their good family values won out.
But of course you always jump the gun on these things.
Glen
|
| 20.1546 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:15 | 13 |
| > Truth is, the Nazis had every legal right to choose to end his
life.
Z No, they did not, which is why many of them were tried and
Z convicted for their crimes.
Under German law, The SS had the right to arbitrarily shoot Jews,
Gypsies, and Gays. They were not protected under the Geneva
Convention. Within their country, the law was carried out even though
it was illegal within the world community. German law took
prescedent.
-Jack
|
| 20.1547 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:17 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.1533 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
| How can I agree with it when Covert keeps insisting that the majority
| of American's are pro-life? We all know he's never wrong.
Jack, you forgot to add, "in his own mind". :-)
|
| 20.1548 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:18 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.1536 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
| Actually, the Brady Bunch was wierd. Imagine growing up with a genetically
| unrelated member of the opposite sex in the house, the same age as you. And
| rich enough to have a servant !
Yeah, 1 servant, 1 bathroom. How did they ever survive?????
|
| 20.1549 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:19 | 9 |
| Z Jack, doesn't this open up that any child, regardless of their
Z age, has the right to do what they want to? Regardless of what the
Z parents say?
No. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, we are given certain unalienable rights
at birth. The right to fight for your own breath falls within this
category.
-Jack
|
| 20.1550 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:20 | 2 |
| Then again, you must feel the same way since you don't agree with
abortion as a form of birth control, right?
|
| 20.1551 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:25 | 12 |
| By the way, did anybody hear a report regarding the clinics in
Brookline this weekend. Apparently a prochoice woman was assaulted by
a man. She says she was hit in the mouth with his cain. His side of
the story is that he was down there passing out pamphlets, minding his
own business when the woman approached him and dumped coffee on his
pamphlets and in the process of reacting accidently hit her in the
mouth.
So, she interfered with his first ammendment rights or he should be
fined for assault. One of them was stupid.
-Jack
|
| 20.1552 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:27 | 3 |
| From the coverage I saw, I'd say they were both lying. Or so it appeared.
|
| 20.1553 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:34 | 15 |
| re: .1551
She was "hit in the mouth with his cain"? Is that because
he was abel?
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I couldn't let that one go.......:-) :-)
Actually, I'd heard he broke several of her teeth. That's
one heck of a set of reflexes for someone with a cane.....
It's a shame people don't/can't/won't realize that anger
will not solve this problem. Ever. Reaching commmon ground
and working from there may.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1554 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:40 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.1549 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| No. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, we are given certain unalienable rights at
| birth. The right to fight for your own breath falls within this category.
At birth according to Thomas Jefferson, Jack. I don't think this helps
on your abortion stand.
|
| 20.1555 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:41 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.1550 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Then again, you must feel the same way since you don't agree with abortion as
| a form of birth control, right?
No, I do not feel the same way as Jefferson, Jack. Cuz Jefferson is
talking about birth, not when a baby is a fetus.
Glen
|
| 20.1556 | | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Mon Mar 13 1995 13:44 | 7 |
| rat-hole alert :
speaking of the foetus, i wonder what effect, if any, good or bad,
boinking during pregnancy has ? we know most things affect the foetus -
what does boinking, or not boinking, or too much, or too little, do ?
ric
|
| 20.1557 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Mar 13 1995 14:39 | 4 |
| .1546 ummm Jack, i don't think it was under German l-a-w... in fact,
i think the law outlined them to be deported to camps, not murdered.
Chip
|
| 20.1558 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 14:43 | 10 |
| Chip, you may be right on that. I saw Schindlers List a week ago and
the SS and Camp commander had the leaway to arbitrarily shoot anybody
without fear of reprisal. They felt as soldiers and believers in their
cause they were exercising their right of choice.
Antisemitism propoganda was promoted by the government and violence
ensued. Jewry in Poland amongst other places was practically wiped
out.
-Jack
|
| 20.1559 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 14:44 | 4 |
| By the way, anybody who believes history cannot repeat itself is
gravely mistaken. Being in the 90's matters not!
-Jack
|
| 20.1560 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Mar 13 1995 15:33 | 18 |
| Re .1546:
> Under German law, The SS had the right to arbitrarily shoot Jews,
> Gypsies, and Gays.
German law is not every law. .1501 says "every legal right" not
"German legal right".
> German law took prescedent.
Not when they were convicted it didn't.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.1561 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Mar 13 1995 15:43 | 10 |
| certainly the inhumane acts were condoned. an SS commandant would have
supreme control over his domain.
in fact, the Reich took great pains to hide the atrocities. they had
set up "mock" resettlement camps for the benefit of the Red Cross.
even the (copius) documentation generated by the Nazis was legendary
for its level of vagueness in this area.
Chip
|
| 20.1562 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 15:53 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.1559 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| By the way, anybody who believes history cannot repeat itself is gravely
| mistaken. Being in the 90's matters not!
I'll have to save this one so the next time you object to someone bring
up the past (Inqusitions, burning of witches, etc), I can show you this. :-)
Glen
|
| 20.1563 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 16:00 | 5 |
| I never implied it couldn't happen again. What you hear me fighting
against Glen is the consistent outpouring of revisionism spouted of by
the looney left...making a problem where one doesn't exist.
-Jack
|
| 20.1564 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 16:16 | 11 |
|
Jack, there are things of today that parralle the past. And luckily the
same results are happening within the church.
Glen
|
| 20.1565 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 16:21 | 6 |
| Glen:
Hey, if God feels the need to purge the church...then hey let's bring
it on!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.1566 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | can we have your liver then? | Mon Mar 13 1995 16:23 | 1 |
| There'd be nobody left.
|
| 20.1567 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 16:23 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.1566 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "can we have your liver then?" >>>
| There'd be nobody left.
They'd all be Left.... :-)
|
| 20.1568 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 16:25 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.1565 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Hey, if God feels the need to purge the church...then hey let's bring it on!!!
Jack, quick question here. Could abortion be God's way of purging as
well?
Glen
|
| 20.1569 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 13 1995 17:46 | 18 |
| for the concerned person about intercourse during pregnancy, it is ok
in most cases. the exceptions include:
Habitual miscarriage, in which case people are warned not to have
intercourse during the normal time for a period for some women.
Placenta previa, as there is a risk that intercourse could cause the
placenta to "abrupt" likely killing both woman and fetus.
Premature rupture of the amniotic sac. (Infection is a major risk
here, and even monogomous type people carry some bacteria.)
Incompetant cervix, before putting in a cerclage, and for some time
after the cerclage has been placed.
Preterm labor.
meg
|
| 20.1570 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 17:50 | 6 |
| Glen:
I believe that is the case in miscarriages...but that is Gods decision
isn't it!!
-Jack
|
| 20.1571 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 17:54 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.1570 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| I believe that is the case in miscarriages...but that is Gods decision isn't
| it!!
If a woman prayed to God for guidance, and the answer she got was to
abort, you would view that as her not listening to God. Am I correct? So to
view abortion as God's way of purging could never be something you would allow
to be true. Am I correct?
What if a miscarriage was caused by being hit in the stomach Jack? Is
this God's way of purging?
Glen
|
| 20.1572 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 18:10 | 30 |
| Z If a woman prayed to God for guidance, and the answer she got was to
Z abort, you would view that as her not listening to God. Am I correct? So to
Z view abortion as God's way of purging could never be something you
Z would allow to be true. Am I correct?
Z What if a miscarriage was caused by being hit in the stomach Jack? Is
Z this God's way of purging?
DISCLAIMERS: Glen brought God into the conversation here.
This note is strictly opinion.
Glen:
To address the first question, it is my belief that we were created in
the image of God FIRST. Then we were formed into the womb. This is
based on the creation section in Genesis. Therefore....Hmmmmm...as I
think about this, you bring up an interesting point. To put a twist on
this, what if a womans life was in serious jepeordy and she prayed for
God's guidance. That one I honestly cannot answer. I admit my guilt
here because even though I abhor moral relativism, I am a proponent of
it in cases like this. Any other takers here?
Regarding somebody getting punched in the stomach. My only answer to
that is that in the Old Testament, there was a law that if somebodys
oxen or animal kicked a woman and saused her to miscarry, then that
animal was to be put to death. This would tell me that the miscarriage
in this case was of Gods permissive will and not his perfect will. I
say this as an opinion and not as an authority.
-Jack
|
| 20.1573 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 13 1995 18:41 | 34 |
| | <<< Note 20.1572 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| DISCLAIMERS: Glen brought God into the conversation here.
No, your .1570 did. You mentioned it was God's choice. Remember Jack?
| To put a twist on this, what if a womans life was in serious jepeordy and she
| prayed for God's guidance.
Very good Jack. I was gonna ask you about that if you did happen to say
that this woman could not have been listening to God.
| That one I honestly cannot answer.
Thank you for being honest Jack. It does give us something to think
about, huh?
| Regarding somebody getting punched in the stomach. My only answer to that is
| that in the Old Testament, there was a law that if somebodys oxen or animal
| kicked a woman and saused her to miscarry, then that animal was to be put to
| death.
Jack, what happened to the OT not being used by gentiles? That all that
is needed is the 10 Commandments +2? You're confusing me here Jack.
| This would tell me that the miscarriage in this case was of Gods permissive
| will and not his perfect will.
I do agree with you about the outcome. But I guess now we run into what
is the difference between His permissive will and His perfect will. Is
permissive will really free will?
Glen
|
| 20.1574 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 13 1995 19:01 | 13 |
| ZZ Jack, there are things of today that parralle the past. And
ZZ luckily the same results are happening within the church.
Actually, your .1564 brought in a religious twist to it. You then
asked if God could purge the church. I stated that if God needs to
purge the church, then hey let's get on with it.
Re: the Old Testament, I didn't say we had to be justified by it. I
said that this happened to be one of the laws under Moses...which tells
me that miscarriage by accident such as a punch in the stomach is not
ordained by God...otherwise there would be no retribution for it.
-Jack
|
| 20.1575 | GOP schism looms | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 13 1995 19:59 | 97 |
| GOP Moderates Furious at House Abortion Amendment
Kevin Merida
Washington
A group of moderate House Republicans plan to vote against a $17
billion spending-cut package this week if an anti-abortion amendment is
not stripped from the bill, threatening a floor fight on an issue that
GOP leaders had promised to avoid in their first 100 days in control of
Congress.
The amendment, passed by the House Appropriations Committee nine days
ago, would allow states to deny Medicaid funds for abortions for
victims of rape or incest.
``It was an arrogant amendment,'' said Representative Christopher
Shays, R-Conn. ``It's not part of any contract (with America), it's not
part of any cost savings, it's not part of our agenda for the first 100
days.'' Shays said at least 30 Republicans and potentially as many as
50 will not vote for any bill that contains the abortion-related
amendment sponsored by Representative Ernest Istook Jr., R-Okla. --
enough defections to defeat the spending-cuts package, some Republicans
predict.
Moderate Republicans are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with their
party's position on some social issues. For instance, 20 GOP lawmakers,
most of them moderates, met last week with House Speaker Newt Gingrich,
R- Ga., to state their opposition to any future cuts in federal funds
for family planning.
Their concerns reflect a larger schism among Republicans that threatens
to play out in the 1996 presidential race. Already, Christian Coalition
director Ralph Reed has warned that the GOP presidential ticket must be
solidly against abortion to win the enthusiastic support of religious
conservatives. The leading GOP presidential contenders, however, have
been equally forceful in saying they will not use abortion as a
litmus-test issue in selecting their running mates.
Not wanting to exacerbate these tensions, Republican congressional
leaders had hoped to keep abortion off the early legislative calendar.
Many Republicans, including Gingrich, were caught off guard when
Istook's amendment sailed through the Appropriations Committee during
debate on spending reductions.
A day before the committee vote, Gingrich was not even aware of the
measure and said he would ``personally have a hard time voting for
that.'' He later said he had misunderstood the amendment's purpose and
endorsed it because it ``permits states to decide how to spend their
money on Medicaid. It does not force them either to spend the money on
abortion for . . . rape and incest, nor does it prohibit them from
doing so.''
Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor,
traditionally has been banned by Congress from using federal funds for
abortion coverage except to save a woman's life. Two years ago,
abortion-rights supporters won a small victory by getting rape and
incest reinstated as exceptions to the ban.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the original
sponsor of the ban on Medicaid-financed abortions, said he supports
Istook's effort because ``the Hyde amendment was never intended to
dictate to the states whether or how they should pay for abortions.''
Ironically, the fierce debate over Istook's amendment is about language
governing a minuscule number of abortions. According to the Health Care
Financing Administration, in the past fiscal year Medicaid covered only
two abortions nationwide that resulted from rape and none that resulted
from incest. But Democrats say that the numbers have been larger in
previous years.
Nonetheless, the issue has spawned a flurry of letters and meetings as
different Republican factions try to influence their colleagues and
their leadership, which is trying to broker a compromise to avert an
embarrassing defeat this week on the spending- cut package.
Moderate Republicans are hoping that House leaders will prevail on
Istook to withdraw his amendment or allow for floor procedures in which
a single member can strike the abortion provision with a parliamentary
maneuver known as a ``point of order.''
Neither side appears to want a full-blown fight over abortion, rape and
incest on the floor. ``I think it's going to hurt the image of the
party,'' said Representative Constance Morella, R-Md., who opposes the
Istook amendment. ``I think we're going to send out the wrong message
to the American people.''
But the politics of defeating the Istook provision are tricky.
Congressional sources say only 146 lawmakers in the House consistently
support abortion rights, compared with 218 anti-abortion lawmakers and
71 lawmakers who fall in a gray area.
``Those of us who are pro- choice are very angry about it,''
Representative James Greenwood, R-Pa., said of the Istook amendment.
``It's hard enough to vote for that (spending-cuts) package as it is.''
Published 3/13/95 in San Francisco Chronicle
|
| 20.1576 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 13 1995 21:40 | 15 |
| Irish Senate to Debate Abortion Information Plan
Dublin, Ireland
The vehement national debate centering on Ireland's constitutional ban
on abortion will resume this week as the Senate considers a measure
that would guarantee freedom of information for women who want to
travel abroad for abortions.
The measure, which establishes the right to information about foreign
abortion clinics, was approved by the lower house of Parliament on
Friday after a week of angry debate. Approval by the Senate is expected
this week, but the measure faces the prospect of a court challenge.
Published 3/13/95 in San Francisco Chronicle
|
| 20.1577 | | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Tue Mar 14 1995 08:59 | 10 |
| .1569
actually, my query was a bit tongue-in-cheek
i was wondering about any psychological effects it might have. would
the foetus feel happy happy happy as Mom got it on ? would too much
lead to an individual subsequently prone to sexual addiction ? would
not enough lead to someone cold and emotionally incomplete ?
ric
|
| 20.1578 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 14 1995 10:03 | 2 |
| Or, if Dad were to wear a condom, would it worry about the weather out there?
|
| 20.1579 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | TechnoCatalyst | Tue Mar 14 1995 10:12 | 2 |
| Now THAT is truly weird. :-)
|
| 20.1580 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 14 1995 10:32 | 3 |
| Just a slightly different twist on a very old joke that was never
all that funny to begin with, DrDan.
|
| 20.1581 | wondering minds et al... | BIGQ::GARDNER | justme....jacqui | Tue Mar 14 1995 12:02 | 4 |
|
What about the trampoline effect????
|
| 20.1582 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 12:45 | 9 |
|
Yesterday they found a second baby (girl) washed up on a beach in
Calif. with umbilical cord still attached. They are treating it as a
homicide.
No results of an autopsy yet to determine if this "child" ever took a
breath outside the womb...
Pretty pretentious.. huh?
|
| 20.1583 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 14 1995 13:12 | 11 |
|
I wonder what the story was behind it? Was it a crack baby? Was it a
baby from a rape/incest? Was it a baby who's mother never wanted it from the
beginning but was forced to carry it? Was the baby taken from the mother and
killed? To think about how someone could actually just throw the baby into the
ocean is really sad. What is going through this persons mind?
Glen
|
| 20.1584 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 13:15 | 6 |
|
So... you've determined it was a "baby" before hearing/seeing the
evidence on whether it breathed one breath of "life"?
It could very well have been a fetus or a zygote or a bowling ball
|
| 20.1585 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 14 1995 13:34 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.1584 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>
| So... you've determined it was a "baby" before hearing/seeing the evidence on
| whether it breathed one breath of "life"?
Andy, I am one who believes the fetus is a baby, so why would I not
believe that this also is a baby?
| It could very well have been a fetus or a zygote or a bowling ball
No, a bowling ball would not have the cord attached.
|
| 20.1586 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 13:46 | 9 |
|
RE: .1585
>Andy, I am one who believes the fetus is a baby, so why would I not
>believe that this also is a baby?
Yet you approve of abortion....
Interesting...
|
| 20.1587 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:05 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 20.1586 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>
| >Andy, I am one who believes the fetus is a baby, so why would I not
| >believe that this also is a baby?
| Yet you approve of abortion....
Yeah, I approve that women have the right to choose an abortion if the
want one......for mothers who's life is in danger, for mothers who were raped,
for incest mothers. I do not approve of abortion for birth control. But I have
to admit Andy, you worded the above nicely. Not being specific and all.....
| Interesting...
Isn't it? How's this one for ya. I also think that many pro-life people
think that back alley abortions are, and will continue to be a non-issue. I
view this as the wrong way to be thinking. When people say give up the baby for
adoption, they act like it is a cure-all, as there are more parents than there
are babies. This is true, if you happen to be a white baby. Adoption is not a
cure-all for mothers, and is only now being addressed. (at least in MA it is)
Glen
|
| 20.1588 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:21 | 12 |
|
Ah yes.. the old "coat hanger" scenario....
As for the adoption angle? The "white-baby only" statement is your own
opinion and a mis-informed one at that...
There are numerous parents out there willing to adopt a child of any
race.. Black "activists" are against that because they say the children
will lose their identities and heritage... They would rather see these
children languish in foster homes than go to whites... and that isn't
opinion, but fact... You can look that up in a number of stories in the
Boston Globe last year...
|
| 20.1590 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:34 | 27 |
| | <<< Note 20.1588 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>
| As for the adoption angle? The "white-baby only" statement is your own
| opinion and a mis-informed one at that... There are numerous parents out there
| willing to adopt a child of any race..
Andy, I never said there weren't. What I did say, which would have
shown that I realized this was MA was addressing the adoption issue. The
statement of white babies is true, as of right now it is very hard to adopt a
baby of a different colour.
| Black "activists" are against that because they say the children will lose
| their identities and heritage...
Andy, I was talking about far more than just black babies. Are you
saying that Asian, Native American, etc all have activists that are stopping
the babies from being adopted?
| They would rather see these children languish in foster homes than go to
| whites... and that isn't opinion, but fact... You can look that up in a number
| of stories in the Boston Globe last year...
The media, that's the thing you don't trust, right?
Glen
|
| 20.1591 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:51 | 6 |
|
If you haven't tried to adopt, you should really try and learn what
you're talking about before making statements like that...
re: media... non sequitur (but to be expected from you)
|
| 20.1592 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:52 | 3 |
| It's even more difficult for Native American children to be adopted by non-
Native Americans than it is for blacks to be adopted by whites. There's a
federal law that discourages it.
|
| 20.1593 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 14:53 | 6 |
|
<---------
God forbid the child should have a normal, happy childhood at the cost
of a politically correct identity!
|
| 20.1594 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 14 1995 16:25 | 3 |
|
Andy, very nice deflection...... thanks.
|
| 20.1595 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Send John Thomas some doughnuts | Tue Mar 14 1995 16:30 | 5 |
|
Perhaps, but Andy's also 100% correct. Political correctness
bites the beaver cheese.
-b
|
| 20.1596 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 14 1995 16:48 | 8 |
|
Brian, I was talking about his .1591. His other note makes sense. And
Weld is trying to do something about it. Just what he will do is still in
question.
Glen
|
| 20.1597 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 16:55 | 22 |
|
<--------
What are you talking about???
What about my .1591 do you disagree with?
Have you tried to adopt?
Do you know the statistics and/or proportion of adoptable babies to
waiting parents?
The race of those babies?
The gender of those babies?
WHo is more adoptable... boys or girls?
Go do some research... then get back to us.
and you talk about me deflecting?
|
| 20.1598 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:01 | 11 |
| So, turns out that assault-cane-wielder Charles Swain is a member of
"Our Lady's Crusaders For Life", ostensibly a group that conducts
"peaceful" prayer vigils at abortion clinics. Of course, the woman
Swain clobbered with his cane, resulting in two broken teeth, might
dispute how peaceful those folks really are.
Isn't "Our Lady's" the group John spends so much time with?
Do you know Charles Swain, John?
DougO
|
| 20.1599 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:10 | 10 |
|
RE: .1598
Well, the 72 year old gentleman may file charges against the woman for
spilling hot coffee on him whilst trying to pour it on his fliers...
Seems HIS story is that the cane was in his hand and it came up while
he was trying to ward her off...
Not as cut and dried as you like to have it.. huh?
|
| 20.1600 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:13 | 1 |
| Was it McDonald's assault coffee?
|
| 20.1601 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:22 | 12 |
| .1599
But *her* story is that she was throwing a partly empty coffee cup into
what she thought was a box of trash, not trying to pour hot coffee on his
flyers, and he clobbered her. Looks like we don't have the truth here
yet.
You have to hit somebody pretty hard with your cane to break their
teeth, don't you, harder than just "warding her off"?
And I personally wouldn't call anyone who clocked someone in the mouth
with his cane a "gentleman".
|
| 20.1602 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:24 | 8 |
|
exactly mz_deb... "her" story... "his" story...
Whom to believe...
Well.... maybe he was a gentleman after all for not clobbering her even
harder...
|
| 20.1603 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:34 | 5 |
| Y'all are missing the point. If this caning occurred during one of the
"peaceful prayer vigils" John's been trying to recruit people for, it
somewhat changes the picture I had had of the nature of his group.
DougO
|
| 20.1604 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:36 | 3 |
|
does it really, dougo?
|
| 20.1605 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:37 | 4 |
| well, yes, actually, Di. I really had believed John's protestations
that his group did not seek violent confrontations.
DougO
|
| 20.1606 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:38 | 2 |
| And does it appear that this elderly "gentleman" actually SOUGHT
a violent confrontation?
|
| 20.1607 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:39 | 3 |
| Considering the two broken teeth, yes.
DougO
|
| 20.1608 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:47 | 14 |
| Couldn't have been an accident, right?
And of course the woman herself didn't seek out any confrontation,
right?
When I was 4 I got into an argument with my little sister (age 3)
that turned into a shoving match. She fell, and broke her two
front teeth.
I suppose that "considering the two broken teeth", one of us
was seeking out a violent confrontation.
Your bias, Doug, is quite transparent. Still, you are entitled
to express it here.
|
| 20.1609 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 14 1995 17:58 | 4 |
| TTWA:
Were James Sokolov and Richard Kiley, Esq waiting outside in Brookline
to draw straws for their respective next clients?
|
| 20.1610 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:02 | 7 |
| Oh, sure, it could have been an accident, when a pro-lifer's cane just
happens to take out two teeth on a pro-choicer. Yep. Sure. Could
have. I mean, it isn't like they were brother and sister, he certainly
didn't have any *reason* to break her teeth. Yeah, my biases must be
showing. uh huh. Thanks for playing, Joe.
DougO
|
| 20.1611 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:08 | 6 |
| Doug:
If she intentionally spilt coffee on the man's brochures, she sure as
heck won't do it again. If she didn't, he should pay the penalty.
-Jack
|
| 20.1612 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:13 | 20 |
|
RE: .1610
You, in your bias, conveniently ignored my entry where I stated that
the whole story is still not yet known...
***If*** it turns out that the man was defending himself from what he
thought was the woman pouring coffee on him then who is the violent one
DougO...
>Thanks for playing, Joe.
You have the nerve to say that when all the facts aren't in and the
whole story isn't known???
The boston Globe reported today that the woman "chipped" one of her
teeth... Other stories say she couldn't close her mouth...
You can't even wait for the whole thing to come out to show your
bias....
|
| 20.1613 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:17 | 10 |
| Y'all still don't get it. Whether or not she spilled coffee on the
brochures, she didn't deserve to get whacked with a cane and have her
teeth broken. Get it? That's battery, and its a crime; a
disproportionate response to coffee on brochures, if she even did that.
And the second part you don't get, is that this cane-swinging dude is
from John Covert's group, the peaceful prayer vigil Crusaders. Yeah,
peaceful, right.
DougO
|
| 20.1614 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:21 | 4 |
| Let's put it this way DougO, I have absolutely no sympathy for her
stupidity.
-Jack
|
| 20.1615 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:25 | 4 |
| Yeah, everybody should know you gotta watch out for them peaceful
72-year old prayer vigil-antes and their assault canes.
DougO
|
| 20.1616 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:26 | 13 |
|
And you still don't get it DougO... do you?
Let's say this woman lunged at this man with a hot cup of coffee.. he
instinctively pulls his arms across his face to protect himself. The
cane is in his hand as he's 72 years old and needs it for support.
During the lunge forward the woman's face impacts the cane in the man's
hand...
Violence? Self defense?
You tell me...
|
| 20.1617 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:27 | 15 |
| Re .1598:
> Isn't "Our Lady's" the group John spends so much time with?
>
> Do you know Charles Swain, John?
John Covert, or somebody who looks like him, was visible in some of the
footage of protesters shown on the news.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.1618 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:28 | 7 |
|
I could also take a page from your book DougO and say that any
feminist who would attack a 72 year old man is a coward and if she
could do that, could also lie through her teeth (whichever ones are
left that is...)
|
| 20.1619 | she 'lunged' at him, did she? ha ha! | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:28 | 5 |
| ha ha! "but officer, really, she kept hitting her face on my cane!"
You're a piece of work, Krawiecki.
DougO
|
| 20.1620 | Good bagels, though... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:28 | 9 |
|
Actually, I got whacked by an old guy with a cane in the Brookline
Stop&Shop while heading for the express lane. I'm sure he was
Jewish, and he hit me on the kneecap. I had to lean on the checkout
machine and grimace. He starts babbling I have a dozen bagels and
this aisle is for "eight items or less". The cashier lady starts
the thing and I'm dragged at an angle. I pay up and limp to the lot.
bb
|
| 20.1621 | Re: .1617 - I thought he had an alibi | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:29 | 2 |
| Wasn't he getting arrested at the Natick Mall when this occurred?
|
| 20.1622 | re .1620 | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:30 | 1 |
| Um, what's the relevance of his ethnicity?
|
| 20.1623 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Send John Thomas some doughnuts | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:31 | 13 |
| >Actually, I got whacked by an old guy with a cane in the Brookline
>Stop&Shop while heading for the express lane. I'm sure he was
>Jewish, and he hit me on the kneecap. I had to lean on the checkout
>machine and grimace. He starts babbling I have a dozen bagels and
>this aisle is for "eight items or less". The cashier lady starts
>the thing and I'm dragged at an angle. I pay up and limp to the lot.
Pardon me for having a laugh at your expense bb, but well,
I pictured you hobbling around with a sack of bagels and
I just couldn't help it (and I don't even know what you
look like).
-b
|
| 20.1624 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:33 | 18 |
|
RE: .1619
I am just countering your inane allegations... I'm not defending the
man per se.
I am willing to wait until I hear and weigh all the evidence to make a
determination... unlike you...
>You're a piece of work, Krawiecki.
Really??
You know... you and Meowski oughta go into business together... you
could make all sorts of alleged allegations/accusations and he could
sue the alleged perps!!!
|
| 20.1625 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:41 | 40 |
| <<< Note 20.1610 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> Oh, sure, it could have been an accident, when a pro-lifer's cane just
> happens to take out two teeth on a pro-choicer. Yep. Sure.
Accidents happen. Pro-lifers aren't immune to accidents.
You make it sound like his being a pro-lifer is the cause
for your feelings here, thus my claim that your bias is
very transparent.
It doesn't take a lot of force (or much understanding of
physics) to move the end of a cane (let's say 36 inches long)
with sufficient velocity to do some damage. Ever do a
whip at an ice skating rink? Have you ever been at the end
of the whip? Simply raising (in self defense) his arm that
held the cane could cause the end of the cane to whip with
sufficient force to draw blood, or crack teeth if that's
where it landed. And it COULD very easily have been done
accidentally. Didn't your mother ever tell you not to throw
pencils, or forks, or whatever, because you could put someone's
eye out?
Malice and the seeking of violence are not the ONLY reasons
for these things happening.
> I mean, it isn't like they were brother and sister, he certainly
> didn't have any *reason* to break her teeth.
If he did it on purpose and can't show that it was a matter
of self protection, you'd have a point. (Recall that she
*did* pour hot coffee on either him or his possessions.)
Others could try to make the case that SHE assaulted HIM
with the same vigor that you are trying to make your case.
Why do you reject that notion?
> Yeah, my biases must be showing. uh huh.
Based on the arguments you are making, in the absence of your
knowledge of the real story, I'd say that you are definitely
showing a bias in your treatment of this issue.
|
| 20.1626 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:44 | 17 |
| Re .1622:
Why did you ask what the relevance of the ethnicity was and not ask
what the relevance of the other details was:
old
guy
with a cane
Brookline
Stop & Shop
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.1627 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:45 | 13 |
| re .1572
Jack
Out of curiosit could you cite chapter and verse for that one? the
only verse I am aware of regarding termination of a pregnancy is in
exodus chapter 20 v 21.
It regards a oerson causing a miscarriage. The only penalty I am aware
of here is if the born woman suffers harm beyond the miscarriage, in
which case the man involved had to pay her husband commensurately.\
meg
|
| 20.1628 | Don't mess with canes... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:46 | 13 |
|
Hey, Sacks, I dunno - my noting doesn't do the Brookline accent,
so I do a short cut, OK ? I doubt the guy was Swain of Pro-Life.
Some of these oldsters, though shaky in the legs, have a grip like
a vice, you know ? They'll latch onto a railing or a parking meter,
and lash out at the teenagers collecting the carts. They hold the
thick business end with the rubber, and sweep out with the hook end
and hit em in the fanny or any part they can hit. $6/hour, you got
to be nimble. You talk back as a kid, the customer's right, you're
fired.
bb
|
| 20.1629 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:52 | 8 |
| DougO:
If the role had been reversed, I wouldn't have any sympathy for the
lady as a prolifer either. If she did do the coffee bit, she acted
foolishly. In this world, people get shot for sillier things. It
simply wasn't prudent!
-Jack
|
| 20.1630 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 14 1995 18:58 | 13 |
| > Why did you ask what the relevance of the ethnicity was and not ask
> what the relevance of the other details was:
>
> old
> guy
> with a cane
> Brookline
> Stop & Shop
A couple of reasons. His locution "I'm sure he was Jewish" rang false.
If he'd said "An old Jewish guy with a cane," I wouldn't have noticed.
The other details would have been obvious. The cane-wielder's ethnicity
wouldn't have been.
|
| 20.1631 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:00 | 5 |
| > Hey, Sacks, I dunno - my noting doesn't do the Brookline accent,
> so I do a short cut, OK ?
Hmm, in my experience the Brookline accent is indistinguishable from the
Boston accent.
|
| 20.1632 | Beware men with canes | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:09 | 12 |
|
My friend went to his first Red Sox game a few years back. He went to
the T station to go home, and realized he didn't have exact change. He went up
to this older gentleman who had a cane and asked him if he could make change so
he could ride the T home. The guy raised his cane and started to hit him with
it screaming, "Get away from me you <insert obsenities>!" My friend not only
had to take a bruising, but then the embarrassment that you don't need to pay
for that T stop. No wonder the guy hit him!
Glen
|
| 20.1633 | Certainly not in Arlington.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:15 | 3 |
| But the real question. Are the bagels at Stop & Shop any good?
-mr. bill
|
| 20.1634 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:22 | 12 |
| re: .1625, Joe
> (Recall that she
> *did* pour hot coffee on either him or his possessions.)
I could be wrong, but I think even this is unclear. The report I saw on
Sunday AM news showed Swain telling a reporter "She was coming at me
with a cup of coffee to throw on my leaflets so I raised my cane".
Unless there are other reports I haven't seen (which is altogether
possible), this would not necessarily lead me to believe that she *did*
pour the coffee prior to being struck.
|
| 20.1635 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:24 | 6 |
| Charles Swain does not participate directly in the Our Lady's Crusaders for
Life prayer vigils.
Instead of standing with the group, he paces back and forth on the sidewalk.
/john
|
| 20.1636 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:28 | 27 |
| > (Recall that she *did* pour hot coffee on either him or his
> possessions.) Others could try to make the case that SHE assaulted
> HIM with the same vigor that you are trying to make your case. Why
> do you reject that notion?
So he says, now that he's facing a suit for knocking her teeth out.
Remember yourself that her side of that hasn't been reported. Why
do you think I reject the notion? I've previously discussed the
possibility, though the fact remains that breaking her face with a
cane is a disproportionate response.
> I'd say that you are definitely showing a bias in your treatment of
> this issue.
I tend to think dental work is more serious than replacing brochures.
This sort of action by supposedly 'peaceful' prayer vigil-antes does
tend to alert my bullshit detectors. Bias? Yeah, fine.
Someone had to bring it up, and it seems that our own personal
representative of Our Lady's Crusaders was staying silent about it.
I'd still like to know what he thinks of Mr Swain and if, as edp
indicates, John was actually there at the time of the incident. To
me, the more interesting aspect of the incident is the 'peaceful prayer
vigil' bit; so much more personal, you know, with John's presence among
us and all.
DougO
|
| 20.1637 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:36 | 23 |
| > Charles Swain does not participate directly in the Our Lady's
> Crusaders for Life prayer vigils.
>
> Instead of standing with the group, he paces back and forth on the
> sidewalk.
Interesting. You know the press is reporting his claims that he was
just there for peaceful prayer with "his group"? Do you support his
using you for cover? Do you think he's helpful to your cause?
DougO
-----
From the Boston Globe, 3/14/95:
[...]
"According to Ellen Zucker, president of the Boston chapter of the
National Organization for Women, Swain is a veteran demonstrator and
has been arrested before for harassing clinic staff and patients. He
used to appear with a white lab coat smeared with blood, she said.
"Swain did not deny that, but said it was a long time ago and that now
he and other members of his group, Our Lady's Crusaders for Life, "hold
only prayerful vigils".
|
| 20.1638 | Memorable Quotes | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:39 | 3 |
| "Why can't we all just try to get along?"
- Rodney King
|
| 20.1639 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Send John Thomas some doughnuts | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:40 | 3 |
| "Why can't we all just get a cane?"
-b
|
| 20.1640 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:45 | 3 |
|
Cuz the dentists would make too much money.....
|
| 20.1641 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:47 | 10 |
| ZZ I tend to think dental work is more serious than replacing
ZZ brochures.
ZZ This sort of action by supposedly 'peaceful' prayer vigil-antes
ZZ does tend to alert my bullshit detectors. Bias? Yeah, fine.
DougO...absolutely. Again, the bottom line is nobody has the right to
chit on anybody else and if her intent was what is alleged, then she
asked for trouble.
-Jack
|
| 20.1642 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:51 | 4 |
|
Jack, I didn't hear that she asked for anything.... :-)
|
| 20.1643 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:53 | 3 |
| How did he know she was going to spill coffee on his papers?
George
|
| 20.1644 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 14 1995 19:55 | 9 |
| RE: .1637
>"According to Ellen Zucker, president of the Boston chapter of the
>National Organization for Women,
Well!!! That settles it for me!!!
Hang that 72 year old maniacal bastard!!!
|
| 20.1645 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Mar 14 1995 20:04 | 24 |
| I can't speak for the Board of OLCfL about Mr. Swain. I can only say
what I already said about him.
Our vigils are usually very peaceful. Last Saturday was an exception.
Because it was International Women's Day, there was a large group of
pro-abortion demonstrators present, who refused to stay in the barricaded
area the police set up for them next to the area the police set up each
month for us. Instead, these pro-abortion demonstrators stood blocking
most of the sidewalk (which we are not allowed to do), and got right in
our face, chanting slogans such as "First you murder, then you pray;
racist bigots, go away" and "Not the Church, Not the State; Women will
decide our fate." (How's that for anarchy!?)
We tried to be peaceful, to concentrate on our prayer. It was difficult,
with pro-abortion demonstrators using all the worst possible intimidation
tactics against us (the ones DougO would be the first to decry if used by
the more radical elements of the pro-life movement).
I did not see the Charles Swain incident; I left almost immediately after
the closing prayers; gave someone a ride to Cambridge and then drove to
Sudbury.
/john
|
| 20.1646 | re .1644 | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 20:04 | 5 |
| "Swain did not deny that,
Whassamatter with the truth, too tough for you?
DougO
|
| 20.1647 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 20:09 | 4 |
| John, I didn't ask how the Board of the Crusaders felt about Swain
using you for cover. I asked if YOU supported it.
DougO
|
| 20.1648 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Mar 14 1995 20:10 | 3 |
| All I will have to say about Mr. Swain is in .1635.
/john
|
| 20.1649 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 20:14 | 9 |
| By the way, the "worst possible intimidation tactics" are a heckuva lot
more violent than chanting slogans in your face. Try having goon
squads charging, shoving, and kicking their way through a crowd, a
frequently seen tactic of Operation Rescue and the Lambs of Christ in
their attempts to blockade clinics. Do take care not to be so
hyperbolic about the "worst" possible intimidation tactics. Sounds to
me like you only had a mild case!
DougO
|
| 20.1650 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 14 1995 20:16 | 5 |
|
Don't let us forget how they go INTO a clinic, LIE about having an
appointment, and then run down the halls and chain themselves to the fixtures
in the OR. Yeah.... thems goood clean unintimidating tactics....
|
| 20.1651 | And more, that I don't particularly feel like talking about | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Mar 14 1995 20:17 | 8 |
| The tactics included a lot more than chanting slogans.
I was pushed and shoved until the police showed up to get the pro-abortion
crowd to back away. (That was just before the news cameras focused on me.)
Various objects were thrown at us.
/john
|
| 20.1652 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 20:19 | 15 |
| >All I will have to say about Mr. Swain is in .1635.
And there we have it. John has a perfect opportunity to denounce
someone who isn't really a peaceful prayerful type, someone who
doesn't stand and concentrate on his prayers, but who feels free to
shelter within the prayer group's 'peaceful' reputation when involved
in a violent altercation.
This is exactly the mentality that shelters such as those who murdered
Doctors and bodyguards at other clinics.
Your deniability of responsibility for sheltering violent fanatics
becomes less and less plausible with every such incident.
DougO
|
| 20.1653 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Mar 14 1995 21:48 | 3 |
| You're full of baloney.
/john
|
| 20.1654 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Mar 14 1995 22:00 | 22 |
| Actually, I will say one more thing.
Unless Swain was legitimately fearful of his own physical safety (and not
just the flyers), what he did was completely unreasonable.
Unless he feared harm to his person, the appropriate response was a small
claims court action to pay for the flyers and box.
I don't know what the woman may have said to Swain at that point or at an
earlier point in the demonstration. But I do know that the pro-abortion
demonstraters had been violent and threatening enough that policemen stood
with their backs to us, facing the pro-abortion demonstraters, for most of
the vigil.
I recall that I once said "Oh, Shut up, it's a beautiful day" in a joking
manner to a young child who was crying. His father slugged me on the side
of my head, knocking me to the ground; I was sore for two months.
The court was not interested in prosecuting the case against the man who
hit me.
/john
|
| 20.1655 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 14 1995 22:04 | 42 |
| <<< Note 20.1652 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> And there we have it. John has a perfect opportunity to denounce
> someone who isn't really a peaceful prayerful type, someone who
> doesn't stand and concentrate on his prayers, but who feels free to
> shelter within the prayer group's 'peaceful' reputation when involved
> in a violent altercation.
Give up the childishness, Doug. You still don't know that the
contact was a matter of self-defense, a feeble man's flinch in
response to an alleged attack of hot liquid. You have no basis
to call for condemnation at this point, and your continued call
for it indicates that you support hot-liquid being poured on
pro-life protesters.
What's really happening here is that you see an opportunity
to smear pro-life in any way you can -- whether unfairly or
not -- and your hatred for your arch-enemy is blinding you
to the possibility that the incident was an accident, or even
a matter of self-defense.
> This is exactly the mentality ...
Tell us about the mentality that drives you to continue to
accuse someone so vigorously without supporting facts. Tell
us why you must resort to tabloid-like accusations without
concern for fairness in your claims.
> Your deniability of responsibility for sheltering violent fanatics
> becomes less and less plausible with every such incident.
This from someone who just today wrote:
.1649> Do take care not to be so
.1649> hyperbolic about the "worst" possible intimidation tactics.
You smear this old man with phrases like "violent fanatic"
without basis. You make your "deniability" statement as if
physical contact is a recurring incident at this group's
gatherings. You are dishonest and hyberbolically hypocritical.
Your hatred and your admitted bias that it spawns bring you
shame.
|
| 20.1656 | Time colors memories.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Tue Mar 14 1995 22:23 | 7 |
| |I recall that I once said "Oh, Shut up, it's a beautiful day" in a joking
|manner to a young child who was crying. His father slugged me on the side
|of my head, knocking me to the ground; I was sore for two months.
Seems that your memory of the incident has changed over the years.
-mr. bill
|
| 20.1657 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 14 1995 22:44 | 3 |
| And how do YOU remember it, bill?
Were you the crying child he addressed? :^)
|
| 20.1658 | good thing Swain wasn't armed | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 14 1995 23:07 | 20 |
| > Unless Swain was legitimately fearful of his own physical safety (and
> not just the flyers), what he did was completely unreasonable.
Getting that admission out of some people is like (ahem) pulling teeth.
And you have no comment about him sheltering within the reputation of
your peaceful group, eh? How many opportunities to distance yourself
from this "completely unreasonable" action will you forsake?
It has been said time and time again that the mainstream prolifer is
not violent, is not interested in enabling violence, indeed, denounces
violence. We on the other side have noticed a habitual willingness to
overlook the violence fostered by radical prolife propaganda on the
part of those who deny their movement fosters it. Here we have the
same exact mindset; you don't really want to believe that your movement
harbors "completely unreasonable" people, so you close your eyes to it.
The rest of us are not so blind.
DougO
|
| 20.1659 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Mar 15 1995 02:24 | 5 |
| It's not my job to distance him from the group. I am not an official
spokesperson for the group, nor have I ever done more than participate
in the vigils.
/john
|
| 20.1660 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 15 1995 12:07 | 12 |
| DougO et al:
What we really think about the incident is immaterial...who was a
coward, whatever. If the lady reeeaallly intended to spill hot coffee
on the guys flyers, then she won't do it again because her methods
knocked her teeth out. If the woman was assaulted without provocation,
then the guy should make heavy restitution and perhaps jail to teach
him a lesson. This talk about who was a coward should mean zilch here
because the bottom line is somebody provoked physical violence in a
heated atmosphere. Stupidity at best on somebodys part.
-Jack
|
| 20.1661 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 15 1995 12:27 | 54 |
| Meg:
I looked for that passage this morning on the law about if somebodys
heiffer kicks a woman and causes her to miscarry, then the heiffer
shall be put to death. Well, I usually wouldn't inagine reading
something like this...but I looked and checked Strongs concordance
under the word, micarry...couldn't find the thing! I'll keep looking
for my own curiosity but I'm sure I read it in one of the Pentatuch
books of the OT.
However, I did come across a passage that is even more poignant to what
I was talking about and I believe you referenced it yesterday.
"If two men are in strife and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit
depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall surely be
punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he
shall pay as the judge determines. And if any mischief follow, then
thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot...." Exodus 21:22,23.
I believe there are some interesting points to make here. The first
being that if the baby were born and alive, the man who caused the baby
to come out early would still face some sort of legal punishment.
What's worse is that if the baby were stillborn, the man would face
death. Now I realize we are not under a theocracy but it is just
interesting to point out that there was a severe penalty for tampering
with the fruit of the womb...even without intent. This passage alone
lays the foundation that the fruit of the womb is as sacred as your
very life Meg...and severe consequences came to those who disturbed it.
By the way, United States law also recognizes a penalty if a baby is
stillborn because somebody caused it to happen. This sort of
twofaced attitude our legal system has is another chuckle in my mind.
Secondly, the passage also makes an interesting point. I realize
comparing the US to ancient Israel would be quite difficult...two
different cultures and times but the thing I found interesting was that
if the woman miscarried, the perpetrator was punished according to what
the HUSBAND saw fit. Ancient Israel certainly saw women as 2nd class
citizens...I acknowledge that. I do find it amazing however, that the
feminist element in this country are hell bent that the father has
absolutely no say in the termination of the fetus. IT IS A PRIVATE
CHOICE...between the woman and the doctor...I've heard it echoed for
years. But the Scripture does make it clear that regardless of the
mode or intensity, the father does in fact at least have a say in what
is going to happen to his child.
At this point, I am just bringing Exodus up as a point of interest. I
am not trying to thump here. I will say however as sort of a thump
point that God gave sex to us as a gift to be enjoyed in it's place.
As a human race, we have taken something nice and have made it ugly.
Because of this, we have abortion, hate, and strife. It seems to me we
would have smartened up by now.
-Jack
|
| 20.1662 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Wed Mar 15 1995 12:33 | 6 |
| jack,
We obviously read this differently. The penalties that I read into
this is only if the woman is damaged, not the fetus.
meg
|
| 20.1663 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 15 1995 12:41 | 9 |
| I figured that might be the case. This is why I checked with a Ryrie
concordance to be sure. Ryrie was a theologian and a Hebrew/Greek
scholar and was renowned in his time. His authoritative commentary on
this passage is what I was parroting to you. I did not draw the
conclusion myself. Also, it is important to note that Ryrie was not
trying to infer abortion here. This was written well before Roe v.
Wade.
-Jack
|
| 20.1664 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 15 1995 12:45 | 7 |
| Ryrie was also one of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary.
This is considered by many to be the Ivy League Seminary of the country
although this is a matter of opinion.
But there standards are quite high!
-Jack
|
| 20.1665 | Choice is right | TIS::HAMBURGER | REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS | Wed Mar 15 1995 13:05 | 8 |
|
Mass court declared acquittal in a "wrongful death" suit brought because a 16
week feotus died after an accident. Court said 16 week feotus not a baby or
human life, therefore no death occured.
why don't you pro-lifers work on getting life/human/baby established in
law(it already is apparently) the way YOU want, then you have an argument.
until then if you don't like abortion don't have one.
|
| 20.1666 | ... if in doubt, sue | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Mar 15 1995 13:09 | 4 |
|
Looks to me like this whole thing should be resolved in the civil courts.
George
|
| 20.1667 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 15 1995 13:09 | 1 |
| Foetus if you want to be British or pretentious, fetus if you're a 'Murcan.
|
| 20.1668 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 15 1995 13:34 | 9 |
| Amos..it isn't a prolife issue. The court recognizes the fetus as a
person if...say... a robber breaks into a home and in the process of
running out the door knocks over the woman and causes her to miscarry.
THE COURTS have determined this, not the pro lifers.
It seems to me the law needs to maintain conformity in the way they
look at what a fetus is.
-Jack
|
| 20.1669 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 15 1995 13:35 | 6 |
| ZZ until then if you don't like abortion don't have one.
Amos, I give you alot more credit for your intelligence than this.
Once again a quote from Bella land.
-Jack
|
| 20.1670 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 15 1995 13:36 | 11 |
|
Jack, they may have determined this, but could you answer something for
me? Is there an age limit on that or is it from the time it is conceived? It
would seem that the state would be contradictory (not that it would be a
surprise to anyone) if they let a wrongful death suit slip by (16 week fetus)
and have it be any age for the case you mentioned.
Glen
|
| 20.1671 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 15 1995 14:01 | 3 |
| Good point, and I'm not sure.
-Jack
|
| 20.1672 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 15 1995 14:34 | 14 |
|
Jack, how can you say the law needs to maintain conformity if you don't
know that it already does or not? You give an example of a robber, yet you
don't know what age the State determines a death. The 4 months thing could
apply here.
And why you would think it is not a pro-life issue is beyond me. If the
state will allow a wronful death suit to go by the boards due to the baby not
being recognized as alive, then how can it be anything but a pro-life issue?
Glen
|
| 20.1673 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 15 1995 14:37 | 7 |
| Well Glen, all I need to do is find an archived court case where a
woman levied punitive damages on somebody who miscarried at sayyyy...
eight weeks. Then IT IS NOT a prolife issue but a law issue.
Until such time however, your point may be valid.
-Jack
|
| 20.1674 | | TIS::HAMBURGER | REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS | Wed Mar 15 1995 14:46 | 13 |
|
In fairness I have to say the courts have backed these at the 7 to 8 month of
term.(So survivability has been considered)
However I believe Rowe vs Wade is exactly correct. No one can/should
regulate first trimester, minimal controls on second, state decisions on third.
very few pro-choice people have ever campaigned for total abortion rights
upto 8 hours before birth or any of the silly things I hear them acused of by
pro-lifers.
If your religion/belief says no then don't have one. I am not blindly quoting
someone as you infer, I am stating a very rational realistic view.
Not everyone buys your belief your religion.
|
| 20.1675 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 15 1995 15:02 | 14 |
| Exactly...that's why I lately try to put religion on the back burner.
I was addressing Megs query regarding the Old Testament...and then
consequently brought up the point that the feminist say ancient Israel
suppressed women, and now the feminist want to suppress men from the
decisionmaking process. In a sense they have become their own worst
enemy or they are hypocritical.
As far as doing what our belief religion dictates and letting others do
the same...I agree, particularly in the area of birth control. You
will find however that most people find abortion inherently wrong as a
mode of birth control...not that it is immoral but that it is a crime
against humanity...regardless of Roe v. Wade.
-Jack
|
| 20.1676 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Wed Mar 15 1995 15:10 | 12 |
| If fetuses were considered people the first prosaecution for one
incident in Denver a few years back would have been for murder, instead
of assault, when the OR demonstrator threw a clinic escort over a wall
and caused her to miscarry a wanted fetus.
I believe the OR person to have been hypocritical, as he didn't
immediately plead guilty to at least criminally neglegent homicide for
the death of the wanted fetus. Instead from what I gather he even
faught the assault charge. So are fetuses only human when they aren't
contained inside the bodies of pro-choice women, or what?
meg
|
| 20.1677 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 15 1995 15:20 | 7 |
| Meg:
You have no argument from me. As far as I'm concerned, the guy should
go to prison for 2nd degree manslaughter or first...not sure of the
difference. And it was hypocritical for him to fight the charge.
-Jack
|
| 20.1678 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 15 1995 16:12 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.1673 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Well Glen, all I need to do is find an archived court case where a woman
| levied punitive damages on somebody who miscarried at sayyyy...eight weeks.
| Then IT IS NOT a prolife issue but a law issue.
Will it be a case from the same state as the 4 month fetus??? :-)
Glen
|
| 20.1679 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 15 1995 16:15 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.1677 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| You have no argument from me.
Gotta bronz these words.... :-)
| As far as I'm concerned, the guy should go to prison for 2nd degree
| manslaughter or first...not sure of the difference.
1
| And it was hypocritical for him to fight the charge.
Agreed.
|
| 20.1680 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Wed Mar 15 1995 16:53 | 23 |
|
RE: .1646
> -< re .1644 >-
> "Swain did not deny that,
> Whassamatter with the truth, too tough for you?
What the hell are you babbling about??
You go on about the incident with the coffee and cane, rant and rail
about it till you seem to turn blue... Then the quote says he did not
deny wearing a bloody lab coat...
Is this your violence??? Wearing a bloody lab coat???
If I tried to calmly walk up to you in a crowd and hand you a jar with
a fetus in it, would I be "violent"???
Now it's my turn...
|
| 20.1681 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Mar 17 1995 23:26 | 22 |
| Abortion-clinic access law loses in court
A Milwaukee judge struck down a federal law Thursday that protects
access to abortion clinics, contradicting previous rulings and setting
up a possible showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court. In a ruling stemming
from a September protest at a Milwaukee clinic, U.S. District Judge
Rudolph Randa said the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act
was unconstitutional.
Seven other federal judges and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Richmond, Va., have upheld the law, limiting the importance of Randa's
order.
Still, anti-abortion protesters said the ruling was important. ``What's
significant is that somebody would contradict a federal judge,'' said
Monica Miller, director of Citizens for Life in Milwaukee. Roger Evans,
director of litigation for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America
in New York, said Randa's ruling was ``just a strange blip on the
screen,'' and his organization is confident it will be overturned on
appeal.
Published 3/17/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.
|
| 20.1682 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Mon Mar 20 1995 11:04 | 5 |
| It is a small victory, but a victory none the less.
We should be able to protest peacefully.
ME
|
| 20.1683 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:31 | 6 |
| That's right. You have no right to impede my 1st ammendment right to
PEACEFULLY protest. The clinic should hire the local police in the
event of trouble but you have no right to penalize me because of some
bad apples.
-Jack
|
| 20.1684 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:34 | 57 |
|
Florida Church Receives $234,000 Judgement Under RICO
A judged granted the National Organization of Women an award of $1 plus
attorney fees in their suit against New Covenant Church of Pompano Beach,
Florida. The attorney's fees amounted to $234,000 and on July 11, 1994,
NOW prepared to seize church property and church assets since the church
was unable to make the near quarter of a million dollar payment.
The Pompano Beach church is a member of the strongly Pro-Life Evangelical
Presbyterian Church denomination. The denomination requested and received
a stay of the seizure of assets until July 22, 1994 and on that date
presented the trial judge with a letter of intent indicating the
denomination's willingness to extend the church a loan. On July 26, the
EPC gave the church $212,000 and the church paid the court $234,000. The
EPC is now asking affiliated churches to help pay off the amount of the
loan.
The settlement against the Pompano Beach church occurred because the pastor
participated in a non-violent protest against an abortion clinic and
"willfully violated" a restraining order issued by the court. The church
was sued despite the pastor's claim that his protest at the abortion clinic
was the action of a private citizen and was not in his role as pastor.
A second lawsuit against the church is pending. The attorney who
represented NOW has filed a motion to include the EPC and PCUSA
denominations as additional defendants in this second suit.
The conflict began in March 1989 when a number of anti-abortion groups
protested at a Boca Raton, FL abortion clinic. In May of that year the NOW
sued the pastor of New Covenant church and five other defendants, claiming
that the protesters conspired to illegally block access to the clinic,
violated patients "right to have an abortion", attempted to financially
bankrupt the clinic, and to physically intimidate and harass employees and
patients. In a non-jury trial which concluded in January 1993, NOW was
awarded ONE DOLLAR. However, the judge found that the church violated
Florida's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and
that this act entitled NOW to collect attorney fees.
In January 1994, the church, on the advise of a local attorney, appealed
the findings. In July they requested a stay of seizure of assets and paid
the settlement on July 26. In September the church withdrew its appeal
under the advise of an attorney from the American Center for Law and
Justice. The ACLJ attorney believed that the court would uphold NOW's
claim that the appeal was improperly filed and so further action would
merely increase the amount of attorney fees. The second suit by NOW
against the church continues.
Columnist Cal Thomas, commenting on this case, says
"Even those who favor `a woman's right to choose' an abortion
should be seriously concerned about a case that allows the state to
confiscate the property of a church because a few members and the
pastor - acting as an individual citizen and not representing his
church - decide to exercise what they regard as their moral
obligation and their constitutional right to peaceably assemble and to
petition their government for a redress of grievances."
|
| 20.1685 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:09 | 36 |
| Meg:
I forgot to respond to this but you asked the question...What if my
mother n laws hip broke, etc. etc. would we send her to a home, etc?
My Father n law passed away last May. In April, he was in the hospital
and my MIL was living at eaxh of the siblings houses...mine definitely
includes. Well, Josephine (that's her name) fell and fractured her hip
last April. From May until just last month, she was living with
Michele and I...and sometimes she was a real joy to have around Meg...
not really. But she appreciated us and we do love her. Throughout the
year, I took care of her financially and emotionally. I set up all her
appointments for the doctor, I coordinated any rides she needed, I took
her into Boston (hour and a half one way) on more than one occasion,
and Michele and I made absolutely sure she took her pills every night.
That was a real pain because she hates medicine but the woman has a
chemical imbalance and goes looney if she misses her medication.
Michele and I tried to get her to live with us for good because her
husband died and she would be alone if on her own. However, we have
children and they like to run and make Nonny a nervous wreck. By the
way, I alone packed her six room house and removed her into a condo...
She's amongst her own age group and is quite content.
All this to answer your question....yes, if my MIL broke her hip, I
would take care of her. If congress cuts Social Security, I for one am
willing to take my MIL in. It is a responsibility that although I
don't cherish, I feel it is necessary and can be beneficial in some
ways...and it is also my responsibility as a family member and son in
law.
I'm not trying to say I'm a saint, I have my faults...but I am in a
position where government services would be of benefit to my
needs...but I don't want to rely on government for this because I like
anybody else can get addicted and lose self reliance.
-Jack
|
| 20.1686 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:24 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.1683 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| The clinic should hire the local police in the event of trouble but you have
| no right to penalize me because of some bad apples.
Gee..... wasn't Adam penalized cause Eve gave him a bad apple? :-)
Jack, look at any law on the books. Why were they there? Because of a few bad
apples. If you don't break the law, then you will not be penalized.
Glen
|
| 20.1687 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 14:15 | 7 |
| Glen:
YOU ARE BEING PENALIZED...that's my point here. You lose...and when
the BoR is eroded for a pet peeve like abortion, you erode the
foundation of YOUR freedoms!
-Jack
|
| 20.1688 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 14:20 | 7 |
|
Jack, if abortion is a pet peeve, then will you stop all arguing to get
it stopped? Will you stop participating in any conversations one may start with
you on the subject?
OR..... is it only a pet peeve for the "other" side?
|
| 20.1689 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Mon Mar 20 1995 14:50 | 10 |
| <<< Note 20.1687 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> YOU ARE BEING PENALIZED...that's my point here. You lose...and when
> the BoR is eroded for a pet peeve like abortion, you erode the
> foundation of YOUR freedoms!
Whose rights are you billing, Jack? Certainly not women's.
Tom
|
| 20.1690 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 14:55 | 6 |
| Correct...not anymore right than I have to put a bullet in my MIL's
head.
But this is an old argument fer sure.
-Jack
|
| 20.1691 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:28 | 5 |
| RE: .1689
But what about the right of the unborn to live? Don't they count?
ME
|
| 20.1692 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:42 | 5 |
| This has been answered by the Eleanor Smeal crowd many a time...
No!
-Jack
|
| 20.1693 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:46 | 19 |
| A PP cl;inic and a private dr's office were both vandalized early
Saturday morning in Denver. Axes and sledhammers were used, not only
on abortion equipment, but computers, other office equipment, walls,
and files and offices ransacked. Toilets were smashed in both offices
causing flooding.
dr. gartner said he and his staff had received deth threats, along with
weekly picketing for abortions which account for about 2% of his
practice. "Given the 3-5 times a week pickets, the phone calls, threats
and intimidation of atients and threats to myself, I am not surpised
that they have escalated to vandalism." Gartner's office did have
video surveillance and did capture a full face of one of the
assailants. A 25 year old man who is active in the Denver pro-life
movement has been arrested.
The Vine Street PP clinic opened for business Saturday and continues
their medical services.
meg
|
| 20.1694 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:50 | 14 |
| <<< Note 20.1692 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> No!
You're right, Jack, they don't -- at least not under our constitution.
Until you get an amendment passed that grants citizenship (and protects the
rights thereof) of those CONCEIVED in the US, then you'll just have to live
with protecting the rights of who are in fact covered: women.
Good luck getting that amendment. And good luck making legal sense of it
if, God forbid, you ever do.
Tom
|
| 20.1695 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:55 | 4 |
|
Jack, will you please answer .1688? You seemed to have missed it.
|
| 20.1696 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:02 | 3 |
| Wrong terminology. Meant to say pet project!
-Jack
|
| 20.1697 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:05 | 6 |
| I'm not necessarily for the fetus having citizenship. I am for making
abortion a very inconvenient thing to get...so that abortion doesn't
become a casual form of birth control...as the pro choice masses seem
to want...even though they won't admit it.
-Jack
|
| 20.1698 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:05 | 10 |
| What's a "deth" threat? And what's a cl;inic?
8^)
And no, I don't agree with such tactics (vandalism/destruction of
property, "deth" threats and the like), but you knew that already.
-steve
|
| 20.1699 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:06 | 11 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1697 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> I'm not necessarily for the fetus having citizenship. I am for making
> abortion a very inconvenient thing to get...so that abortion doesn't
> become a casual form of birth control...as the pro choice masses seem
> to want...even though they won't admit it.
I admit it. I'm all for abortion on demand as a form of birth control right
up to the point of viability.
George
|
| 20.1700 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:08 | 3 |
| Viability is determined by science...which isn't always accurate!
-Jack
|
| 20.1701 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:15 | 15 |
| Right, but when dealing with the law you have to draw a line somewhere.
Likewise who's to say that every 18 year old is mature enough to vote and every
17 year old is not, or that every 21 year old is mature enough to drink and
every 20 year old is not.
Everyone draws a line on this issue somewhere. Pro-life draws the line
at fertilization. Most pro-choice seem to use either 24 weeks which is the
current practical limit on viability or 26 weeks which is what's specified
in Roe v. Wade.
But to your original point, as far as I'm concerned, one day before the
24 week period I fully support abortion as a means of birth control. You had
said none of us believe that. You should have said none but a few believe that.
George
|
| 20.1702 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:17 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.1696 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Wrong terminology. Meant to say pet project!
Wow..... what a difference between the two, huh???? :-) Now the
question is, which side it making it a pet project? The side that believes they
are right?
Glen
|
| 20.1703 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:19 | 4 |
| The pro choice side is making it a pet project...and they are
prostituting the BoR for this one iiiiity bittttty exception.
-Jack
|
| 20.1704 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:25 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.1703 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| The pro choice side is making it a pet project...and they are prostituting the
| BoR for this one iiiiity bittttty exception.
Jack, then we are back to the pet peeve thing again. If it is really so
itty bitty, why make such a stink about it? You and I both know that it is not
itty bitty.
Glen
|
| 20.1705 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:27 | 3 |
| You have the right to protest and petition your government....(insert
sissy voice here) unless you are in front of a clinic then it's a no
no!
|
| 20.1706 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:31 | 7 |
| And you have the right to life, until you get pregnant, at which point
the religious will take care of all the decision-making for you.
All that whining about the "right" to life except for those who happen
to have sex in ways the fundamentalists don't approve of.
DougO
|
| 20.1707 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:41 | 6 |
| DougO:
What the hell is this asphixiation (sp?) you have with religion
anyways?
-Jack
|
| 20.1708 | 8^) | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:43 | 2 |
|
Jack, please, I've wee'd myself twice today reading your notes.
|
| 20.1709 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Specialists in Horizontal Decorum | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:43 | 5 |
| fixation Jack? Asphyxiation is the inability to breath... while lack of
oxygen to the brain my enter into this, I don't think that's what you
meant! :-)
-b
|
| 20.1710 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:52 | 4 |
|
HAAA HAAA HAAAAA Brian!!!!! I loved that note!!!
|
| 20.1711 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 17:04 | 1 |
| Oh Yeah?? Well, what's this I hear about endangered fecies!!?
|
| 20.1712 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 20 1995 17:32 | 17 |
| Jack,
Getting back to abortion as birth control, the only people who seem to
think women don't think things through when choosing to abort are those
who seem to want to stop abortion.
Remember? I worked as a clinic volunteer. I don't know any woman who
would consider having an abortion less carefully than picking a
hairdresser. It isn't something that is done lightly, and all the
clinics I have dealt with treat this as a serious choice, just as
carrying to term and raising the resultant child, or putting it up for
adoption are serious choices, and all have consequences. A pregnancy
is a life-changing event, regardless of the choices made, and whether
or not it is a wanted or unwanted pregnancy. I know of no woman who
feels otherwise.
meg
|
| 20.1713 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 17:41 | 10 |
| Meg:
Back in the 70's, the big comparison PP and others made is that
aborting a fetus is no more significant than cutting a fingernail.
I heard this...from prominent pro choice proponents.
I have really yet to hear anything different other than it is a
baby...but so what?! This disturbs me as a fellow human being.
-Jack
|
| 20.1714 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Mar 20 1995 17:49 | 19 |
| re: .1713
Yes, and we've spent the last 600 or so years hearing,
"it's just a woman, so...." What is your point? That
you find one idea disturbing and the other not so disturbing?
How special. Perhaps you can arrange to have us wumped over
the head and dragged back to the cave.
You are proposing that unborn fetus' have a say and the women carrying
them do not? I'm afraid I find that sexist and repulsive. Next your
going to be telling me that the men should make the decision
since the pregnant woman is "too emotional" to make up her
own mind.
Gosh, the doublespeak you go through to bascially say you
should have more rights than I.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1715 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 20 1995 17:53 | 22 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1705 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> You have the right to protest and petition your government....(insert
> sissy voice here) unless you are in front of a clinic then it's a no
> no!
I don't think you quite understand the concept of "Civil Disobedience". You
might want to read the essay by ... and here we go with spelling again ...
Henry David Thoreau (sp??) on the topic.
Like Thoreau, the civil rights demonstrators of the '60s understood that if
you are really committed to an ideal and because of that ideal you must break
the law, you have to expect to be treated like a criminal and spend some time
in jail. Both the Civil Rights demonstrators of the '60s and Thoreau did just
that.
The other thing I might point out is that most of the demonstrations by the
leftists of the 60's were against the government and took place on government
(read public) property. Abortion Clinics are generally private property and the
law allows for stricter enforcement of trespassing laws in that case.
George
|
| 20.1716 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 20 1995 17:56 | 10 |
| Jack,
Who do you want to debate this with? The Planned Parenthood spokespeople
who have no access to this conference, or the pro-choice DIGITAL employees
who do have such access. If the latter (I would hope), you won't find
any of them (I think) claiming that "aborting a fetus is no more
significant than cutting a fingernail", so what's the point of bringing that
up? Why not debate the points where we differ rather than railing about
the ones where we agree?
|
| 20.1717 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:04 | 14 |
| Jack:
Because Meg brought up a point that abortion is a serious decision and
isn't taken lightly by anybody. I was only pointing out that this
isn't the case. I know Meg sees abortion as a serious thing. I don't
think it is this way throughout all society.
Mary Michael, as stated before, a life takes prescedence over
inconvenience any day in my book. I am speaking strictly on the issue
of birth control here. And why do you keep harping on the womans
opression issue all the time? This has nothing to do with my wanting
to keep women suppressed. Days of the caveman???!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.1718 | I serious poll. | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:15 | 19 |
| I am only jumping in because I have this wicked hair...well..
So, a few people in this conference think that abortion is about birth
control..ok. You're wrong, but this will be a poll.
****how many people "in this conference" think that abortion is used as
birth control"********************************??????????????
Please answer in a serious poll. Maybe we can have a realitively
INTELLIGENT conversation on how we can solve this problem. NOT by
denying rights to privacy, not by taking away someones ability to make
a choice and NOT BY lumping all PRO choice into one file...because pro
choice isn't about LOVING abortion, Pro choice is about options. It's
about choice. I could lump all ANTI CHOICE peoople into one lump file
too.....I can't write it here, but I could.
mm
|
| 20.1719 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:29 | 34 |
| re: .1717
Jack,
Because I happen to see it as a women's opression issue,
among other things. That's kind of like me asking you why
you harp on the fetus as a human being issue.
Honestly, the only person who could ever think of a
pregnancy as an "inconvenience" is a person who has never
experienced one. Let me enlighten you, son. A head cold
is an "inconvience". The flu is a "nasty inconvenience".
Food poisoning could be said to be a "rotten stoke of bad
luck." Most of these pale in comparison to pregnancy.
I'm consistently amazed that women put up with it at all.
First, try being ill. Constantly. Every time you eat.
24 hours a day. 7 days a week. For 3 months. Then,
while your being ill, your body keeps insisting it wants
food. Weird food. Items which a normal, rational person
would say, "that's ridiculous and too much trouble to bother
with. I'll get it some other time." Not when you're pregnant
you won't. Your body wants it NOW. And you are a slave to
that body for 9 months. It tell you what you can and can't do,
how to move, how to sleep, how to eat. Try being exhausted constantly
and totally unable to sleep comfortably at the same time. Crying
one minute and laughing the next. This is not any mere "inconvenience."
This is all-inclusive 9 month roller coaster ride with your hormones,
culminating in an extremely painful medical procedure.
Calling it an "inconvenience" is a slap in the face to any woman
who has seen it all the way through.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1720 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:33 | 23 |
| Dear Michelle:
As I said, I was addressing Megs statement that abortion is a serious
issue and not taken lightly by women in general. I was simply pointing
out to Meg that this wasn't always the case since the pro choice
advocates were once comparing a fetus to a fingernail. This is fact,
not something made up. I am now wondering when this big change took
place.
No where did I say that society in general as a whole see abortion as a
birth control method. I see need for abortion in many cases Michelle,
especially if you were in danger of death or you were a victim of
forced conception. I think the better question is this. How many
abortions are done per year in the US and of those, how many were due
to life endangerment, incest, or rape? Whatever figure left over most
likely used abortion as a mode of birth control.
By the way Michelle, I wrote you off line last week to apologize for
our exchange last week and I meant it. Did you get my note? I believe
the first step to resolving conflict in the workplace and in personal
lives is dialog...especially with this issue. Do you agree with that?
-Jack
|
| 20.1721 | re: .1719 | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:35 | 11 |
| It is temporary, though. It is also preventable.
So, because it can be a terrible thing for some, that is reason enough
to terminate a life?
I hate to say this, but you have done nothing but blather on about how
*inconvenient* pregnancy is...giving that rationale to support the
choice to abort the pregnancy.
-steve
|
| 20.1722 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:41 | 18 |
| Mary Michael:
Sorry to seem insensitive to that. Inconvenience is a mild word no
doubt. Let's just say that even if Adam and Eve were fiction,
pregnancy is indeed something that physically falls under the umbrella
of a curse. Unfortunately, I am unable to walk in these shoes because
I am not anatomically correct.
Why does it have to be that way? I can't answer that...I wish I had an
answer. All I can say is that having a baby is an awesome
responsibility but it is also a great honor. Weren't you at all
euphoric when you looked at your little child for the first time? I
sure was and so was my wife Michele. It's a labor of love no doubt.
I'm rambling but what I'm saying is that women were made this way...and
that's the way it's been since the beginning of humankind. Just like
death and taxes.
-Jack
|
| 20.1723 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:44 | 24 |
| re: .1721
First off, I'm not "blathering on" about anything any more than
you are. I just don't happen to agree with you and you just don't
happen to like it. :-) Que sera sera.
Secondly, what I object to is Jack's (and yours to some extent)
rather flippant regard for the rigors of pregnancy. I agree that
is it not something you jump into. I think most people take some
precautions to prevent conception. However, a woman faced with
an unwanted pregnancy has some tough decisions ahead. Especially
if her partner doesn't want the pregnancy to continue. Especially
if her boss doesn't want a pregnant women working for him/her.
Especially if she has no real options for reasonably priced
child care. Especially if she is uneducated. Especially if
she is living in housing which does not permit children. Especially
if she has to endure the stigma of a society which still insists
on passing judgement on single women with children. If you
think we can fix all these things, I might start to agree with
you that the problem might be preventable. Until then, you're
living in a perfect world, and it's a world we're not likely
to see.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1724 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:51 | 15 |
| jack,
those same people you are describing as calling an abortion no more
than cutting a fingernail, don't exist in any clinic I have worked in
visited, or held hands with when taking a friend in. I don't know
about people who purport to speak for clinics. I just know what I have
observed.
meg
Secondly, mary michael doesn't have the half of some changes some women
go through before during and after birth. I agree with my mother that
a pregnancy takes 2 years out of a womans life. 1 for the childbearing
years (including the "4th trimester") and one for physicl and emotional
recovery.
|
| 20.1725 | question not answered...still | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:55 | 19 |
| .1720
Jmartin
Answer my question. Do YOU personally think of abortion as a form of
birth control?
Jack, re: sending mail offline. I didn't read it. After your
inflamatory remarks to me, I'm not in the habit of reading mail from
people who argue an opinion of mine. But if you apologized and I missed
it, I'm the one who should be sorry.
I'd rather keep the discussion in the topic, not in my mail. I do jump
in notes for a break from work..
You need to answer my question...
|
| 20.1726 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Mon Mar 20 1995 18:55 | 1 |
| So, pregnancy is a terrible thing, then?
|
| 20.1727 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:16 | 24 |
| Michelle:
I believe abortion can be and has been used as a form of birth control.
I don't say it is a blanket form of birth control...most definitely
not. I believe abortion has saved the lives of many expectant mothers
and as I have said, I believe abortion is necessary in many cases.
I understand your position so I will direct this next comment to the
populace at large. Abortion is obviously a wedge between peoples in
our society. It is also a wedge here within notes. To all concerned,
correspondence on a personal level can be very important...especially
EMail. Michelle isn't the first person I have apologized to.
If you receive mail from another boxer, please do not ignore it. It
may do wonders in a relationship and communication is the key to any
successful friendship or alliance.
Please leave heated termperments at the door, or become a read
only...or delete Pear::Soapbox. In my two years here, there are very
few people who loathe each other...mainly because this is a forum of
thick skinned individuals.
Rgds.,
-Jack
|
| 20.1728 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:25 | 21 |
| re: .1726
Oh for heaven's sake Steve, if you twist my words any
tighter you're going to wring them out with the letters
all in the wrong palces :-) :-)
For a woman who desires and chooses to have a child of
her own free will, pregnancy is probably one of the
most beautiful things life can hold for you. For the
women who does not choose it, it can be the curse that opens
the door to a failed life. As in most things, it is all in the
eye of the beholder. To value every life we would need to
respect it regardless of it's origin and to celebrate it
regardless of it's condition. This would indeed be a
wonderful thing, however, as a society we aren't
there yet. We can't even agree if these little lives
need lunches or medical care or adequate housing. We
are an imperfect people looking for an perfect solution.
It does not exist.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1729 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:37 | 7 |
|
Abortion is about many different things to many different people. To
SOME, it is about birth control.
Glen
|
| 20.1730 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:42 | 46 |
| Steve,
Pregnancy isn't a terrible thing, but it isn't something to be entered
into lightly either. Pregnancy can kill, as easily as it can delight.
There is a significant load on the host body, including but not limited
to the kidneys, liver, pancreas, heart, lungs, immune system, fat
metabolism, digestion, circulation, in short the whole body is
involved.
In the case of "brittle" insulin dependant diabetics this extra load
can actually kill the mother through kidney failure. (Steel Magnolias
wasn't just fiction it really does happen) Pregnancy changes the
clotting factor in some people as well as all liver functions. It
leaved permanent marks on the body, besides the obvious strechmarks,
and scars.
If you would like the short rundown of changes, read a PDR on the pill,
paying careful attention to contraindications. You will be running
into a short list of pregnancy side effects, as the pill basically
fools the body into believing it is pregnant to prevent ovulation.
This only runs through the hormonal risks, not the risks involved with
feeding, oxygenating, temperature controlling an environment for a
developing fetus.
That said, I prefer that women carry their babies to term and raise
them with love. However, I realize that this isn't an option for some
women at a given time. I won't force my choice on them, even if they
are risking their health or lives and risking leaving orphaned
children behind in continuing a pregnancy that, for them, carries a
significant risk of injury or death. FWIW this is a situation I
strongly disapprove of, just as you strongly disapprove of a woman not
carrying to term because who doesn't feel she is in a place to carry
and nurture a pregnancy to term.
To trivialize the "inconvenience" of pregnancy is to trivialize life
IMO. Pregnancy and birth are holy acts to me and are not to be entered
into by the unwilling. I delight in women who delight in their
pregnancies and birth experience. I mourn for those who don't wish to
be pregnant and the circumstances around their reasons. I mourn more
for those who can't attach to their pregnancies or births and the
resultant children who won't truly know a mother's love. I especially
mourn for those children whose mother hide their pregnancies to avoid
the wrath of their partners' or parents' and abandon their children in
trashcans, because abortion is a sin.
meg
|
| 20.1731 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Specialists in Horizontal Decorum | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:43 | 17 |
| I do not believe there is a "solution" to abortion at all...
nevermind a perfect solution. Both "sides" have good points
and bad points. But the truth is, abortion is the result of
many other societal imperfections. It is an impossible
onion to peel.
So, abortion is mainly a magnet for those who wish to fight,
to confront, to have an opinion, to have a cause. They all
get together at clinics and piss on each other and try
to dominate the media.
Same thing in here really. Abortion is a convenient excuse
to be on about something... to polarize into little groups
of "us" and "them", and ride the merry-go-round into
oblivion...
-b
|
| 20.1732 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:47 | 28 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1718 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>
> -< I serious poll. >-
> ****how many people "in this conference" think that abortion is used as
> birth control"********************************??????????????
I think that more often than not abortion is used as birth control and I'm in
favor of people having that right.
> Please answer in a serious poll. Maybe we can have a realitively
> INTELLIGENT conversation on how we can solve this problem.
This is next to impossible. Pro-lifers believe that life begins at the moment
of fertilization. They believe that before that moment the building blocks of
life are just a glob of ooz and after that moment that same slightly mixed ooz
is a human being that should have all the rights of a human being. Hence all
the "murdering baby" talk.
Pro-choicers don't buy that, feel that the magic point life becomes a human
being is somewhere around 6 months, and that what you have in the interim is
part of a woman's reproductive system over which she should have full control.
Hence all the talk of "involuntary servitude".
So what one side sees as a discussion about murder, the other side sees as
a discussion about slavery. I can't think of two more emotional topics. You
have zero chance of an intelligent discussion given those factors.
George
|
| 20.1733 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:52 | 10 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1726 by CSOA1::LEECH "Go Hogs!" >>>
> So, pregnancy is a terrible thing, then?
If a woman wants children pregnancy is a wonderful thing.
If a woman doesn't want to bear a child then pregnancy is a terrible thing
and should be aborted prior to viability.
George
|
| 20.1734 | and then there's Meowski... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:53 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.1735 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:56 | 18 |
|
RE: <<< Note 20.1733 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
> If a woman doesn't want to bear a child then pregnancy is a terrible thing
>and should be aborted prior to viability.
If a woman doesn't want to bear a child, then a man and a woman shouldn't
engage in the activity from which pregnancy has been known to result, under-
standing that there is no form of birth control that is 100% effective, of
course.
Jim
|
| 20.1736 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 20 1995 20:03 | 15 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1735 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>
> If a woman doesn't want to bear a child, then a man and a woman shouldn't
>engage in the activity from which pregnancy has been known to result, under-
>standing that there is no form of birth control that is 100% effective, of
>course.
Why not? As long as having an abortion is available and the woman is fine
with that alternative then what's the problem with using abortion for birth
control?
Of course if you feel strongly that it's wrong, then I wouldn't recommend
it for you.
George
|
| 20.1737 | Answeing one poll with another | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Mon Mar 20 1995 20:15 | 9 |
| RE: .1718
Here is my answer to the "serious poll".
I believe that abortion IN MOST CASES is used as birth control. I also base
this on a poll done by Planned Parenthood which stated that 92% of the abortions done
were for birth control reasons.
ME
|
| 20.1738 | | NITMOI::ARMSTRONG | | Mon Mar 20 1995 21:29 | 11 |
| > If a woman doesn't want to bear a child, then a man and a woman shouldn't
>engage in the activity from which pregnancy has been known to result, under-
>standing that there is no form of birth control that is 100% effective, of
>course.
Why does this argument keep coming up? Its just an extension
of whether you think abortion is murder....same old same old.
This argument is like saying that if you dont want to get hurt,
dont play sports. And if you do get hurt, tough. NO medical
treatment for you. Should have abstained.
|
| 20.1740 | Should now we expect this as typical from you? | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Mar 20 1995 22:06 | 10 |
| <<< Note 20.1706 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> And you have the right to life, until you get pregnant ...
>
> All that whining about the "right" to life except for those who happen
> to have sex in ways the fundamentalists don't approve of.
Really, Doug. I haven't heard of even the most fanatic
fundamentalist that says that a pregnant woman doesn't
have the right to life.
|
| 20.1741 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Mar 20 1995 22:08 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.1718 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>
> ****how many people "in this conference" think that abortion is used as
> birth control"********************************??????????????
I'd be interested to find out if there is anybody at all who
would deny that abortion is used for birth control.
Count me as one who believes that it gets used for birth control.
|
| 20.1739 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 20 1995 22:11 | 12 |
| re: .1737, Mark
I always find it interesting that folks on the pro-life side who are
normally intent on bad-mouthing Planned Parenthood as hatemongers
and agents for the systematic murdering of babies through the process
of brain-washing society, will then turn around and start quoting
their statistics.
Let's make up our minds. Are they lying SOB's or do they tell the
truth?
|
| 20.1742 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Mar 20 1995 22:16 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.1730 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> Pregnancy can kill, as easily as it can delight.
I find this a bit exaggerated. Really, Meg, do you think that
pregnancy delights only as infrequently as it kills.
I also find your emphasis on the problems of pregnancy a bit
heavyhanded too. Nature made the female body to be able to
handle those problems in most cases. Most pregnancies don't
even encounter many of the problems you cite, and even rarer
are cases when they compound, in contrast to your entries
seem to suggest that they are common in combination.
Sure, Meg, it happens. And most pro-life positions allow for
'life-of-the-mother abortions' in such cases.
|
| 20.1743 | | CBROWN::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Tue Mar 21 1995 01:05 | 28 |
|
RE: <<< Note 20.1738 by NITMOI::ARMSTRONG >>>
>> If a woman doesn't want to bear a child, then a man and a woman shouldn't
>>engage in the activity from which pregnancy has been known to result, under-
>>standing that there is no form of birth control that is 100% effective, of
>>course.
> Why does this argument keep coming up? Its just an extension
> of whether you think abortion is murder....same old same old.
Oh, I keep forgetting that..how silly of me.
> This argument is like saying that if you dont want to get hurt,
> dont play sports. And if you do get hurt, tough. NO medical
> treatment for you. Should have abstained.
Yep, except for the fact that this "sport" results in a living,
breathing, sleeping, being. Whatever happened to responsibility?
Jim
|
| 20.1744 | | NITMOI::ARMSTRONG | | Tue Mar 21 1995 01:35 | 8 |
| > Yep, except for the fact that this "sport" results in a living,
> breathing, sleeping, being. Whatever happened to responsibility?
If I dont believe that the early pregnancy is the equivalent
of a 'living breathing sleeping being', then the abortion
IS the responsible thing to do. So it has nothing to do
with 'responsibility', it has only to do with what you belive
you are aborting.
|
| 20.1745 | Few cases of rape/incest... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Mar 21 1995 11:00 | 10 |
|
By the way, I saw an article that said in a recent year (1993 ?)
in the entire USA, with hundreds of thousands of abortions performed,
there were exactly TWO cases of rape-related abortions seeking
government money, and none for incest. The recent heated split in
the Republican party over this may have great theoretical interest,
and no doubt mattered to the two women, but from the perspective of
national policy, this side issue is of vanishing importance.
bb
|
| 20.1746 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Tue Mar 21 1995 11:02 | 15 |
| > I always find it interesting that folks on the pro-life side who are
> normally intent on bad-mouthing Planned Parenthood as hatemongers
> and agents for the systematic murdering of babies through the process
> of brain-washing society, will then turn around and start quoting
> their statistics.
>
> Let's make up our minds. Are they lying SOB's or do they tell the
> truth?
The question does not relate to what you state before it. They (PP)
do some good things, but I disagree with them on abortion. The fact that
THEIR OWN RESEARCH gives the stat I quote ought to tell us something. By
endorsing abortion as a choice, then IMHO they endorse killing as a choice.
ME
|
| 20.1747 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Mar 21 1995 11:34 | 5 |
| > in the entire USA, with hundreds of thousands of abortions performed,
Er, there are 1.5 million abortions per year in the USA.
/john
|
| 20.1748 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 21 1995 11:57 | 8 |
| Jack:
When I hear Planned Parenthood disavowing themselves of the
philosophies of their founder, Margaret Sanger, then my respect level
will go up. Until then, I see the base of their objective as to help
rid the inner city of what she called "Human weeds and malcontents."
-Jack
|
| 20.1750 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 21 1995 12:20 | 12 |
| <<< Note 20.1737 by REFINE::KOMAR "Whoooo! Pig Suey" >>>
| Here is my answer to the "serious poll".
I believe that abortion IN MOST CASES is used as birth control. I also base
this on a poll done by Planned Parenthood which stated that 92% of the abortions done
were for birth control reasons.
________________________________________________________________________________
Here is my answer to your answer..... set terminal/width=80 :-)
|
| 20.1751 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 21 1995 12:23 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.1747 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| Er, there are 1.5 million abortions per year in the USA.
Do they use a cart?
|
| 20.1752 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 21 1995 12:25 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.1748 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| When I hear Planned Parenthood disavowing themselves of the philosophies of
| their founder, Margaret Sanger, then my respect level will go up. Until then,
| I see the base of their objective as to help rid the inner city of what she
| called "Human weeds and malcontents."
Ok Jack....let us forget all the real good that PP does and just look
at one part, and one blown out of proportion view of that one part.
Glen
|
| 20.1753 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 21 1995 12:32 | 50 |
| re: .1744
And if you are wrong, you support killing innocent humans.
Since there are so many different views on when it becomes a 'baby',
why not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt? Better to err on the
side of life, than err the other way and let it be found out later that
all the 33 million abortions (on record) were actually murders.
re: general discussion
I think this shows where society's priorities are...convenience. We
want an 'out' for our chosen behaviors.
There are many seemingly good reasons for abortion..
* can't afford a baby
* can't deal with the emotional aspect
* don't want to go through the physical changes
* not married
* don't know who the father is, or father is absent
* just not ready to have a baby
All the above are convenience issues, in truth. I don't mean to
take these things lightly, as they can be devastating, but that does
not change the fact that they are convenience issues. Such could have
been avoided by chosing to wait until times are better before engaging
in activities widely known to produce offspring. Abortion is an after
the fact solution to a problem that is easily preventable.
As long as we continue in the mindset that can rationalize the
destruction of our own offspring, we will only promote behavior that
causes unwanted pregnancies.
Let's get to the root of the issue. We all want to reduce abortions,
correct? Pro-life and pro-choice. This is what I get from reading
this topic and a similar one in another conference.
I have a question for the pro-choice group...why? Why do you want to
reduce abortion? Or do you want to reduce abortions (I could be wrong
in my assumption above)?
After I get a couple of answers, I will go to the next point in trying
to get to the root of this emotional issue.
-steve
|
| 20.1754 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 21 1995 12:37 | 12 |
| Joe,
I said as easily, not as often, your reading comprehension is at about
the same high level it always has been at.
The human female body may be "built to carry babies," but you can't
deny the fact that there are often problems of varying severity. Well
you could deny it, but it wouldn't make it true. Calling a pregnancy
an "inconvenience" trivializes the entire pregnancy and birth process,
and makes the women involved unimportant IMO.
meg
|
| 20.1755 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 21 1995 12:38 | 21 |
| In answer to your poll, I guess it depends on what you define
"birth control" to be. If a women is using adequate protection and/or
her partner is as well, then I would not consider an aborted
pregnancy resulting from that situation to be abortion as
birth control.
If neither partner is attempting to use birth control correctly,
or is using something which is pretty ineffective by itself (such
as the rhythm method), then I would consider an aborted pregnancy
resulting from that situation to be abortion as birth control.
Does it occur? Of course it does, I can think of at least 3
women I knew in college (myself included) who practiced the
"I'm not going to get pregnant this time" method of birth
control. And I think it happens a lot more often to women with
low self-esteem. And I think the low self-esteem is a product
of the society in which we, as women were raised.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1756 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 21 1995 12:44 | 5 |
| RE: .1699
Nobody bit... huh Meowski???
Maybe you should change your bait? Or find a new fishing hole?
|
| 20.1757 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 21 1995 12:52 | 37 |
| re: .1753
I suppose you could argue "convenience" for a lot of things.
It's easier to whack your child that attempt to convince him or her
that their behavior was not acceptable. That's a "convenience"
issue too, but we as a society don't seem to have as much of a
problem with that.
Why would a pro-choice person want to reduce the numbers of
abortions? I'm assuming if you've asked that that you have
not known a woman who has been mentally, emotionally or
physcially scarred by one. You don't know someone who
could tell you the age of their aborted child, down to
months. You don't know someone who experiences grief and
mood swings during the month the child would have been
born as well as the month in which the abortion occurred.
You don't know someone who finds it difficult to interact
with life-long friends once they have families of their
own. Who refuses to have any more children of her own
because she is convinced she doesn't deserve them. Who
finds it difficult to love or trust anyone because she is
convinced she will be hurt again. Who will avoid sexual
intercourse at all costs and in all situations. Some women
can sail through the procedure without another thought. Others do
not. And of the ones who do not, the experience of one or more
of the symptoms I've listed above is quite common.
In this country we do not make a point of raising strong,
self-sufficient, independent women with a lot of self-confidence
and high self-esteem. If we did, I think abortion and it's
side-effects would be a lot less common. As long as there
is a woman who thinks, "he won't love me unless I do this
for him," there will be abortion.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1758 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 21 1995 13:07 | 20 |
|
I real in the fishing line and what do I find but:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<< Note 20.1756 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>
RE: .1699
Nobody bit... huh Meowski???
Maybe you should change your bait? Or find a new fishing hole?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack asked a question, I gave an answer. It was never meant to be bait. The
fact that he didn't respond suggests to me that he is satisfied with my
answer.
George
|
| 20.1759 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 21 1995 13:09 | 8 |
| Why do I want to reduce abortions?
Actually I want to reduce unplanned pregnancies. As I have said, ANY
pregnancy, no matter what the outcome is a life-changing event. There
are major decisions that must be made quickly. I want to see BC
improved so there are fewer of these decisions.
meg
|
| 20.1760 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 21 1995 13:15 | 4 |
| re: .-2
reel
|
| 20.1761 | | NITMOI::ARMSTRONG | | Tue Mar 21 1995 13:24 | 18 |
| I would consider it irresponsible to play soccer without shin guards.
Or to box without a mouth guard. Or Ice hockey without a helmet.
So when you play, you take the proper precautions.
But if you get injured anyway, despite the protection, you seek
medical treatment.
I view abortion in the same light....take the proper precautions,
because prevention is always better than 'the cure'. Abortion
is not 'protection', and protection is always preferable to treatment.
So, yep, I want to reduce abortions. Also fillings in my teeth.
So I support tooth brushing. And pregnancy protection.
Dont avoid eating to prevent tooth decay. But if you get
cavaties, see the dentist.
bob
|
| 20.1762 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 21 1995 13:27 | 4 |
|
Bob, what an interesting way of describing it. I'm impressed!
|
| 20.1763 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 15:15 | 8 |
| <<< Note 20.1754 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> Calling a pregnancy
> an "inconvenience" trivializes the entire pregnancy and birth process,
> and makes the women involved unimportant IMO.
And you, Meg, trivialize the life that is terminated by abortion,
and make the baby unimportant.
|
| 20.1764 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 15:18 | 17 |
| <<< Note 20.1757 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
> It's easier to whack your child that attempt to convince him or her
> that their behavior was not acceptable. That's a "convenience"
> issue too, but we as a society don't seem to have as much of a
> problem with that.
Society has a problem with it if the whacking results in a
dead child. Abortion is the ultimate whacking, and it is
currently state-sanctioned. And you support it too.
> Why would a pro-choice person want to reduce the numbers of
> abortions? [ List of abortion-scars here. ]
Are we to assume that the items on your list of scars from
abortion are still preferred over the costs of carrying the
baby to term?
|
| 20.1765 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 21 1995 15:39 | 33 |
| Well Joe, lets go over the scars from carrying to term:
Some people want to further stigmatize births out of wedlock and
their mothers, to the point of cutting children off from any safety net
in this country. this isn't going to scar both the mother and the
child?
Some women do suffer severely from postpartum depression. In some
cases this can lead to child abuse, death of the child, and in serious
cases suicide as well. but this is not a scar?
Some women give their children up for adoption and the social
workers even have names for birth mothers that are less than
flattering, deceptive, deviant, and unloving are three that come to
mind. Other people look at women who give up their children as
unnatural as well. Do you think this doesn't scar?
Far too many catholic and other conservative women choose to have
abortions so that the evidence that they "boink" outside of the
confines of wedlock is unknown to the main congregation, but they
aren't scarred by their religion?
come on Joe, you have supported the ultimate whacking of born children
wanting to put a stop to the safety net for "immoral women" and their
nameless offspring. Do you honestly believe that your programs are
going to drop the number of abortions in this country? The council of
Bishops doesn't seem to think so. do you honestly believe you will
stop people from having "immoral" sex?
Try a dose of reality.
meg
|
| 20.1766 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 21 1995 15:55 | 17 |
| re: .1764
Society has a problem with the death of any living, breathing
human being. The fact that abortion is legal says that society
doesn't consider a fetus a living breathing human being. Until
such time as that changes, that's the definition we use.
As to your second point, there is not much I am add to what
Meg said, except perhaps this: if you support taking away the
lifelines that women need to help them get a foothold after
the birth of their child, and if you support the practice of
stigmatizing the single parent to enforce your moral standards,
then I would have to conclude that you are using this issue
as an excuse to oppress women, which is something I have
believed all along.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1767 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 15:56 | 9 |
| Geez, Meg. You are a veritable encyclopedia of gloom. What
a rotten view of humanity you have! You have plenty of "some
people" examples, but you know as well as I do that they are
not very representative.
There is a new newspaper being published in the Colorado Springs
area called Be Positive, dedicated solely to reporting the GOOD
things that are happening. You could use a shot of some positive
thinking, I think.
|
| 20.1768 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 21 1995 16:18 | 16 |
| Mary Michael:
I see this as a criminal issue...breaking the natural law if you will.
I have absolutely no interest in impeding on your free rights as a
woman. The only time I attempt to interfere in the business of women
is:
1. They have sought my advice.
2. Church issuesin the area of church policy.
3. Individual rights impede on the rights of others.
4. Individual rights are criminal (Natural and written law!)
-Jack
|
| 20.1769 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 21 1995 16:28 | 14 |
| Jack:
This I think is the crux of the issue. I believe that if
you (collective) are proposing legislation which dictates
sets of circumstances in which women lose the ability to
exercise control over their own bodies, then women are
being oppressed.
You view it as natural law taking precedence. I view it
as the heavy hand of a patriarchal society.
It's probably unresolvable.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1770 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 21 1995 16:46 | 7 |
| Mary Michael:
I believe I need permission from my wife before I can get a vasectomy.
This is what I heard it is in New Hampshire. What do you think of
that?
-Jack
|
| 20.1771 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 21 1995 16:53 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.1763 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| And you, Meg, trivialize the life that is terminated by abortion, and make the
| baby unimportant.
Joe, to disagree with what she, or anyone believes is fine. But please
don't go putting words into their mouths, ok? If one does not believe that the
fetus is a baby, then your, "and make the baby unimportant" statement is kind
of useless. Her beliefs state differently, and you can disagree with her
beliefs. But you can't say what you did if it does not apply to her.
Glen
|
| 20.1772 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 21 1995 17:05 | 11 |
| re: .1770
That seems a little weird to me. I would think that you
would discuss it anyway, as I would think a husband and wife
would discuss a pregnancy or a histerectomy or any other
medical procedure, but I think a law regulating that is
kind of needless.
Did you expect me to think otherwise?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1773 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 17:15 | 21 |
| <<< Note 20.1771 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>
> Joe, to disagree with what she, or anyone believes is fine. But please
>don't go putting words into their mouths, ok?
Then you should be chastizing Meg in the same way, for she did
no less. However I do not expect you to because you are not
obsessed with her.
>If one does not believe that the
>fetus is a baby, then your, "and make the baby unimportant" statement is kind
>of useless.
Only useless to them. It is not useless to the truth that biology
tells us. It is not useless to the pro-life movement. It should
not be useless to you, given your stated position on this issue,
so I don't understand why you are arguing with it.
> But you can't say what you did if it does not apply to her.
I can, and I did. Next question...
|
| 20.1774 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 21 1995 17:45 | 17 |
| So who passes natural laws anyway?
Do we get to vote on them directly or do we get to elect someone who votes
on them? Don't tell me they are created by some government appointee.
I always thought that "natural laws" were things like:
Bodies in space will attract each other at a rate inversely proportional
to their mass
A moving fluid exerts less pressure than a standing fluid
Heat is work and work is heat
That sort of thing,
George
|
| 20.1775 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 21 1995 18:21 | 22 |
| Jack,
It is a natural fact that at least 6 out of 10 conceptions
spontaneously abort. Are you planning to complain to your god about
his or her decisions surrounding this? A lot of those conceptions were
wanted, are you going to argue with your diety?
BTW it seems you belive in not supporting born children, in nutrition,
education, housing or even parenting needs. How can you believe it is
a natural law to worry about children inside the womb when you appear
so compassion impaired about born, breathing people outside of your
family?
Joe, I at least add IMO to my opinion that you trivialize life with
your views around pregnancy and inconvenience. It will always be my
opinion when people make this statement. I can't believe that the
father of several children, and apparently planning more could
trivialize the mother of his own children and her experiences this way,
but I am a woman and mother of three kids, and you are not.
meg
|
| 20.1776 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 21 1995 18:36 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 20.1773 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| > Joe, to disagree with what she, or anyone believes is fine. But please
| >don't go putting words into their mouths, ok?
| Then you should be chastizing Meg in the same way, for she did no less.
| However I do not expect you to because you are not obsessed with her.
I didn't see that in her note(s). Could you point it out to me?
| It is not useless to the pro-life movement. It should not be useless to you,
| given your stated position on this issue, so I don't understand why you are
| arguing with it.
That's just it Joe. I agree the fetus is a baby. But I also acknowledge
that not everyone BELIEVES that. So if I were to say they don't care for the
baby's life cuz they are aborting it, what I have just said would be false. If
they do not believe the fetus to be a baby, then it has nothing at all to do
with who they care or don't care about. That is what I am arguing with you
about. To say they don't care is wrong.
Glen
|
| 20.1777 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 18:39 | 25 |
| <<< Note 20.1775 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> It is a natural fact that at least 6 out of 10 conceptions
> spontaneously abort. Are you planning to complain to your god about
> his or her decisions surrounding this? A lot of those conceptions were
> wanted, are you going to argue with your diety?
What an absurd statement.
If you are dealing with someone who is pro-life from a religious
perspective, the point is that only God should have the power to
decide when a baby's life ends. They are pwefectly willing to
submit to God's decisions surrounding this. They believe that
it should never be man's (or woman's, if you must) decision when
the baby's life should end.
> Joe, I at least add IMO to my opinion that you trivialize life with
> your views around pregnancy and inconvenience.
Well I'm sorry that you don't have enough faith in yourself
that you have to trivialize your position as being merely
your opinion.
I wouldn't have faith in myself either if I were relying on
the positions and arguments you choose.
|
| 20.1778 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 21 1995 18:50 | 18 |
| | <<< Note 20.1777 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| If you are dealing with someone who is pro-life from a religious perspective,
| the point is that only God should have the power to decide when a baby's life
| ends. They are perfectly willing to submit to God's decisions surrounding this
| They believe that it should never be man's (or woman's, if you must) decision
| when the baby's life should end.
Well Joe, then either you are not pro-life from a religious perspective
or you just lied above. Your position on rape, incest, or mother's life in
danger have been made to the tune that it is up to the mother. Is the above
only a part time thing for ya, did ya lie, or are ya just not pro-life from a
religious perspective?
Glen
|
| 20.1779 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 18:50 | 28 |
| <<< Note 20.1776 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>
> That's just it Joe. I agree the fetus is a baby. But I also acknowledge
> that not everyone BELIEVES that.
I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. I believe that it
is a choice. I believe that homosexuality is no different from
being (for instance) a democrat. But you sure argue vehemently
against my position.
What's the difference?
> So if I were to say they don't care for the
> baby's life cuz they are aborting it, what I have just said would be false.
So when you say that I don't care about homosexuals' rights, that
must be a false statement too.
> If they do not believe the fetus to be a baby ...
Then they must believe that other things are more important, thus
they care less about the baby than other things.
> then it has nothing at all to do
> with who they care or don't care about.
I disagree, for they obviously care about something else more
if they make the baby less important than those other things.
|
| 20.1780 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 18:51 | 3 |
| <<< Note 20.1778 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>
I've explained this to you before.
|
| 20.1781 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:01 | 41 |
| | <<< Note 20.1779 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. I believe that it is a choice.
| I believe that homosexuality is no different from being (for instance) a
| democrat. But you sure argue vehemently against my position. What's the
| difference?
You still don't get it, do you..... you can disagree with anyone on
anything. But in the case of you saying that <insert person> does not care
about the baby because they abort is a false statement. You can not put words
into their mouths.
| So when you say that I don't care about homosexuals' rights, that must be a
| false statement too.
I'm not the only one who has mentioned your reading comprehension. Go
reread the above Joe.
| > If they do not believe the fetus to be a baby ...
| Then they must believe that other things are more important, thus they care
| less about the baby than other things.
Wow...... what a reach this was. Joe, that has got to be the most
stupid thing you have said. Now we're back to the world according to Joe again.
| > then it has nothing at all to do
| > with who they care or don't care about.
| I disagree, for they obviously care about something else more if they make
| the baby less important than those other things.
Let's look at this from a reality perspective:
I disagree, for they obviously care about something else more if they make the
not considered a life fetus less important than those other things.
Using the word baby in there, IF they do not believe it is one, makes
it a false statement. To use the above brings it in line.
|
| 20.1782 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:03 | 18 |
| Joe,
I at least don't call my opinions of your "facts" anything more than my
opinions, it would be nice if you could learn to do the same.
Ye there are things more important than the fetus, like the living,
breathing woman, her partner, and any of her current and future
children. The minor details of life.
Do you still operate from the assumption that illegalizing abortion
will put stop to it, or do you just not care about endangering born,
breathing women, one of whom could be your daughter one day? Have you
chosen to ignore what happened in Romania? I know the 200,000 dead
born, breathing women each year in the world from places where
abortion is illegal are easy for some to ignore, but can you also
ignore their now motherless children?
meg
|
| 20.1783 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:05 | 7 |
| Joe,
Out of curiosity have you a REALISTIC idea to reduce the number of
unplanned pregnancies in this world? this is the key to reducing
abortions, not making abortion illegal and/or unsafe.
meg
|
| 20.1784 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:17 | 54 |
| re: 1774 [natural laws]
What our founding fathers believed as being self-evident, we have lost in
the mire of moral relativism.
Inalienable rights are those granted to all by the Creator, life being
one the FF penned in the Declaration of Independence. If these are
rights granted by the Creator, why do we limit them with viability
semantics? Is the unborn a unique human life or not? If yes, then
viability is irrelevent (which science is making more and more
irrelevent as time goes on anyway). It is human and has the right to
life.
The offspring is not there of its own volition, if it were, it
would truly be a parasite and abortion would be no more of a moral issue
than getting a tapeworm removed. Since it is the willfull action of
the parents who create the new life, I find it appalling that
an educated society can rationalize the destruction of its own
offspring for relativistic rationale.
Our values determine who we are as a society. What do 1.5 million
abortions a year tell you about our society? I wonder what an
intellegent race from another planet (should one exist), one that
values life as we claim to, would think of us. We go to such great
lengths to protect spotted owls and eagles and other animal life to the
point of harming our own people, yet when it comes to our own
offspring, we legalize the killing...as long as it is not outside the
mother's body.
It saddens me that we can rationalize this killing due to
circumstances. It saddens me that we rationalize killing as a choice and a
freedom. And it saddens me that many would rather kill their offspring
than give birth, giving it a chance at life with an adopted
family (because they do not want to carry to term).
I know all about the reasons and the rationalizations and the emtional
pain, etc., etc. Two family members have had abortions. You play, you
can get burned. All the rationalizations in the world will not make it
right to cover up one "sin" with another. If you cannot control
yourself, at least take responsibility for your own actions and for the
innocent life that you helped to create.
Oddly enough, as long as abortions are legal, the need for them will
always be steady. If you will track the number of abortions from the
70's to the present, you will see that legalizing abortion has created its
own industry. The figures rise every year from Roe v. Wade to 1992,
where it levels out (oddly enough, it levels out in a time when having
sex is well known to be a risky deal, as AIDS awareness is in full
force).
-steve
|
| 20.1785 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:20 | 9 |
| Meg:
Since you brought God into the picture...no, I have no right to
complain about what God decides. He is the potter, we are the clay.
And I do care very much for the well being of children. Welfare reform
doesn't mean not caring for children.
-Jack
|
| 20.1786 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:29 | 17 |
| Steve,
Small nit, the information you have isn't quite right. Abortions have
not climbed steadily, they have remained fairly constant, and actually
have started dropping (1.3 million aboritons for 1993 the last year
stats were available) FWIW the pregnancy rate for all women also
dropped that year.
Steve, you are one of the people I consider antiabortion rather than
pro-life. You don't want abortion legal, but you also have stated
your opinions about people who need help to support a pregnancy or the
children who are the inevitable result if the pregnancy isn't
terminated by the parent or nature. I truly don't understand how a
person could weep over fetuses, but turn their back on born breathing
people. If you could enlighten me it would be most appreciated.
meg
|
| 20.1787 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:34 | 12 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1779 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
> I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. I believe that it
> is a choice. I believe that homosexuality is no different from
> being (for instance) a democrat. But you sure argue vehemently
> against my position.
What do you base this on? Every gay person I've ever talked to has said that
being gay was something they discovered about themselves when they were in
their teens. That is consistent with surveys I've read on the same topic.
George
|
| 20.1788 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:39 | 16 |
| jack,
tell that to the American council of Bishops. They consider the
current Contract on Children (ahem with america) to encourage abortion.
specifically the sections on denying benifits to women under the age of
18 who have children, denying increased benifits when someone has
another baby while still on AFDC, and the attacks on nutrition programs
for children. It is probably one of the only time the CoB and I have
an agreement.
True welfare reform could make a difference, but tossing kids out with
no training, no safty net, no education and no possibility of a life,
is anti-life IMO, and apparently that of the upper echelons of the
Catholic Church.
meg
|
| 20.1789 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:40 | 20 |
| <<< Note 20.1781 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>
> You still don't get it, do you.....
Actually, I just don't buy your argument.
> Wow...... what a reach this was. Joe, that has got to be the most
>stupid thing you have said. Now we're back to the world according to Joe again.
When you are ready to address the subject and stay away from ad
hominems, let me know.
> Let's look at this from a reality perspective:
Are you saying that YOU get to define "reality"?
>I disagree, for they obviously care about something else more if they make the
>not considered a life fetus less important than those other things.
Why are you trying to argue for the pro-choice position?
|
| 20.1790 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:41 | 18 |
| .1779
> I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic. I believe that it
> is a choice.
Explain to me, then, why my brother-in-law fought desperately against
his homosexual leanings, dating but never enjoying it, and undergoing
extensive counseling, until he was roughly 30 - and then finally gave
in and admitted that he is what he is. At which point he alienated
roughly 60% of his friends, including his brother, a fundamentalist
Christian who has said to his face (and this a direct quotation),
"You're going to hell, but I love you anyway," and one of his sisters,
also a fundamentalist Christian. It took him several years to get
up the courage to admit his homosexuality to his mother because he knew
how much it would hurt her. (She's a devout Catholic.)
Joe, people simply DO NOT choose to destroy their worlds so they can
have fun boinking members of the same sex.
|
| 20.1791 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:43 | 36 |
| <<< Note 20.1784 by CSOA1::LEECH "Go Hogs!" >>>
> Inalienable rights are those granted to all by the Creator, life being
> one the FF penned in the Declaration of Independence.
As I recall the Inalienable rights spoken of by the founding fathers had
to do with individual freedom that could not be taken away by the state.
Passing a law forcing women into slavery for 9 months sounds like the
exact opposite of Inalienable rights.
> Is the unborn a unique human life or not?
Of course it is, so is a human egg. Both are human, both are alive, both have
a unique genetic code.
>Since it is the willful action of
> the parents who create the new life, I find it appalling that
> an educated society can rationalize the destruction of its own
> offspring for relativistic rationale.
So if someone through their willful action creates a cancer by smoking
cigarettes to we protect that life as well?
> Our values determine who we are as a society. What do 1.5 million
> abortions a year tell you about our society?
... that 1.5 million people were not forced into slavery.
>I wonder what an
> intelligent race from another planet (should one exist), one that
> values life as we claim to, would think of us.
... most likely they would think that we'd go well with a little mustard
sauce and a bottle of Chablis.
George
|
| 20.1792 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:44 | 6 |
| Those who insist homosexuality is a choice can never answer the
question of when they "decided" to be heterosexual. The decision
point. The moment when they could have gone either way. The moment
they had the "choice".
DougO
|
| 20.1793 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:47 | 4 |
|
DougO, that's because the very idea of choice is repulsive to these people.
George
|
| 20.1794 | | ABACUS::MINICHINO | | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:50 | 18 |
| .1784
STEVE,
Hello....are you counting the ones that we KNOW about or all of the
abortions before Roe vs wade? Because, genious, what we don't know
about doesn't exist......RIGHT?????? how many woman were sent off to a
BOARDING school for a year, or how many woman were sent to a SCHOOL far
away for a couple of months, better yet smarty pants, how many deaths
were associated with illegal abortions as opposed to a "complication"
form surgery?????
oh I forgot, science and reality aren't part of your world...sorry
steve, you stepped into it. Just because we don't know about it,
doesn't mean it doesn't happen....
|
| 20.1795 | | ABACUS::MINICHINO | | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:56 | 6 |
| .1792
wow...well put doug. I always assumed I was born heterosexual. I never
thought it was a choice. I guess when you put it in perspective, it
makes sence. Wow!
|
| 20.1796 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 19:57 | 45 |
| 20.1797 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 20:02 | 5 |
| re .1787 (George) .1790 (Dick)
That's a rathole. I only used that as a point of comparison.
If you really want to discuss that issue, post it to an
appropriate topic.
|
| 20.1798 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Tue Mar 21 1995 20:09 | 10 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1797 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
> That's a rathole. I only used that as a point of comparison.
> If you really want to discuss that issue, post it to an
> appropriate topic.
Well you seem to be the rat that dug the hole along about .1779. We were only
responding to your note.
George
|
| 20.1799 | Your shovel now. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 20:12 | 7 |
| <<< Note 20.1798 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
Like I said, I merely used it for comparison.
> Well you seem to be the rat that dug the hole along
And with .1797 (and this reply) I've filled in the hole.
|
| 20.1800 | Just wondering. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue Mar 21 1995 21:05 | 16 |
| Gee, this note keeps going round and round and never quite gets
anywhere. I wonder if per chance someone on the pro-abortion side
might respond to a question a raised quite awhile ago. It was a simple
question, really.
It is, what would happen to people's behavior regarding the conception
of children if abortion were totally illegal. Not only were they
illegal but anyone identified as having or conducting an abortion were
treated a murderers.
Do you think, just maybe, that there would be a whole lot less
unplanned and unwanted pregnancies?
If so, then what we're dealing with is behavior and attitudes about
pregnanciy and responsibility, not rights.
|
| 20.1801 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 21 1995 22:16 | 13 |
| re: .1800
What's your point? I could answer you just as easily by
saying "What would happen if having children was illegal,
and every time you brought a new life into the world, a
member of your extended family had to be killed. Wouldn't
there be a whole lot less births? I guess that proves that
having children is not a right but a behavior."
Where does that get us?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1802 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 21 1995 22:38 | 7 |
| You could say that, Mary-Michael, but I'd consider your scenario
as being absurd.
To save you the trouble, I understand that you might consider
.1800 equally absurd.
I find that telling.
|
| 20.1803 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Mar 22 1995 01:38 | 13 |
| re: .1802
What you're talking about is simply numbers. Raw lives.
No quality of life. No provisions for attaining quality
of life. No responsiblity for withholding the creation
of life until it can be provided for, even within the
bonds of marriage. Just let 'em procreate and God
will kill 'em off with pestilence, famine (sp?) and
war when there get to be too many of 'em.
I find that telling.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1804 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Mar 22 1995 12:10 | 20 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1800 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
> It is, what would happen to people's behavior regarding the conception
> of children if abortion were totally illegal. Not only were they
> illegal but anyone identified as having or conducting an abortion were
> treated a murderers.
>
> Do you think, just maybe, that there would be a whole lot less
> unplanned and unwanted pregnancies?
I doubt this would happen but even if it did so what? With abortion available
as a last resort form of birth control unwanted pregnancies are far less of
a problem than they would be without abortion.
So maybe unwanted pregnancies would go down 10%, 20% or a bit more but look
at the costs involved in prosecuting and incarcerating doctors, increased risk
of illegal abortions and the resulting medical costs, and the rest. Allowing
abortion on demand seems a whole lot simpler.
George
|
| 20.1805 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 22 1995 12:46 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.1797 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| That's a rathole. I only used that as a point of comparison.
But it doesn't change what they said about it. Between Dick's boinking
story and DougO's question, they disspelled your view very easily. What is even
more impressive is neither one is gay, yet they had the correct answer. Living
in reality Joe is something you should try at some point.
Glen
|
| 20.1806 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 22 1995 12:47 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.1799 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
| And with .1797 (and this reply) I've filled in the hole.
Hey... Joe has filled his own hole..... how nice of you to share...
|
| 20.1807 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:31 | 21 |
| .1800
WHEN WILL YOU IDJITS GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS THAT THERE IS NO
PRO-ABORTION SIDE HERE????
Sorry, but this continued insistence on incorrect terms really grates.
The two sides of the discussion are:
anti-choice (called by themselves pro-life)
pro-choice (called by themselves pro-choice, called pro-abortion by the
anti-choice side)
Which side is using the loaded language here?
I am not pro-abortion. Abortion, especially as a means of birth
control, is repugnant to me. But, because I am repelled even more by
the people who arrogate to themselves the right to dictate other
people's morals and live choices, I am pro-choice. NOT pro-abortion.
Got it?
|
| 20.1808 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:34 | 8 |
| > <<< Note 20.1807 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>
>> WHEN WILL YOU IDJITS GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS THAT THERE IS NO
>> PRO-ABORTION SIDE HERE????
Good question. Answer: never.
It is utterly hopeless to think they ever will.
|
| 20.1809 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:34 | 3 |
| > Which side is using the loaded language here?
Both.
|
| 20.1810 | Pardon me - I think this is where I came in . . . | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:35 | 5 |
| re: .1807,.1808, Dick & Di
(I share your frustrations. I can also now predict the response, as well
can both of you, I'm sure.)
|
| 20.1811 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:39 | 11 |
| re: .1794
Reading comprehension impaired today, I see.
I said specifically, 'track the abortion numbers from Roe v. Wade on
up'. It takes quite a leap for the first 10 years, though it does level
off in the 90's (a time when AIDS is no longer looked upon as a "gay"
disease, putting a bit of fear into the heterosexual population).
-steve
|
| 20.1812 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:42 | 25 |
| Dick:
It is impossible to set a standard like this because both sides see the
fetus in two entirely different ways. If the fetus were in fact not a
person or a human, then I would agree that it is repugnant to interfere
in the privacy aspect. I wouldn't anybody interfering in my choice to
have a vasectomy for example. This is an invasion of privacy and is
unconstitutional.
So try to follow the thought process here. Since prolifers are defined
as such because they believe the fetus is entitled to personhood, then
they are acting as one who would be saving the life of another. As
somebody who is pro choice, you are equated to a Nazi sympathizer which
to a prolifer is also repugnant. No offense!
Therefore the terminology from your POV is correct but since a
prolifers POV is also as real to them as yours is to you, then their
terminology is also correct. Dick, I used to be quite confused with
your stand on this. You actually have the same feelings about it as
one who opposes abortion, yet you find the law of the land to take
prescedence over that of a living being. This to me is indifference
which holds no merit. No offense Dick, just telling you how I feel
about it.
-Jack
|
| 20.1813 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:50 | 16 |
| Jack,
You state this as if it were a fact -
> As somebody who is pro choice, you are equated to a Nazi sympathizer
It is not. It is not even a viewpoint universally held by all people
who are pro-life.
The Nazi/Slave-owner analogies are tedious at best. Please stop using
them.
I've gotten to the point that I really don't wish to participate in the
substance of this topic anymore, but I still get sick and tired of reading
the same old hackneyed B.S. (Nazi/slave-owner) over and over and over again.
|
| 20.1814 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:50 | 16 |
| re: .1812
Jack,
Most people who are pro-choice do not view a fetus as a
living, breathing human being to be allocated the same rights
as any citizen of this country. Most pro-choice people view
that the rights of the mother take precedence. It is an
opinion which, while you may not share it, is quite valid.
Hint: Trying to have a rational debate with someone and
them resorting to calling or comparing them with Nazis
probably won't get you listened to and certainly won't
solve the problem. :-)
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1815 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:53 | 32 |
| .1812
Jack,
> yet you find the law of the land to take
> prescedence over that of a living being.
Precedence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuite of happiness."
You will note that the wording does not say all persons, born and
unborn. You will further note that it does indeed say "liberty,"
which right is certainly denied if a woman is not permitted to decide
her own moral position and how she will conduct the affairs of her
life.
I don't care about the law of the land in this matter, Jack, I care
about something more important. As a Christian, I believe that my God
loves me so much that he will not force me to do anything. And that he
loves other humans just as much. I challenge you to find ONE passage
among the words of Jesus in which it is said that we should pass laws
to force other people to do what we think is right. Righeousness comes
not of following the law but of following the Lord. But we're human -
and we're all different, and we all see the Lord's hand in different
ways. To impose your personal view of God on me, when you are aware
that my view of him differs to some unmeasurable degree, is the utmost
in hubris. It is you telling me that you know better than I what is
right for me. And my response is to tell you to stuff it.
|
| 20.1816 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Wed Mar 22 1995 14:57 | 41 |
| Note 20.1786 CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik"
> Small nit, the information you have isn't quite right. Abortions have
> not climbed steadily, they have remained fairly constant, and actually
> have started dropping (1.3 million aboritons for 1993 the last year
> stats were available) FWIW the pregnancy rate for all women also
> dropped that year.
You are correct about recent trends. It has been steady around the 1.5
million/year mark for several years. What you ignore is the dramatic
rise each and every year after Roe v. Wade (you can discount the year
of this ruling and the next, if you like, but the next 10 years see a
dramatic rise which is my point).
The fact that AIDS has hit the scene in the heterosexual population and
all the hubbub about condoms and 'safe sex', etc., may have done much
to reduce one-night stands and promiscuity...at least promiscuity with
the recklace abandon of the 70's. It is not coincidental that abortions
decrease in this day and age, as people are forced with the fact that
sex can kill you in a miserable way.
> Steve, you are one of the people I consider antiabortion rather than
> pro-life. You don't want abortion legal, but you also have stated
> your opinions about people who need help to support a pregnancy or the
> children who are the inevitable result if the pregnancy isn't
> terminated by the parent or nature.
And what were my statements? You don't mention them here, you merely
put your label on me and let it go. How convenient.
> I truly don't understand how a
> person could weep over fetuses, but turn their back on born breathing
> people. If you could enlighten me it would be most appreciated.
I don't. Promoting the ideal of private charity over an impersonal
monthly government check (assuming it is my stance of welfare reform-
not exactly a directly comparable issue) is not turning my back on
people, as you put it.
-steve
|
| 20.1817 | Pro-Abortion ... riggghhhttt | CLYDE::KOWALEWICZ_M | The Ballad of the Lost C'Mell | Wed Mar 22 1995 15:05 | 5 |
|
I don't seem to see or hear about woman who say, " I have to get pregnant so I
can go have an abortion."
kb
|
| 20.1818 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Mar 22 1995 15:10 | 26 |
| > It is, what would happen to people's behavior regarding the conception
> of children if abortion were totally illegal. Not only were they
> illegal but anyone identified as having or conducting an abortion were
> treated a murderers.
> [...]
> If so, then what we're dealing with is behavior and attitudes about
> pregnanciy and responsibility, not rights.
What we're dealing with is moralistic attitudes about SEX, Rocush.
Your side sees pregnancy as a deserved result for engaging in SEX.
Those of us who see it as a side effect, who see SEX as a perfectly
legitimate activity in its own right, see pregnancy differently, as
something to be avoided by responsible birth control when possible and
as something to be DEALT WITH responsibly when birth control fails.
And my definition of DEALING WITH it differs from yours, in that mine
accepts abortion as among the possible responsible ways of dealing with
the side effect of pregnancy.
Now, given that we have different notions of "responsible" behavior,
and given that you want to criminalize what I see as perfectly responsible
behavior, we do indeed have to talk about rights. The right of the
state to impose one group's religiously-founded notion of "responsible"
upon others, in particular. Which right the state, in this country,
doesn't have, and never will.
DougO
|
| 20.1819 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 22 1995 15:32 | 50 |
| Dick, Jack, Mary Michael and others:
I realize the argument is over used and tedious. I was simply pointing
out that this is what alot of anti abortion people think. This is why
abortion is such a heated debate. Again Dick it is a matter of belief
since science has been inconclusive in this matter. The founding
fathers did not hold the corner market on who was considered a person
and who wasn't. Heck, those people had slaves themselves so using the
beginning of the Declaration of Independence to support that freedom
doesn't expand beyond the womb is fallacious.
I think what has actually happened is this. In 1973 Roe v. Wade became
law throughout the country. It is one of those rights that I'm afraid
is dividing the country...and one where you are asking more than the
citizenry is willing to give. You find that repugnant? Based on your
belief system it may very well be. I see it used today as a violation
of human rights. Those who feel this way are using their own free time
to make their position known. That's democracy my friend.
By the way, when I started noting here, I had no intention of really
being able to change anybody's mind on this. I'm just debating the
issue because it brings me awareness of other positions...and it also
allows me to make statements that try to foster thinking. Some of them
may have been absurd but notes has been the first and only opportunity
for me to do this. This is why the emotionalism, the capitalizing of
words, etc. is moot in my book. Like, what were you expecting?
Regarding the religious question which was brought up by Dick and not
me...
Biblical exegesis on telling people how to act, the Bible
is loaded with references on the aspects of Godly living and how we are
to react to ungodly living. Again, abortion to me isn't a moral issue
or a woman's issue. It is a justice issue. Therefore, this would
default to the old "Thou shalt not murder" commandment...but hey, that
is once again another old argument. Last comment regarding religion
and abortion. I believe, in my opinion, that the process of birth is a
two sided coin. It is an act that is sacred and requires the utmost
dedication and responsibility...just as answering the draft is to a
soldier. When one is pregnant, I believe it is a calling that God gave
to women. I see abortion as the benedict arnold act. It is taking the
stewardship of child rearing and basically selling it out. The other
side of the coin is that it is a true labor...it is inconvenient,
painful, uncomfortable, and this all falls under the curse in my
opinion. Nevertheless, it is a person the mother has been entrusted
with. If my neighbor left her baby on my door step, I wouldn't throw
it in a dumpster, I would be called to care for it.
I'm sorry if I hurt anybody here. Nothing is black and white, I
realize this. I believe pregnany is the responsibility of the mother
AND the father.
|
| 20.1820 | some day... | WONDER::BOISSE | | Wed Mar 22 1995 15:32 | 14 |
|
re:Note 20.1784 by CSOA1::LEECH...
>> I wonder what an intellegent race from another planet (should one exist),
>> one that values life as we claim to, would think of us.
For the sake of religions everywhere, you better PRAY that we never actually
come in contact with some alien race. It would, for once and for all, put
our very existence into perspective. Maybe then we'd think of stepping down
off the pedestal we feel we need to rise up above everything else. Speaking
for myself, I can't wait for that day to happen...
-Bob
|
| 20.1821 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Mar 22 1995 15:43 | 18 |
| Actually there is a small pro-abortion side and there is a difference between
them and pro-choice.
The pro-abortion groups believes abortion should be legal but they also
believe that abortions should be forced on people in certain circumstances. In
particular they believe that states should have the right to force pregnant
women who have been sentenced to long prison terms to have an abortion.
At one point a state out in the mid west actually thought of passing such a
law. Somehow they were able to get the U.S. Supreme Court to advise them on the
issue and Sandra O'Conner wrote that their law to force abortions on prisoners
would violate Roe v. Wade just as much as a law preventing abortions.
In general, pro-choice agrees with the position as O'Conner wrote it and
would be just as much against a law forcing abortions on women as they would
against a law preventing them.
George
|
| 20.1822 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Wed Mar 22 1995 15:56 | 19 |
| .1819
Dialogue is healthy, Jack. You don't have to agree with me to have my
respect. But it helps if we all respect each other. The label "anti-
abortion" presumes the existence of a "pro-abortion" counterpart. You
seem unaware of the subtle loading in that simple term. But if we are
going to use the word "abortion" in the pro/anti labels you'll have to
drop me on the anti- side. There is a basic disconnect here, Jack. I
do not have to approve of something in order to believe that it is not
my right to dictate how other people will handle that something.
Using that old "thou shalt not murder" line as reason to push abortion
laws doesn't wash. The line doesn't say "thou shalt not permit others
to murder," it says "thou (THOU THE INDIVIRUAL TO WHOM I, THE LORD, AM
SPEAKING) shalt not murder." It isn't the law of the land, it's a law
in the hearts of believers. (There's a secular law against murder, of
course, but that's not the point.) The Bible does not say that we are
to compel others to bend to our will, it says we are to teach them the
way we believe, and LET THEM MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES.
|
| 20.1823 | A fantasy... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Wed Mar 22 1995 15:57 | 32 |
|
Throg : What are you doing, Grynth ? You're stopping the ship at
some godforsaken planet in this remote system ?
Grynth : Yessir, Captain Throg. My instruments detect possible
moral and intelligent life. Just following your orders, sir.
Throg : Hmmph. On screen ! Look at this lot, Grynth. Moral ?
Intelligent ? When was your last routine maintenance ?
Grynth : Only recently, sir. Just let me check a few things out
before we leave.
Throg : Which ones - the green ones living off the sun, or these
little six-legged exoskeleton ones ?
Grynth : No, no - the big bipeds. See - they have electronic media.
I'll tap into a random channel. Hmmm - "Digital Soapbox.
Note 20. Abortion."
Throg : Please translate this gibberish, Grynth. What is "abortion" ?
Grynth : Well, as near as I can make out, this species first decides
to replicate, then some individuals try to prevent the
replication, while others try to prevent the preventers..."
Throg : Spare me the tawdry details... All ahead, Warp 12. And
Grynth, check your detectors into sickbay. I want a
complete diagnostic of your morality and intelligence
sensors...
|
| 20.1824 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 22 1995 16:04 | 9 |
| Very witty indeed Mr. Braucher!!
Dick, since we're on the subject, the Mosaic law definitely directed
the responsibility of justice in matters of murder. A murderer in
ancient Israel was to be taken outside the camp and and put to death by
stoning. You may recall in fact the death of Jesus took place ouside
the walls of Jerusalem.
-Jack
|
| 20.1825 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Mar 22 1995 16:24 | 43 |
| re: .1819
This rambles a bit. I apoligize. I had too many thoughts
in my head at once. :-)
I don't really believe I can change anyone's mind either, and
I come to the table with a bit more experience on this issue
than some of the participants. What I do think I can do is
fill in the blanks. Many people like to see things as black
or white, right or wrong. I don't believe life is like that.
There are substantial grey areas and some areas where logic
is completely reversed. I also think that this is a more
highly charge issue from a woman's perspective than from a
man's. There are many hot buttons which can be pushed for
women who are sensitized to discrimination or attempts at
controlling their behavior. You have to remember when you
speak of slavery that women were virtual slaves to their
husbands for many years, useful for keeping the house and
turning out heirs on a regular basis. That anger can and
in many case does get passed down from generation to generation.
Only people who have been similarly poorly treated can understand
the bile this can produce.
Pro-life people see the fetus as victim, not the woman. You
need to understand that when you fight for this you make a choice
to hurt. You hurt the woman who is the host for this fetus. You
shout horrible epithets, hurl eternal damnation and pass judgement
on a woman who most likely as already been through hell and back
just to get to that clinic. The emotional, psychological and
mental damage you do is very real and very permanent. You are
hurting another living, breathing human being to get your point
across. I do not believe your God would approve of this. Perhaps
you feel this is a lesser of two evils. Each of you alone knows what you
can live with.
I do not believe abortion is the problem, only a symptom. A
symptom of our refusal to respect and accept people as they
are, regardless of color, gender or spiritual beliefs. A
symptom of our fear of change and our fear of things which are
different, and our desire to conquor that which we cannot
understand.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1826 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Wed Mar 22 1995 18:46 | 6 |
| re .1800
If you would like to see what happens when bortion is treated as a
criminal act, study Romanian history over the last 20 years.
meg
|
| 20.1827 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Wed Mar 22 1995 19:37 | 5 |
| .1824
Are you saying, Jack, that Christians are bound by Mosaic Law?
No, I thought not...
|
| 20.1828 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 22 1995 21:07 | 17 |
| I see the ten commandments as a Bill of Rights..We have a right to our
property, a right to our lives, a right to truth, our neighbors have a
right to their property, a right to our spouse. God has the right to
the worship of his creation.
We are not justified by the Mosaic law as a way to eternal life. Jesus
did say that not one stroke of the pen will be removed from the law.
Remmber that where there is the law is transgression...because we are
sinners. Therefore, the law is still the standard of Gods
righteousness but it is not a measurement of our redemption or
judgement. This can only come about through the cross.
We are still bound toward holiness. The ten commandments are a
standard of Gods holiness and is not null and void...but is null and
void as a measurement of redemption.
-Jack
|
| 20.1829 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Wed Mar 22 1995 21:30 | 11 |
| Jack, please explain Peter's vision about clean and unclean foods in
light of our still being bound by Mosaic Law.
We are NOT so bound. The Law of Moses is become, for Christians, not
the law of the temporal world but rather the standard by which we know
that we are imperfect and in need of forgiveness.
Abortion is a matter to be judged by God, not by other humans. We have
the obligation to make our beliefs known, then Jesus tells us to step
out of the way. Let go, let God. He will touch those whom he has
chosen when he is ready, not when WE are ready for him to touch them.
|
| 20.1830 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 22 1995 21:43 | 18 |
| We are not bound by the Mosaic Law. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of
the law. In Romans 6 it starts by asking the rhetorical question...
"Shall we continue to sin, that grace may abound? God forbid, for how
shall we who are dead to sin continue to live therein?"
The ancient Hebrews were under the law as a measurement of Holiness.
When they deviated, the blood of a bull was a covering for sin. Jesus
desired mercy and not sacrifice; therefore, you are right, we are not
bound by the law. However, we are called to Holiness. Abortion in my
opinion deviates from the law of Holiness. Anything that is not of God
is sin. We are still guilty of transgressing the law, but we are
justified by the blood of Christ. Abortion is and can be forgiven,
just as I need forgiveness. But I believe Romans 6 above points out
that we are to forego sin. This is "One Nation Under God". I believe
as a nation we will soon be judged for our atrocities against God.
Remember, Daniel, Ezaekiel, and Jeremiah were exiled too!
-Jack
|
| 20.1831 | Still waiting. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Fri Mar 24 1995 19:12 | 19 |
| Re: 1807
Your contention about the teminology is a convenient fiction. You can
call yourself a tomato for what it matters. What you are is in favor
od supporting the action of abortion. You couch in wonderfully liberal
terms of saying you oppose it, but would not force your view on others.
Hog wash. You can play semantics all you want, but the simple truth is
that you are either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. You either support
it or you don't.
Play all the word games you want, but don't get indignant when others
don't want to join in your game.
Also, Re: a few back. I still have not seen an answer to my simple
question. why is it that none of the pro-abortion folks want to answer
a simple question. You keep coming up with ridiculous alternatives or
enter a non-response
|
| 20.1832 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 24 1995 19:27 | 14 |
| re: .1831
It's a silly question.
I suppose to a certain extent there's less of anything if
you make it illegal. There was less alcohol during Prohibition,
but more people killed and blinded themselves drinking bathtub
gin. Eventually you'll wind up in the same place Prohibition did -
namely, it's not going to get us anywhere, and it's not going to
solve the problem.
You never answered my question: what's your point?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1833 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Mar 24 1995 19:27 | 10 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1831 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
> Also, Re: a few back. I still have not seen an answer to my simple
> question. why is it that none of the pro-abortion folks want to answer
> a simple question. You keep coming up with ridiculous alternatives or
> enter a non-response
What's wrong with the answer I gave you in .1804?
George
|
| 20.1834 | Anti-choice is also the antithesis of love. | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Fri Mar 24 1995 19:29 | 20 |
| .1831
I imagine it must be really wonderful to live on your planet, where
everything is so simplistic. Is the sky blue there?
Pro-choice does not force its views on anti-choice people. If a person
doesn't want an abortion, she need not get one. If she doesn't want to
help anyone else to get one, she need not. This is the essence of
choice, and it is also the essence of liberty. With freedom comes the
responsibility to exercise it wisely.
The anti-choice side, on the other hand, wants to force its will on
others by prohibiting those others from getting abortions. This is the
antithesis of liberty.
But no, I am not in favor of supporting the act of abortion. I am in
favor of LETTING OTHERS CHOOSE WHAT THEY WILL DO, EVEN IF I DO NOT
APPROVE OF THEIR CHOICES. If that means that they choose to have
abortions, I would at least prefer that they be spared the manifold
dangers attendant on doing so illegally.
|
| 20.1835 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Mar 24 1995 19:37 | 13 |
| There isn't a way I would drag a pregnant woman kicking and screaming
into an abortion clinic, that is not pro-choice. However thre is also
no way I will block a person's access to abortion, even if I think they
are making this choice for the wrong reasons, this is truly pro-choice.
I also won't attempt to enforce my narrow view of morality on others,
even if they be idiots. This is also pro-choice.
You and some others, don't strike me as pro-life, but rather as anti
abortion, anti-choice, and willing to kill born, breathing women to
satisfy your narrow view of morality.
meg
|
| 20.1836 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Fri Mar 24 1995 19:58 | 12 |
| re: .1835
> You and some others, don't strike me as pro-life, but rather as anti
> abortion, anti-choice, and willing to kill born, breathing women to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> satisfy your narrow view of morality.
You are certainly entitled to air your opinion on this, but the
underlined is utter tripe.
-steve
|
| 20.1837 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Fri Mar 24 1995 20:08 | 11 |
| re: .1835
>and willing to kill born, breathing women
Seems like China is the only place I know of that does that with their
baby girls...
Would you like details? Or do you know them already...
Or how about India's tradition of burning the wife on her husband's
pyre???
|
| 20.1838 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Mar 24 1995 21:34 | 8 |
| Meg:
You're inflamming the issue with feminist propoganda. To my knowledge,
I think everybody here
believes in the sanctity of the rights of the mothers life before the
fetus...
-Jack
|
| 20.1839 | hah | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Sat Mar 25 1995 03:48 | 2 |
|
|
| 20.1840 | Still not making a case for your position. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Sat Mar 25 1995 19:06 | 34 |
| I went back and read your entry 1804 and still wonder exactly what your
point was with the first part of your response and the last part about
a drop of 10% or 20% should be considered insignificant in view of the
cost op prosecuting doctors, etc. Using your logic then we should not
be opposed to other activites that are now illegal since the cost of
prosecuting muggers, rapists, robbers, etc is rather high and,
therefore we should just make it a choice as to whether or not it's
illegal. That is a rather silly argument to allow an activity because
of the cost of preventing it.
Re: 1835
Your entry is rather ridiculous and makes an assumption that you can
not support, but then I certainly expect nothing less. You claim that
I, as well as others, are anti-abotion and anti-choice. Your statement
is wrong. I do support abortion; however, I am very speific in the
terms and conditions of allowing abortions to take place. Your
contention that because I oppose the all or nothing attitude by amny of
the pro-abortion crowd that I oppose abortion is incorrect, but since
you don't seem to be concerned with other opinions, it's easier to call
others names.
Also, your last part about willing to see born, breathing women die, is
not worthy of a response.
Most of the responses seem to deal with a woman being pregnant as if
she has no choice. this is what I find most curious. The overwhelming
majority of women know how to avoid pregnancy and the fac tthat they
get pregnant, points to their carelessness or lack of concern about
whether they become pregnant or not. This then starts the entire
abortion debate. As I asked earlier, if abortion wassn't a choice,
would women, and men, take greater precautions to insure that pregnancy
didn't occur and thereby eliminate the need for abortion.
|
| 20.1841 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Mon Mar 27 1995 11:46 | 5 |
| RE: .1840
Well said. Excellent post.
ME
|
| 20.1842 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 27 1995 13:38 | 25 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1840 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
> I went back and read your entry 1804 and still wonder exactly what your
> point was with the first part of your response and the last part about
> a drop of 10% or 20% should be considered insignificant in view of the
> cost op prosecuting doctors, etc. Using your logic then we should not
> be opposed to other activites that are now illegal since the cost of
> prosecuting muggers, rapists, robbers, etc is rather high and,
> therefore we should just make it a choice as to whether or not it's
> illegal.
You are the one that is not making any sense. Abortion is legal, not illegal
like those other activities you listed.
You asked what would happen to the rate of conception if Abortion were made
illegal and I gave you an answer. I agree it would go down, but then making any
legal activity illegal would cause the rate to go down. For example, if a law
were passed saying no one could read books Sunday, less people would read books
on Sunday. Would that make the world a better place to live?
Yes if abortion were made illegal, the rate of conception would go down a few
percentage points but so what? As long as safe abortions are available those
women who choose to have them can terminate those pregnancies.
George
|
| 20.1843 | Sorry honey, can't fool around because abortions are illegal ... | BRITE::FYFE | Never tell a dragon your real name. | Mon Mar 27 1995 15:24 | 6 |
|
I can't see how making abortions illegal would have any impact on
conception. People don't consider abortion before having sex; it's the
other way around ...
Doug.
|
| 20.1844 | | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Mon Mar 27 1995 15:26 | 7 |
| >conception. People don't consider abortion before having sex; it's the
huh? people consider sex before having an abortion?
8-)
ric
|
| 20.1845 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 27 1995 16:49 | 17 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1843 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>
> I can't see how making abortions illegal would have any impact on
> conception. People don't consider abortion before having sex; it's the
> other way around ...
I think the theory is that if abortion were illegal, people would hesitate
more about taking a chance on accidentally conceiving a child. Maybe they would
abstain, and maybe they would practice birth control more carefully if they
knew the safety net were gone.
On the surface it makes some sense, the number of conceptions might actually
go down a bit but still, so what? Just because making something illegal will
cut down on activity that doesn't make it right. As I said, if you make reading
books illegal people will read fewer books.
George
|
| 20.1846 | Not pretty | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 27 1995 16:53 | 3 |
|
Plus not to mention how much back alley abortion will soar.....
|
| 20.1848 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:18 | 16 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1847 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name." >>>
> I appreciate your clarification but ...
>
> What I find utterly rediculous is the thought that illegal abortions
> would somehow affect anyones decision to have sex.
You may be right. I have a gut feeling, based on the way people behaved
back in the old days before birth control and abortion were easy to get that
people would at least delay having sex if those things were not available
and that because some relationship might break up in the meantime that might
lead to a decrease in the number of conceptions.
But maybe not, I don't know.
George
|
| 20.1849 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:27 | 11 |
|
RE: .1846
Ah yes.... the urban legend resurfaces...
Say it loud enough.... long enough.... at maybe it might come true...
"There's no place like home... " CLICK-CLICK "There's no place like
home... " CLICK-CLICK "There's no place like home... "
|
| 20.1850 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:32 | 11 |
| re: .1840
You know, something you said really got to me...that part
about "most women know how to avoid pregnancy."
So do most men. Perhaps you wold like to tell me why we insist on
piling all the moral, emotional and verbal stigma which revolves
around unwanted pregnancy on women? As far as I know, very few
women can get pregnant without a willing male participant.....
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1851 | .1847 was accidently deleted .... | BRITE::FYFE | Never tell a dragon your real name. | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:32 | 24 |
|
George,
I appreciate your clarification but ...
What I find utterly ridiculous is the thought that illegal abortions
would somehow affect anyone's decision to have sex.
To think 'Gee, I better be careful because if I get pregnant, I can't
spend $300 for an abortion' is something that would actually happen
seems nonsensical.
More likey, no thought at all is given to the consequences of getting
pregnant, or, the thought of that possibility has already had the
desired effect. Abortion is ALWAYS an after the fact decision.
(Unless there is a case out there where someone actually got pregnant
for the purpose of experiencing an abortion).
With respect to making something illegal reducing that activity:
We aren't talking about making conception illegal.
Doug.
|
| 20.1852 | Our societies values have changed ... | BRITE::FYFE | Never tell a dragon your real name. | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:40 | 20 |
|
> You may be right. I have a gut feeling, based on the way people behaved
>back in the old days before birth control and abortion were easy to get that
>people would at least delay having sex if those things were not available
>and that because some relationship might break up in the meantime that might
>lead to a decrease in the number of conceptions.
The reasons for past behaviours has little to do with whether abortion
was legal or not. It had more to do with the moral, social and family
fabric of the time.
People delayed having sex because the pressure to have sex wasn't
nearly as widespread, accepted, or applied at such young ages as
it is today.
The availability (or lack thereof) of contraception is certainly a factor.
Doug.
|
| 20.1853 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 27 1995 18:18 | 12 |
| > Most of the responses seem to deal with a woman being pregnant as if
> she has no choice. this is what I find most curious. The overwhelming
> majority of women know how to avoid pregnancy and the fac tthat they
> get pregnant, points to their carelessness or lack of concern about
> whether they become pregnant or not.
And you seem to be ignoring the replies that directly address this
question, the differing notions of what is responsible behavior; as in
.1818, which you so curiously ignore. Inconvenient that your lecture
on responsibility is irrelevant, isn't it?
DougO
|
| 20.1854 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 27 1995 18:39 | 25 |
| | <<< Note 20.1849 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>
| Ah yes.... the urban legend resurfaces...
Me??? A legend??? Wow Andy, I never thought you felt that way about me.
Why thank you. I really am happy to see you talk in this fashion.
| Say it loud enough.... long enough.... at maybe it might come true...
Let's see.... if someone wants an abortion and it is illegal, many
would find ways of getting it done anyways. It does amaze me how you can
realize that drugs are illegal, but people do them anyway (with the numbers
continuously rising) but don't think the same wouldn't happen with back alley
abortions. AND, where drugs have been illegal for such a long time but have the
numbers still going up, why you wouldn't think the numbers for something like
abortion that would once be legal wouldn't skyrocket if it were to become
illegal.
| "There's no place like home... " CLICK-CLICK "There's no place like
| home... " CLICK-CLICK "There's no place like home... "
Maybe you should go there? :-)
Glen
|
| 20.1855 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 27 1995 20:42 | 34 |
|
RE .1849
Once again, if you think making abortion illegal does anything except
increasing the maternal mortality rate in a given country check out
Romania, under Ceaucescu, and after Ceaucescu. The same experiences
also happened in the Soviet Union (and I wish they would get their
contraception up to at least the level of the US, it is dismal), and
there was a very noticible drop from 1970-1975 in the US.
However, it seems that only those of us who are pro-choice care to
avoid perforated, putrescent uteruses. dying adult women and teens, and
orphaned children.
Yes I will speak out on this, this is a major reason for keeping
abortion safe and legal, and working through contraception and better
education for young men and women in the use of same to make abortion
also rare. I am emotional on this. One grandmother wound up deaf and
sterile, one nearly bled out and one aunt wound up sterile when she was
17 from criminal or self-induced abortions. One classmate was mentally
retarded from her birth mother's attempt to self-abort at 7 months with
a knitting needle. A good friend of mine hemoraghed in the 10 grade
after using catheter tubing to self abort. Pre RvW, and also from a
strict catholic family, she almost died, until the Dr. got her family
out of the room and got her to tell him honestly what happened so he
could treat it.
These are real people with real faces.
meg
meg
|
| 20.1856 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 27 1995 20:53 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.1855 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
| However, it seems that only those of us who are pro-choice care to avoid
| perforated, putrescent uteruses. dying adult women and teens, and orphaned
| children.
meg, I am pro-life, but I agree that the above will become a serious
problem if abortion becomes illegal.
Glen
|
| 20.1857 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Mon Mar 27 1995 21:14 | 22 |
| Let's see...these will be serious problems if abortion is made
illegal.
1. Perforated, putrescent uteruses
2. Dying adult women and teens
3. Orphaned children
Numbers 1. and 2. can be answered as risk for doing something
illegal. But, many of those who support abortion (and ALL who support
ABORTION ON DEMAND) have a problem with consequences as they relate to
sex. Like it has been documented, a huge majority of abortions are done
for birth control reasons. This, IMHO, makes abortion the great eraser of
the act.
As for number 3., I am not sure how this can be a problem as
caused by abortions. Obviously, the "pro-choice" crowd does not believe
that the fetus is not a person, hence not a child. If the abortion kills
the mother, but the children lives I can see the problem, but would that
happen that often? Perhaps number 3. should be abandoned children, or
more children put up for adoption. This probably would increase, but
there are many people who are willing to adopt a child (especially a baby).
ME
|
| 20.1858 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Mar 27 1995 21:21 | 11 |
| re: .1857
Correction, there are many people ready and willing to
adopt a white, healthy infant. There are not as many
people willing to adopt crack babies, AIDS babies, ethnic
babies, handicapped babies or older children who are orphaned
as a result of mothers attempting back-alley abortions on subsequent
pregnancies.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1859 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Mar 27 1995 21:26 | 21 |
| me
many women who have abortions also have living, breathing, born
children. these are the potential orphans I am talking about.
So, regarding options one and two, you don't really care? this is not
what I would consider a "pro-life" attitude, merely a controlling one,
and one which is detrimental to the people you say you want to help.
Also, do you realize the price for services goes up when a
service/product becomes illegal. How much more money are you planning
on pouring into the hands of another black market, with the collateral
crime that goes around large amounts of cash?
Besides, what will you do after giving the government control over
reproductive choice, when that same government decides on licensing
parents, limiting familiy size and weeding out "defectives" by
sterilizing those with "bad" genes or people over certain ages because
of the increase in chromosonal anomolies?
meg
|
| 20.1860 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Mar 27 1995 21:28 | 17 |
| re: .1857
Pleasure, intimacy, the strengthening of a physical bond,
and the heightening of a commitment between two consenting adults
can also be said to be the "consequences of sex." Do you object
to these as well?
You and others insist on portraying sex and it's "consequences" in
a distinctly negative light (I'm sure that any couple who are
delighted by the prospect of a future birth would be thrilled
to have it referred to as a "consequence"), and insist on portraying
women as the sole instigator and cause of this "phenomena".
You do nothing to solve the problem. You will only make it worse.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1861 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Mon Mar 27 1995 22:13 | 4 |
| I would suspect that were abortion made illegal, the number of women
seeking tubal ligations would increase.
Lisa
|
| 20.1862 | Sorry, but....... | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue Mar 28 1995 01:04 | 23 |
| Re: 1850
I don't ignore the men, but the simple fact is that the woman is the
one who becomes pregnant. that does not mean that a man is not
responsible for the consequences of his actions, but he can walk away.
that would seem to make the woman a bit more involved in whether or not
she takes pro-active precautions to avoid pregnancy.
I find all of the notes about the effects of "back alley"` abortions a
fantastic attempt to vreate a strawman that really does nothing to
address the issue. Using that logic then I would assume that you would
think that because someone would use a contaminated illegal drug and go
blind, ruin their heart, or die, then we should make them legal.
Questionable logic at best. Also the fact that some people actually
experienced serious consequences from attempting to illegally terminate
a pregnancy because of direct actions that person took, are unfortunate
but are the consequences of their actions. that's the same as saying
that some died when they lost control of their car doing 120 MPH, then
we should go through all sort of gyrations to protect that person from
their own actions. Sorry, you excersized your pro-choice alternative
when you became pregnant. Killing a baby is not a really viable
alternative to conducting your sexual activities in a judicious
fashion.
|
| 20.1863 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 04:10 | 10 |
|
Hey Judge!!! If one does drugs, they are doing something illegal. If
they die, it is there fault. So why do we try to prevent people from taking
drugs? Why would we want to try and prevent back alley abortions? Aren't they
pretty close to the same answer?
Glen
|
| 20.1864 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Tue Mar 28 1995 11:43 | 7 |
| RE: .1858
I am willing to grant you that point on adoption, since I cannot
argue against it. However, I do personally know of couples who have
adopted ethnic children.
ME
|
| 20.1865 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Tue Mar 28 1995 11:54 | 17 |
| RE: .1859
Thank you for telling me what you were referring to when the claim
was made about the orphaned children. I did not consider this.
Now, back to points 1 and 2. I did not say I don't care. I would
do as much as possible to have a women change her mind about having an
abortion. That is how I care. If the woman decides to disregard my
help, what can I do? The risks are evident in a back-alley abortion.
I would suspect that those women who would take this route know of the
dangers. If they are willing to take those risks, then the results
should not come as a surprise.
This view could be considered cold, harsh, and uncaring to those
who don't believe in accepting ALL consequences for their actions.
ME
|
| 20.1866 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Tue Mar 28 1995 12:01 | 16 |
| RE: .1860
I do not object to the "good consequences of sex". However, where
we differ is that you must take the good with the bad.
> You do nothing to solve the problem. You will only make it worse.
I disagree. Perhaps the problem is that we disagree with what the
problem is, or how to deal wth it. I want to make it the norm when
pregnency is wanted. There is a very easy way to do that - don't have
sex until you feel you are ready to take care of the child. I am
talking about men AND women. I want to get the "deadbeat dads" and
make them accept responsiblity for their actions (can we say that
phrase together?).
ME
|
| 20.1867 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Tue Mar 28 1995 12:06 | 27 |
| RE: .1863
> If one does drugs, they are doing something illegal. If
> they die, it is there fault.
Correct.
> So why do we try to prevent people from taking
> drugs?
We try to prevent people from taking drugs because they are illegal
and can be harmful. Those that ignore the information will get help,
but not pity.
> Why would we want to try and prevent back alley abortions?
But do we do that by making abortion an accepted practice, as the
"pro-choice" side would, or eliminate the need for abortions to begin
with, as the "pro-life" side would?
> Aren't they
> pretty close to the same answer?
See above. We should eliminate the need dor drugs and back-alley
abortions.
ME
|
| 20.1868 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 12:53 | 3 |
| re: .1860
The cart before the horse syndrome...
|
| 20.1869 | Let's prepare, not lash out and fall on our faces | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 13:08 | 27 |
| | <<< Note 20.1867 by REFINE::KOMAR "Whoooo! Pig Suey" >>>
| We try to prevent people from taking drugs because they are illegal and can be
| harmful. Those that ignore the information will get help, but not pity.
I'm not so sure many wouldn't get pity. I guess it would depend on why
they decided to turn to drugs.
| > Why would we want to try and prevent back alley abortions?
| But do we do that by making abortion an accepted practice, as the "pro-choice"
| side would, or eliminate the need for abortions to begin with, as the
| "pro-life" side would?
I think it would be wrong to make abortion illegal at this time. Until
adoption is changed, until we plan for the back-alley abortions, until we can
get into the inner cities with real education about pregnancy, it does not make
sense to take a situation like abortion illegal when we are not ready to deal
with the problems at hand. Plus with welfare making it impossible for a new
baby to get extra funds, you will probably see a rise in abortions (imho). It
is far safer to have an abortion in a clinic.
Glen
|
| 20.1870 | Watch Wilson... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Mar 28 1995 13:29 | 19 |
|
The imminent announcement of Pete Wilson has the White House scared
speechless. A pro-choice Republican with a strong lead in Caliph !
Clinton is dead below the Mason-Dixon. If he's also dead west of
the Mississippi, the electoral votes don't add up.
I'm not sure Wilson would make a great prex, but from the point of
view of keeping Perot out, winning the election, splitting the Dems,
the nomination of Wilson would be a disaster for Sliq.
Wilson isn't going to get the Right. So he's got to win in the
primaries to make it. But don't think he can't match Moneybags
Gramm. Weld is hosting a fundraiser for Wilson in Mass for example,
and will raise 100K at a sitting.
What could Clinton run on in such an election ? His record ?
bb
|
| 20.1871 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Mar 28 1995 13:33 | 11 |
| ZZ Correction, there are many people ready and willing to
ZZ adopt a white, healthy infant. There are not as many
ZZ people willing to adopt crack babies, AIDS babies, ethnic
ZZ babies, handicapped babies or older children who are orphaned
ZZ as a result of mothers attempting back-alley abortions on
ZZ subsequent pregnancies.
Many are glad to adopt ethnic chhildren. The NAACP frowns on this
however.
-Jack
|
| 20.1872 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:21 | 19 |
| > Correction, there are many people ready and willing to
> adopt a white, healthy infant. There are not as many
> people willing to adopt crack babies, AIDS babies, ethnic
> babies, handicapped babies or older children who are orphaned
> as a result of mothers attempting back-alley abortions on subsequent
> pregnancies.
Half right. Few people are willing to adopt AIDS babies because few people
are willing to deal with the death of a child. All babies are ethnic babies,
so I assume you mean non-white babies. It's been mentioned many times that
the social work establishment is the major stumbling block in the adoption
of non-whites by whites. There's certainly no lack of demand.
As for handicaps, it depends on the handicap. Deaf babies and blind babies
are quickly adopted. Babies with mental handicaps are a little harder to place.
Children with multiple severe handicaps are very hard to place. The older
children who are hard to place are those who've been abused and those who
have severe handicaps. If the mother of a healthy older child died in
a back-alley abortion, that child would be quickly adopted.
|
| 20.1873 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:41 | 40 |
| re: .1872
The problem still becomes one of supply and demand.
The first choice for many white couples is a healthy,
white baby.
White couples make up the majority of those seeking
adoptions.
The number of white, healthy fetuses which are
aborted is probably porportionately small when compared
to the number of non-white fetuses, handicapped fetuses,
and fetuses which have AIDS or are addicted to drugs which
are aborted. In addition, many of those fetuses will also have
problems unqiue to a pregnancy in poverty conditions (ie.
malnutrition and poor medical assistance).
And lest we forgot that some people do have abortions for
other reasons besides birth control, how would you propose
to deal with babies which are put up for adoption due to:
wrong sex, mental or physical handicap, financial situation
(number of children already in family)? Are the families
responsible? If you want to encourage this instead of
abortion, how do you propose to remove the social stigma
applied to married couples who choose to give up their
child?
Finally, I believe after the age of 5, the adoption rate for
older children drops off rather severely.
While it sounds good on paper, what I think we will wind
up with is a large number of non-white babies, older children,
babies with some type of handicap, and babies with debilitating
illnesses or other medical conditions, and a smaller number
of white, healthy babies which can be applied to an extremely
long waiting list. Unless you plan on applying other incentives,
this model won't work.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1874 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:41 | 18 |
| Gerald,
And what if the baby is a 6 year old suffering FAS, and the effects of
having lost her mother in a traumatic way? Can you say unadoptable?
Can you say likely to be doomed to a life of bouncing in and out of
foster homes, failed adoptions and finally institutionalization?
Have you seen some of the children that came out of Romanian
institutions? they aren't all cute, many have permanent developmental
problems and are undersizewd. There is no guarantee that those
children will grow up to be anything other than institutionalized
forever.
it would seem to me that some of the "pro-life" crowd in here are anti-
family cohesiveness, anti women and, actually vengeful about some
people. I will pray for you.
meg
|
| 20.1875 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:59 | 21 |
|
RE: <<< Note 20.1874 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> And what if the baby is a 6 year old suffering FAS, and the effects of
> having lost her mother in a traumatic way? Can you say unadoptable?
A white couple in my church adopted a black 3 year old boy last year
who fits the above description. He's brought a great deal of joy to
their lives and they are considering adopting another. Another white
couple in my church adopted a then under 1 year old black baby girl
also suffering from FAS.
Jim
|
| 20.1876 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:29 | 9 |
| re: .1874
Yup, you're right. Keep abortions legal. Best to kill these types of
fetus' before they are born. Wouldn't want them to suffer a life like
that.
Sigh.
-steve
|
| 20.1877 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:35 | 11 |
| Steve,
At least they won't become "parasitical" welfare dependents. Aren't
you one of the "pro-life" sect who believes that your money shouldn't
go to support women who have children the fathers can't or won't
support?
so, have them born, and then starve them to death. You also could
benefit from reading the last 20 years of Romanian history.
meg
|
| 20.1878 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:47 | 31 |
| Meg, you keep trying to put me in that small box of yours.
I'm against federal welfare.
I'm against abortion.
Therefore, what I promote will cause children to starve to death.
Nonsense. You conveniently leave out other things that I try to
promote:
*private charity (specifically those that address your "starvation"
strawman
*defederalization of welfare (rather than the elimination of welfare
entirely, which is really not a valid option at this point in time)
*change of mentality regarding sex, which would help reduce unwanted
pregnancies
*more liberal adoption services that let more people who really want
children to be able to take in an unwanted child, even if they don't
make 100K a year
There's more, but you get the idea. You are being too simplistic with
your view of my position, which leaves your conclusions somewhat
lacking.
-steve
|
| 20.1879 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:53 | 12 |
| > I find all of the notes about the effects of "back alley"` abortions a
> fantastic attempt to vreate a strawman that really does nothing to
> address the issue.
Then you entirely miss the point on why some of us will go to the wall
to keep abortion legal. We will NEVER GO BACK to the days when a
failure of birth control forced women to seek back-alley abortionists,
risking death or permanent maiming. THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES.
Deal with it, Dorothy.
DougO
|
| 20.1880 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 16:45 | 1 |
| Force?
|
| 20.1881 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:00 | 6 |
|
Shoot!!!
How many back alleys does this country have???
And what about all them coat hangers???
|
| 20.1882 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:03 | 1 |
| Ban back alleys!
|
| 20.1883 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:03 | 1 |
| Ban coat hangers!
|
| 20.1884 | Obsolescence... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:10 | 8 |
|
Unfortunately, coat hanger technology has changed for the worse, as
I recently discovered when trying to retrieve keys locked in a car.
They mostly now make those molded plastic ones which hold their
shape better, keeping the clothes from slipping off. So if you
reverse Roe v. Wade, you would need a substitute.
bb
|
| 20.1885 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:16 | 9 |
|
Those plastic hangers are a great improvement over the wire ones when
used for their intended purpose, I must say. I've been trying to rid
my house of wire hangers for several years now. I'll buy a pack of ten
plastic ones every time I'm at Walmart (for 88 cents). However, those
dry cleaners are in a conspiracy and I just can't rid my house of those
wire hangers!
jeff
|
| 20.1886 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:21 | 10 |
|
<------
Jeff,
Just throw them in some "back alley"...
Someone'll find a use for them there...
|
| 20.1887 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:32 | 13 |
|
I've got more coathangers in my house than carter has little liver pills..I
finally told the cleaners to put my shirts in a box which will reduce the
amount of hangers. I still have to gather them all up and return them to
the cleaners though. What I don't know is, if they're all tangled up
when I take them back, will they still take them?
Jim
|
| 20.1888 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:38 | 16 |
| Steve,
do you also want to ban knitting kneedles, crochet hooks, catheter
tubing, aquarium tubing, coke, peroxide, saline solution, large
syringes, Ponderosa pine needles (Causes abortions in cows, and
presumably works in people), Juniper berries, pennyroyal, tansy,
mugwort, wormwood, vitamin C, golden seal, lady's mantle, blue and
black cohosh, american pennyroyal (or squawmint) ginger, ginseng, dong
quai, Queen Anne's lace, Ovral bc pills, 4 and 8 mm glass laboratory
rods, quinine, aspirin, twigs,..............
all of these have been used with greater and lesser success in inducing
abortions (Success being the termination of the pregnancy and survival
of the mother)
meg
|
| 20.1889 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:54 | 28 |
| re: .1878
Actually I believe your position happens to be the one
which I would call "too simplistic". If you make abortion
illegal and cut welfare funding, you will set in motion
a domino effect of additional problems which will need
time and quite possible money to solve. Giving people
"feel good" platitudes about all unwanted babies getting
happy, financially sound, two parent homes is clearly
unrealistic in today's society. Cutting off welfare
funding to teenage mothers in the hopes that their
families, the same people who evidently neglected to mention
birth control in the first place, will suddently
become nuturing, financially sound individuals,
ready to accept the added expense of another mouth,
and raise this child themselves is clearly a "head-in
the-sand" attitude. Believing that without cutting
taxes or raising incomes people who previously could
not afford to contribute significantly to charity will
suddenly begin to donate 15% of the income they didn't
have to begin with is absurd.
I don't disagree there are problems which need to be solved.
But cutting the boat in half and thinking that either everyone
will learn to swim before the boat sinks or that 30% who can swim
will rescue the 70% who cannot, is setting a course for disaster.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1890 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:56 | 17 |
| | <<< Note 20.1878 by CSOA1::LEECH "Go Hogs!" >>>
| *private charity (specifically those that address your "starvation" strawman
Steve, how can something like a private charity, which relies on others
giving, or even having the money to give be the answer to the starvation issue?
If it were a constant, and not an "if, you would be much better off. But seeing
it is nothing more than an "if" (if people donate, if people can donate) it
does not address the issue in a definitive manner, but in a possible help,
depending on.....
I agree with all of your other points though. I just have a hard time
with the above.
Glen
|
| 20.1891 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:58 | 5 |
| re: .1888
Yes! Ban them all. We don't need these dangerous items floating
around in the hands of the public.
|
| 20.1892 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 17:59 | 4 |
|
No moRE WIRE HANGERS! I TOLD YOU TO USE WOODEN ONES! ALL THESE LOVELY
DRESSES BEING RUINED ON WIRE HANGERS!!!! CHRISTINA!!! GET IN HERE NOW!!!!!
|
| 20.1893 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 28 1995 18:10 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.1859 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> Besides, what will you do after giving the government control over
> reproductive choice, when that same government decides on licensing
> parents, limiting familiy size and weeding out "defectives" by
> sterilizing those with "bad" genes or people over certain ages because
> of the increase in chromosonal anomolies?
This being one of your favorite scenarios, you seem to forget
that it would take a pro-abortion mentality to allow such
government intervention, not a pro-life mentality (or even
an anti-choice mentality.)
What you are pushing for, Meg, is far more likely to foster
this type of governmental intervention than what I am pushing
for.
|
| 20.1894 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Tue Mar 28 1995 18:14 | 7 |
| > No moRE WIRE HANGERS! I TOLD YOU TO USE WOODEN ONES! ALL THESE LOVELY
>DRESSES BEING RUINED ON WIRE HANGERS!!!! CHRISTINA!!! GET IN HERE NOW!!!!!
You better not ban wire coathangers!!! How the hell do you expect
me to break into my car when I need to ?!?!? :-)
-b
|
| 20.1895 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 28 1995 18:22 | 37 |
| <<< Note 20.1869 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>
-< Let's prepare, not lash out and fall on our faces >-
> I think it would be wrong to make abortion illegal at this time. Until
>adoption is changed, until we plan for the back-alley abortions,
What kind of "planning for back-alley abortions " are you looking
for, Glen? You've made this call before, but it is not clear what
you want.
Are you looking for:
Provisions for providing safe back-alley abortions? (Like a
clean-needle exchange program?)
Ways to prevent/ban back-alley abortions?
Clearly-defined punishment for illegal back-alley abortions?
a) for the provider?
b) for the client?
So what planning are you thinking of? And what should we be
doing for/with people currently getting/giving back-alley
abortions?
>It is far safer to have an abortion in a clinic.
Is is really? Considering that the abortion industry is NOT
regulated, how do you know this? And if it really will happen
that all the current legal abortion business will go back-alley,
why do you assume that the current abortion technology will
automatically default to coat hangers? Why won't the current
abortion technology go underground too? Given that the current
industry is not regulated and still safe (by your extimation)
I can't see why an equally-unregulated underground industry
will be any less safe.
|
| 20.1896 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 28 1995 18:25 | 13 |
| re: .1893, Joe re: Meg
> This being one of your favorite scenarios, you seem to forget
> that it would take a pro-abortion mentality to allow such
> government intervention, not a pro-life mentality (or even
> an anti-choice mentality.)
> What you are pushing for, Meg, is far more likely to foster
> this type of governmental intervention than what I am pushing
> for.
I think the logic can be effectively worked from either end on that question.
It's pretty easy to see both sides.
|
| 20.1897 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 28 1995 18:58 | 41 |
| Joe,
Unlike you I do not seek to force people to make choices, nor do I want
the government to have that power, ever regarding reproductive choices.
You on the other hand, by seeking to give the goverment power to
restrict women's choices are playing directly into the mentality that
will remove peoples choices around how many children, how far apart,
and what genes will be put into the pool. this can only happen if we
seek to put a faceless government in control of reproduction. It
doesn't happen if the guvmint is told to keep their nose out of it.
Let's face it, Neither you nor I have 2.2 children, nor did we plan to
limit our families to this size. I most assuradly wouldn't want the
guvmint to tell me that an "elderly multi-para" should not be allowed
to carry my youngest to term, nor have taken my oldest away because I
was "too young" when she was born. However, we have people who say
they are "pro-life" right here in this file who would have happily done
both.
Also the stats on abortion and its safety are available through the
CDC. You are far more likely to die carrying to term, than having a
first trimester abortion. But you and I have been over that before.
Criminal abortions vary in effectiveness and safety, but there are
accomplished midwives in this country who are pro-choice, trained and
know what tools they need. For the mothers sake, there are even video
tapes to teach this important skill.
Steve, if you will read the information given, one of the largest
pro-life "private charities" is lobbying against the Republican
"welfare reform" as they believe it will lead to more abortions, as
well as overwhelm their abilities to handle the increased caseload.
Or is Father Flanagan the movie, more honest and intellegent than
Father Flanagan the reality to you?
Oh yeah, we also need to ban guns. Three teens in the last few years
have self aborted by shooting themselves in the uterus. This will only
increase when other tools of the desparate are banned.
meg
|
| 20.1898 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 19:00 | 3 |
| re: .1889
You didn't read my note.
|
| 20.1899 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 19:14 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.1894 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>
| You better not ban wire coathangers!!! How the hell do you expect
| me to break into my car when I need to ?!?!? :-)
Call Christina....she's got a ton of them! :-)
|
| 20.1900 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 19:15 | 3 |
|
aborted snarf!
|
| 20.1901 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 19:17 | 25 |
| Meg,
If you'd read my previous note closely, you would have seen that
MY position is to defederalize welfare, not to do away with it
altogether. As far as I'm concerned the states can do what they like,
they would be more directly accountable for their programs and would
take care of their own (that way states who do things right and have
few people on welfare would not be penalized by having to pay for the
states who have a high % of people on the dole).
Welfare, as a concept, looks good at first glimpse, but when you take
human nature into account, it is vastly lacking...at least the type of
welfare system we currently have. If you will track the system over
the last 50 years, you will see what I mean.
Since the Republican plan is the only plan I've seen geared towards
addressing the failed social welfare system, I will support it. When I
see someone offer a better plan, I will support that plan. I cannot
sit here and wait for a perfect plan to support, as one will not come
about in my lifetime. We need to make changes NOW. The Republican
plan makes some semblance of sense, anyway. At least they are trying
to make changes in the right direction.
-steve
|
| 20.1902 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 28 1995 19:20 | 9 |
| re: .1898
Yes, I did. In it's entirety. Twice, in fact, before I
answered. I may not have gotten out of it what you'd
hoped I would. But when I add it to others you have written
in the welfare topics, my answer stands. I don't
think you've thought this all the way through.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1903 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 19:22 | 49 |
| | <<< Note 20.1895 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
Well look who's back...
| Provisions for providing safe back-alley abortions? (Like a clean-needle
| exchange program?)
I don't know about this one Joe. To be honest, this one has never come
across my mind.
| Ways to prevent/ban back-alley abortions?
Yes, but in order to do that people would have to wake up and see what
will happen if abortions are made illegal, and not keep referring it to a
strawman like it is no big deal.
| Clearly-defined punishment for illegal back-alley abortions?
| a) for the provider?
| b) for the client?
Yes.
| >It is far safer to have an abortion in a clinic.
| Is is really? Considering that the abortion industry is NOT regulated, how do
| you know this?
Joe, if a place can be open and set up in clinic form, is that safer
than any of the methods of back-alley abortions that have been mentioned in this
string?
| And if it really will happen that all the current legal abortion business will
| go back-alley, why do you assume that the current abortion technology will
| automatically default to coat hangers?
Joe, there are several ways it will go. But when it has to be done
secretly, you will end up with several different levels of abortion. Money will
also be another issue with this.
| Why won't the current abortion technology go underground too?
Yes, but not everyone who will do the back-alley abortions will use it.
Mainly because it will be harder to keep something illegal in the same way you
can when something is legal.
Glen
|
| 20.1904 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 28 1995 19:22 | 12 |
| re: .1901
Thank you. You've given me the point I object to.
What you are saying is we need to do SOMEthing, ANYthing,
and we need to do it NOW. NOT that we need to do the
RIGHT thing. Patch it now, fix it later. On that path
lies disaster.
THAT'S what I get out of your notes and THAT'S what I have
the problem with.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1905 | the issue is... | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue Mar 28 1995 20:07 | 22 |
| I keep seeing references to Romania in this note and for the life of me
can not understand the correlation. There were all sorts of abuses in
Russia, Poland, etc as well as in China and cuba. If I follow the
attempted scare tactics in this line of thought, then by making
abortion on demand illegal we will then become a totalitarian
government that will eliminate the Constitution. I find that logic
questionable at best. I base my opinion on the fact. Fact: abortion
on demand was illegal until the 70's and none of the events you
attribute to Romania ever came close to being a reality.
A comment that was raised; however, is closer to the truth. that being
that we must create a society that re-constructs basic family values
and personal responsibility based on societal standards. It gets back
to an understanding that sex and the subsequent possibility of
pregnancy is not a casual activity. Having children and raising a
family is a serious decision that should not be made after drinking in
a bar with someone you just met and it midnight on a Saturday.
Until it gets to the point of discussing these issues, abortion is
simply another "life style" choice and the pro and anti groups will
debate the wrong topics.
|
| 20.1906 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 20:30 | 100 |
| re: .1902
Let me show you where you've erred, then. When you read into my
previous note the misunderstandings of "what I've written in the past",
I'm not surprised at your .1889 at all. You have not yet showed that
you have an understanding of my position, not now or from 'my notes in
the past'.
I will clarify below.
================================================================================
Note 20.1889 Abortion 1889 of 1904
SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." 28 lines 28-MAR-1995 13:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .1878
> Actually I believe your position happens to be the one
> which I would call "too simplistic". If you make abortion
> illegal and cut welfare funding,
You start off with a wrongful assumption. While there is no doubt that I
view welfare as an evil perpetrated on ALL citizens (the poor getting
the worst end of things) by its impersonal and wasteful application,
you assume that by my distaste for these programs, that I am for ending
welfare. This is not true. My belief is that the first move to make
is defederalization, then let the states implement programs to wean
individuals from the welfare roles. There is no such thing as one
program that fits all states, which is the inherant problem with
federalization of such programs.
> you will set in motion
> a domino effect of additional problems which will need
> time and quite possible money to solve.
I would like to see a lower tax burden, so those like me who don't make
a fortune, can give more to charities that are efficient and meet the
needs of the community. I'm one who believes that people of a
community should take responsibility for that community.
> Giving people
> "feel good" platitudes about all unwanted babies getting
> happy, financially sound, two parent homes is clearly
> unrealistic in today's society.
Is it unrealistic to promote this ideal? You seem to have a defeatist
attitude in this. In the past, two-parent homes were the status-quo,
not the exception that it seems to be today. With a societal attitude
shift, things can turn around. Why can't we work towards this instead
of assuming it is an unrealistic goal?
BTW, 'financially sound' is too generic a term. It is relative to the
individual families. I grew up poor, but always had the necessities.
I consider this financially sound, even though I never got the designer
jeans, expensive name-brand sneakers, etc.
> Cutting off welfare
> funding to teenage mothers in the hopes that their
> families, the same people who evidently neglected to mention
> birth control in the first place,
Aren't you assuming a bit much here? Who says these families neglected
to mention birth control? Even if they did, BC is hardly the cure all
that it is being promoted as. In fact, I think it promotes an attitude
that is at the crux of the abortion (and STD) problem.
> will suddently
> become nuturing, financially sound individuals,
> ready to accept the added expense of another mouth,
> and raise this child themselves is clearly a "head-in
> the-sand" attitude.
I'm glad you have so much faith in people. I like to think that people
can solve their own problems much better than the government can. At
least try to give these folks the opportunity to try.
> Believing that without cutting
> taxes or raising incomes people who previously could
> not afford to contribute significantly to charity will
> suddenly begin to donate 15% of the income they didn't
> have to begin with is absurd.
I'm not sure where this came from...I'll let you explain this one
before I attempt to respond.
> I don't disagree there are problems which need to be solved.
There's a start, anyway. 8^)
> But cutting the boat in half and thinking that either everyone
> will learn to swim before the boat sinks or that 30% who can swim
> will rescue the 70% who cannot, is setting a course for disaster.
I'm afraid you've lost me on this one.
-steve
|
| 20.1907 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Mar 28 1995 20:35 | 10 |
| Rocush,
If you want the information it is on what happens when government gets
control of peoples reproduction. Romania banned abortion, and
contraception and look what happned.
In the US, women also died because of illegal abortions, ask any older
nurse who practiced on gyn/ob wards pre RvW.
meg
|
| 20.1908 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 20:42 | 20 |
| re: .1904
One nit...I said I thought the GOP proposal made some semblence of
sense. I don't buy into the Dim scare tactics being thrown around.
Excuse me for not believing everything that I hear.
Now, when someone begins to address SS and Medicare (as just two
examples), they will get some REAL support from me. This welfare
reform, though a step in the right direction, is all just
window dressing so far.
FWIW, I think that most of Congress is absolutely cowardly in not
addressing these issue when they know good and well that they HAVE to
be addressed. This of course includes the GOP, who should be
commended for starting the ball rolling, but not left off the hook for
avoiding the real entitlement issues that will bury this nation if not
addressed soon.
-steve
|
| 20.1909 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Mar 28 1995 21:19 | 104 |
| RE: .1906
Ok, let's look at what you've said:
> You start off with a wrongful assumption. While there is no doubt that I
> view welfare as an evil perpetrated on ALL citizens (the poor getting
> .........
If I understand your position correctly, you support defederalization
of welfare programs. I am going to assume that the defederalization
will take the form of some type of block grant, since shifting the
burden to the states without some type of initial budget would be
guaranteed chaos. I believe that if you do not include federal
guidelines, you will be asking for trouble. Welfare programs
will vary tremendously from state to state according to income
levels and tax bases, and people who need welfare will tend to
gravitate to the states with the better programs, increasing their
burden. All defederalization will most likely insure is that
even the best welfare programs will not meet the needs of the
people who need them, and programs will be subject to a yearly
cut/fund cycle which could rip the rug out from under people
who are trying to better themselves through the program (ie
GED programs or training programs). These are exactly the people
we want to benefit from welfare, because they are using it to
remove themselves from it.
> I would like to see a lower tax burden, so those like me who don't make
> a fortune, can give more to charities that are efficient and meet the
> needs of the community. I'm one who believes that people of a
> community should take responsibility for that community.
I do not see a lower tax burden being a reality in our
lifetime. The national debt is far to high for any type of
tax cut to be safely enacted, and the government can never
really be expected to reliably reduce our tax burden. I could
just as easily expect Ed MacMahon to hand me that 10 million
dollar check :-). Anyway, my point is that reducing welfare
and expecting people to make up the difference is probably not
real effective for a couple of reasons. One, many people don't
have the money to do that with. Many others believe that
charity begins (and ends) at home (my family first). Finally,
people aren't going to start giving money just because welfare
ended. Most people think of welfare as something that happens
to "other people." Not people in their community who need help.
People don't change without a good strong push in most cases,
and I just can't believe that when Mr. Newt "Grinch" takes away
the welfare bucks, all the Whos down in Whoville are going to
come out and join hands and sing.
> Is it unrealistic to promote this ideal?
It is not unrealistic to promote it, it is unrealistic to
expect it to work for about a generation or so. That's 33 years.
That's a long time for families to live impoverished without
life line to help them get out. That's enough time for the
class lines to widen enough to give you a revolution. I really
don't like that idea. Also, if you believe that the community
has a responsibility to its members, I don't see any reason
that non-traditional families cannot successfully raise children
any differently than traditional families can. We've had
other discussions about "financially sound." I think you know
my positions on people having more children than they can
afford. I think we can safely say in most cases that love,
nutrition and the "basics" are more than enough.
> Aren't you assuming a bit much here?
I don't think I'm assuming too much about these families
at all. I've known some. How do you address the problem of
the family that throws their daughter out when they learn
she is pregnant? No one has said BC is a "cure all". It is
however, much better than being sick and/or pregnant. I'd
love to see all teenagers abstain from sex until they are
mature enough to handle the issues and consequences stemming
from it. But I am also realistic enough to know that this
will not always happen. Money is a driving issue for many
families. As much as the prospect of a new life can bring joy,
many times it is considered nothing more than another mouth. This
is the darker, real side of human nature you cannot wave away.
You may call my viewpoint a lack of faith. I would
much rather not put my faith in human nature and be pleasantly
surprised than put my faith in human nature and be profoundly
disappointed. The fact that there has always been poverty says
that people cannot always solve all their own problems. Circumstances
beyond their control may trap them where they are.
> I'm not sure where this came from...I'll let you explain this one
> before I attempt to respond.
You cannot get blood from a stone. If people have no extra
money, they cannot give extra money. Given the recession and the
state of the economy right now, I do not believe the extra money
is there. I chose 15% since it is a popular tithing number.
Charity cannot make up for a lack of welfare programs. They do
not have the staff, the dollars or the facilities for this. I
believe this will be a disaster and children will suffer from the
lack of adequate services. You can't say to someone, "We're not
subsidizing your rent anymore. But we think the guy next store has
some extra money. So we're going to encourage him to help you out
by telling him he's giving to charity." The level of funding isn't there.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1911 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 28 1995 21:43 | 28 |
| <<< Note 20.1903 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>
> Well look who's back...
Still obsessed. Sigh.
>| >It is far safer to have an abortion in a clinic.
>
>| Is is really? Considering that the abortion industry is NOT regulated, how do
>| you know this?
>
> Joe, if a place can be open and set up in clinic form, is that safer
>than any of the methods of back-alley abortions that have been mentioned in this
>string?
Most "back-alley" abortions *ARE* done by legitimate doctors,
Glen. They are just done illegally. Don't let the term fool
you. And don't let Meg's constant harpings about the exxxtrEEEEme
cases sway your perception of reality.
>| Why won't the current abortion technology go underground too?
>
> Yes, but not everyone who will do the back-alley abortions will use it.
>Mainly because it will be harder to keep something illegal in the same way you
>can when something is legal.
So? They do back-alley abortions today. Tell us about the
technology they are using for these.
|
| 20.1910 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 28 1995 21:46 | 38 |
| <<< Note 20.1897 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> You on the other hand, by seeking to give the goverment power to
> restrict women's choices are playing directly into the mentality that
> will remove peoples choices around how many children, how far apart,
> and what genes will be put into the pool. this can only happen if we
> seek to put a faceless government in control of reproduction.
You know, Meg, you see so much evil in my position that the fetus
is an alive human being. Look at all the contortions you have
to go through to shed that belief in a bad light.
I'm sorry, Meg, but you can throw out at me all your stats about
Rumania, China, and coat hangers, and self-induced abortions with
handguns, and your consistent family history with abortion. They
are not going to change my belief that the fetus is a living human
being, and therefore deliberately aborting it is murder.
> You are far more likely to die carrying to term, than having a
> first trimester abortion. But you and I have been over that before.
I believe we have. If I recall correctly, 6 in 100,000 pregnancies
that are aborted end in death of the mother. 8 in 100,000 that
are carried to term end in death of the mother. Even if those
numbers aren't exact, they are certainly close. Feel free to
correct the numbers for me if you can.
You seriously misrepresent the stats. Death in either situation is
extremely unlikely, but you seem to have the need to find further
evil in the pro-life position, so I guess it's OK to misrepresent
the facts.
> Criminal abortions ... For the mothers sake, there are even video
> tapes to teach this important skill.
Criminal abortions, an important skill. Unbelievable!!!
What is this society coming to?
|
| 20.1912 | Birth Control | NITMOI::ARMSTRONG | | Tue Mar 28 1995 22:10 | 8 |
| I'm wondering what form of Birth Control would be okay
to use by people who oppose Abortion....
Most of the forms that come to mind prevent the implantation of
the fertilized egg. Is this different from an abortion?
Anyone care to share what forms they use?
bob
|
| 20.1913 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Mar 28 1995 22:36 | 15 |
| <<< Note 20.1912 by NITMOI::ARMSTRONG >>>
-< Birth Control >-
> Most of the forms that come to mind prevent the implantation of
> the fertilized egg. Is this different from an abortion?
If you believe that the fertilized egg is a unique human life,
then you are correct.
Artificial birth controls like condoms, diaphragms, sponges,
spermicides would not be abortifacients. Same with sterilizations.
Of course, were one to follow Roman Catholic teaching, for
instance, even the ones I listed would not be used. Instead
the Catholic Church encourages Natural Family Planning.
|
| 20.1914 | Gee, there's no way to avoid pregnancy. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue Mar 28 1995 23:24 | 35 |
| Re: 1907
Maybe I misread your response, but I did not see any information to
support your claim that by restricting abortions to certain very
specific circumstances we would become a Communist dictatorship like
Romania. As I said earlier, abortions were illegal in the US pre-70s
and I think we had a democratic society with strong social values that
viewed certain activites as undesirable at least and cetrtainly not to
be condoned and funded by the general public.
I also find it interesting that the same folks who speak out so
forcefully on abortion rights also tend to claim that condoms are
almost fool proof and should be handed out to teens to avoid pregnancy
and STDs. If this is fact, as opposed to a diversion on the condom
issue, then it should be very easy to avoid pregnancy and therefore,
eliminate the need for abortions.
I tend to think that some of you talk in circles on htese issues.
Re: 1907
Your contention that we cannot have an effective reduction of the
welfare state seems to be based on the present situation. We created a
pathetic welfare state over 30 to 50 years. The only way to eliminate
it is to start a clear reduction in these programs and over the next 30
to 50 years establish a society that demands personal responsibility
and lends a helping hand, for a short period of time, when someone has
problem beyond their control.
This may seem "mean-spirited", but I personally think that a society
that condemns individuals to a life on the dole for generation after
generation, strips personal pride and drive for achievement is the
ultimate in hypocracy and the most "mean-spirited" attitude that a
society could ever endorse.
|
| 20.1915 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 29 1995 13:28 | 7 |
| ZZ I'm wondering what form of Birth Control would be okay
ZZ to use by people who oppose Abortion....
Most all of them. Michele was a user of a diaphragm for years and
after our third, Michele had a tubal done.
-Jack
|
| 20.1916 | 100% successful birth control method | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Wed Mar 29 1995 16:33 | 3 |
| Abstinance works every time it is tried.
ME
|
| 20.1917 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Mar 29 1995 17:04 | 10 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1916 by REFINE::KOMAR "Whoooo! Pig Suey" >>>
> Abstinence works every time it is tried.
Nope, not in cases of rape or incest.
I suppose you could say that the victim didn't really abstain and technically
you would be correct however to me abstinence implies willing abstinence.
George
|
| 20.1918 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Mar 29 1995 17:18 | 26 |
| .1916> Abstinence works every time it is tried.
How can you say this with a straight face, Mark? Surely you know
that human beings cannot overcome the animal drive for sex. When
that drive outweighs ones attempts at abstinence, surely we can
all agree that the human is not responsible for the behavior
anymore.
.1917> Nope, not in cases of rape or incest.
Why can't one practice abstinence from incest, George? What is so
magical about incest that humans cannot resist it? Are incestuous
relationships always forced or coerced upon the (apparently
female) victim? If so, wouldn't that then be rape? What of incest
that is mutually agreed upon by the participants? What is wrong
with abstinence for these cases?
Maybe you'll wail about these questions as being hair-splitting.
I see them as being no less hair-splitting than your call for
qualifying abstinence to be "willing" abstinence.
In the cases of unwilling breaks in abstinence (rape) you, of
course, know that in general the pro-life initiatives make
provisions for them. You also know that pregnancy as a result
of these incidents are only a very small part of the overall
number of abortions in this country.
|
| 20.1919 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Mar 29 1995 17:34 | 5 |
| .1916> Abstinence works every time it is tried.
There's the rub- it isn't working, is it?
DougO
|
| 20.1920 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 29 1995 17:35 | 3 |
| Worked for me!
-Jack
|
| 20.1921 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 29 1995 17:37 | 1 |
| What, the rub?
|
| 20.1922 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Mar 29 1995 17:48 | 24 |
| RE <<< Note 20.1918 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
> Why can't one practice abstinence from incest, George? What is so
> magical about incest that humans cannot resist it? Are incestuous
> relationships always forced or coerced upon the (apparently
> female) victim? If so, wouldn't that then be rape? What of incest
> that is mutually agreed upon by the participants? What is wrong
> with abstinence for these cases?
Most cases of incest I've heard about involve an older family member (most
often male) and a child. Whether or not that is rape depends on the age of
the child and the statutory rape laws in the state in question.
> In the cases of unwilling breaks in abstinence (rape) you, of
> course, know that in general the pro-life initiatives make
> provisions for them. You also know that pregnancy as a result
> of these incidents are only a very small part of the overall
> number of abortions in this country.
That may well be, I was just responding to the point that abstinence is
100% effective. It is not. You can have every intention of abstaining and
not be able to do that due to rape or incest.
George
|
| 20.1923 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 29 1995 17:49 | 3 |
|
abstinence works best.... when you become married... :-)
|
| 20.1924 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Mar 29 1995 17:52 | 18 |
| re: Joe
> In the cases of unwilling breaks in abstinence (rape) you, of
> course, know that in general the pro-life initiatives make
> provisions for them.
This has always puzzled me. How is the unborn child in the case of rape
any less worthy of its right to life than the unborn child in any other
abortion? Why does the pregnant woman in the case or rape deserve to be
allowed not to take the pregnancy to term any more than any other woman
in any other abortion? For those who believe that the conception was
within the plan of their god, isn't that plan in effect in either case?
This is a serious question. I'd like to know what the rationale is for
excusing identical actions in these cases but not in others. Granted
the intention of the mother is decidedly different at each phase in
the two cases, but isn't the outcome for the unborn child identical?
|
| 20.1925 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member in good standing | Wed Mar 29 1995 18:06 | 13 |
|
Incest can be consentual, I think that is the point being made.
Jack,
I think the fact that the woman became pregnant through no voluntary
action of her own. That is why it is different to me. Although I am
still not comfortable with abortion in those instances, it does put a
different light on the situation.
Mike
|
| 20.1926 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Mar 29 1995 18:10 | 28 |
| That's been addressed several times, Jack, but I know you are
a frequent NEXT UNSEENer in this topic, so it's understandable
that you might have missed it.
My take on it, Jack, is that the baby that results from a rape
is not the one at fault for that rape, so it is wrong to punish
that baby with death.
The problem, though, is that an absolute adherence to that
principle in the political arena dooms the entire pro-life
initiative to defeat. It becomes political suicide for the
initiative, therefore leaving the status quo, which means that
the rape baby dies all the same, and along with it a million
other babies for birth control and/or convenience. By making
legal provisions for the 'problem cases', it takes away the
pro-choicers leverage to hide behind those unfortunate cases
in an attempt to allow the continued slaughter of ALL abortion
candidates.
Some say that this is a hypocritical position. I disagree. If
that position means the elimination of a majority of abortions,
that is better (to me) that allowing the continued slaughter
of all of them. Perhaps in time the rest of society can come
to see a value even in the deformed or retarded baby too. Once
a societal shift occurs away from the general disposability of
life, it can continue to shift towards a respect that not only
sees value even in the fruits of rape or incest, but to respect
life from God enough that rape and incest are also eliminated.
|
| 20.1927 | | ODIXIE::CIAROCHI | One Less Dog | Wed Mar 29 1995 18:58 | 8 |
| .1916
Although I generally try to stay out of this note, I take severe
exception to the following...
>> Abstinance works every time it is tried.
I tried abstaining, and it didn't work for me at all!
|
| 20.1928 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Mar 29 1995 19:56 | 4 |
| I think what was meant was every time you abstain, you don't get
pregnant or get STDs.
-Jack
|
| 20.1929 | maybe I should have added a smiley. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Mar 29 1995 20:03 | 1 |
| I think it really means that it takes work to abstain...
|
| 20.1930 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 29 1995 20:05 | 4 |
| > I think what was meant was every time you abstain, you don't get
> pregnant or get STDs.
I don't abstain and I'll never get pregnant.
|
| 20.1931 | | ODIXIE::CIAROCHI | One Less Dog | Wed Mar 29 1995 20:56 | 3 |
| I think whoever said "abstinence makes the heart grow fonder" was a
loon.
|
| 20.1932 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Wed Mar 29 1995 20:57 | 16 |
| RE: .1919
> .1916> Abstinence works every time it is tried.
>
> There's the rub- it isn't working, is it?
>
> DougO
No, it just isn't tried enough.
RE: .1917
Would you have felt better if I said abstinance from consentual
sex? That is what I was referring too.
ME
|
| 20.1933 | Woman get pregnant w/out sex? | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Wed Mar 29 1995 21:00 | 16 |
| RE: .1927
> .1916
>
> Although I generally try to stay out of this note, I take severe
> exception to the following...
>
>>> Abstinance works every time it is tried.
>
> I tried abstaining, and it didn't work for me at all!
So, what do you take exception too? Willing abstinance will not
cause pregnancy, hence the need for an abortion. How did abstinance not
work for you?
ME
|
| 20.1934 | Wrong quote | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Wed Mar 29 1995 21:05 | 6 |
| RE: .1931
The phrase is "absense makes the heart grow fonder". But, whoever
said this was a loon as well.
ME
|
| 20.1935 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Wed Mar 29 1995 21:15 | 10 |
|
I heard a joke, whose punch line was "absess makes the phart go Honda", but
can't remember the whole thing.
Jim
|
| 20.1936 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Thu Mar 30 1995 11:35 | 3 |
| Thank you for sharing.
ME
|
| 20.1937 | | PEKING::SULLIVAND | Not gauche, just sinister | Thu Mar 30 1995 12:10 | 2 |
| "Absence makes the font grow harder" Poul Anderson
|
| 20.1938 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Mar 31 1995 13:46 | 7 |
|
Any comments about the Pope saying abortion is wrong, regardless of the
situation? Are you Catholics out there gonna follow what he said????
Glen
|
| 20.1939 | | SUBURB::COOKS | Half Man,Half Biscuit | Fri Mar 31 1995 13:54 | 7 |
| Should do. He is the voice of God,after all.
But the way round it is to do what you want,say some Hail Marys,and
chuck some money into the Church fund.
Er,or am I being cynical?
|
| 20.1940 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 31 1995 13:54 | 15 |
| re: .1938
Are you referring to the marvelous statement in which the Pope
managed to decry abortion and euthanasia and then came out in
favor of capital punishment?
I'm sorry, if you don't kill people, you just plain don't kill
people. If you force a woman to bear a child she doesn't
want, and then kill it years later for committing a crime,
all you've done if you're pro-life is transfer the blood from
one set of hands to another. If you believe in the judgement
of God, you should leave ALL his creations to that judgement,
regardless of their actions.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1941 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 31 1995 14:08 | 8 |
| re: .-1, Mary-Michael
Er, sorry, but all reports that I heard said that he came out very much
AGAINST capital punishment as well as abortion and euthanasia.
That doesn't put him any more in touch with reality, but . . .
|
| 20.1942 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 31 1995 14:10 | 8 |
| re: .1941
That's interesting, I'd like to see the actual text of the
address then, because the reports that I'd heard said that
he was against abortion and euthanasia, but walked a real
fine line in favor of capital punishment.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1943 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Fri Mar 31 1995 14:25 | 11 |
| re: .1940
I fail to see any inconsistency in being against euthenasia and
abortion, yet being for capital punishment.
Of course if you look at these issues simplisticly, I can see why that
impression can be made, but the argument of "inconsistency" falls apart
under close scrutiny.
-steve
|
| 20.1944 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Fri Mar 31 1995 14:27 | 5 |
|
He strongly argues against capital punishment except in
extreme cases which he's not sure exist.
jeff
|
| 20.1945 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 31 1995 14:31 | 12 |
| re: .1943
I see quite a bit. Is a people who commits a crime less
than human? Is this person less human than someone who is
in an irreversible coma, fails to respond to the environment
around them and needs a feed tube to survive? What about those
people who only fault is being on the wrong side during a war?
Are they less than human? Is it ok to kill them too? If you
are truely "pro-life", these instances are nothing more than
"feel good" rationalizations that some killing is "ok".
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1946 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Mar 31 1995 15:42 | 4 |
| > That's interesting, I'd like to see the actual text of the
> address...
How's yer Latin?
|
| 20.1947 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Fri Mar 31 1995 15:46 | 4 |
| .1946
Oh, there'll be translations into all the languages of the Earth, and
possibly Klingon and Ferengi and others as well.
|
| 20.1948 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Fri Mar 31 1995 16:29 | 19 |
| re: .1945
Like I said- simplistic.
We've been over this one before (more than once), so I don't really
care to drudge this up again. You have your view, I see things
differently.
One note, though, a criminal who earns the death penalty knows what
will happen if he is caught committing said crime. His blood in on his
own head (this is Biblical, too).
War is another strawman. The "irreversible coma" also falls apart
under close scrutiny. Who knows if it is truly irreversable or not? I
find that it is the pro-euthenasia folk who are doing all the
rationalizing.
-steve
|
| 20.1949 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Mar 31 1995 17:49 | 19 |
| Mary Michael:
Okay, once again....
Under the Mosaic law (The law of Moses and the Ten Commandments), when
one takes the life of another, then his life is to be forfeited. One
might now say...AAAAA HAAAAA....we are no longer under the Mosaic law!
This is true...however, the point I'm bringing up is this and this is
what counts....If you premeditated murder on me, then you were
executed, under the MOASAIC LAW, you are guilty before God of TWO
deaths....one being me, and the other being yourself. The executioner
is completely free of all blood guilt. As the scripture says, YOUR
blood is on YOUR OWN HEAD! (Not shouting, just emphasizing)
Since this is the fourth time I've brought this up, I would ask you to
respond to this just so I'm sure I won't have to post it again.
-Jack
-Jack
|
| 20.1950 | Some can find fault with ANYTHING | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 31 1995 17:52 | 11 |
| <<< Note 20.1940 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
> Are you referring to the marvelous statement in which the Pope
> managed to decry abortion and euthanasia and then came out in
> favor of capital punishment?
It takes some special filters to arrive at THAT conclusion.
The Pope came out very much against capital punishment, and
only left open the possibility for it if that were the sole
option to ensure society's safety.
|
| 20.1951 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Mar 31 1995 17:57 | 3 |
| Dear Di:
Please egskuze the atrocious spelin!
|
| 20.1952 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 31 1995 18:19 | 12 |
| re: .1949
Hi Jack,
I realize what you are saying about Mosaic law, however,
as you point out, we aren't under Mosaic law, so I am confused
as to the validity of the point. What I WOULD be interested
in seeing is if Jesus Christ could be said to endorse this
aspect of Mosaic law anywhere in the New Testament, especially
given that He forgave the thieves who were crucified with Him.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1953 | FWIW | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 31 1995 18:25 | 14 |
| <<< Note 20.1952 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
> What I WOULD be interested
> in seeing is if Jesus Christ could be said to endorse this
> aspect of Mosaic law anywhere in the New Testament, especially
> given that He forgave the thieves who were crucified with Him.
While He may have forgiven the thieves (or at least one of them)
while on the cross, He did not call for their pardon.
The Pope's statement would probably not support the thieves'
capital punishment, given that the government at the time
had the means to incarcerate the thieves, thereby keeping
society safe from them.
|
| 20.1954 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 31 1995 18:43 | 8 |
| re: .-1, Joe
> While He may have forgiven the thieves (or at least one of them)
> while on the cross, He did not call for their pardon.
Wasn't forgiving them GRANTING them the ultimate pardon in his eyes and
the eyes of his followers?
|
| 20.1955 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 31 1995 19:03 | 13 |
| Well if it WAS the ultimate pardon, they died anyway...
Now if you are suggesting that the ultimate pardon gets cashed
in in heaven, then why should the Pope speak out against capital
punishment on earth? Why not allow capital punishment and just
let God sort it out? If you are referring to the "ultimate
pardon" as being an afterlife thing, you are mising apples and
oranges.
Sorry to muddy the water with my previous comment about what
Jesus did (not) do on the cross. I was just throwing it out
as a FWIW to show a concrete example of Jesus' reaction to a
capital punishment situation.
|
| 20.1956 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Mar 31 1995 19:04 | 5 |
| Jesus forgave the sin of one of the thieves yet at the same time, Jesus
did not interfere with the justice system of the Roman government!
-Jack
|
| 20.1957 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Fri Mar 31 1995 19:34 | 11 |
| re: .1956
Yes, but I would think it would have been difficult for Him to
do since, since He was on earth to die for the sins of Mankind.
My understanding was that Jesus came to replace the harsher,
Mosaic law with his "law of love", and as such, the "eye for
and eye" stuff would not have been appropriate.
MM
|
| 20.1958 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Mar 31 1995 19:38 | 4 |
| .1957
Fine. And that understanding coincides quite nicely with
the Pope's statement.
|
| 20.1959 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Fri Mar 31 1995 19:54 | 7 |
| One nit...
He didn't come to replace the law, but to fulfill it. He said so
specifically in the NT.
-steve
|
| 20.1960 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Fri Mar 31 1995 19:56 | 4 |
|
Steve, does that mean it was the media who recorded Him saying that???
heh heh...
|
| 20.1961 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Mar 31 1995 20:48 | 4 |
| Jesus said that not one stroke of the pen would be removed from the
law!
-Jack
|
| 20.1962 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Fri Mar 31 1995 20:54 | 6 |
| .1961
Which is why Jews are still bound by the Law. But Christians are NOT
bound by the Law, as was made evident by the clean/unclean vision given
Peter. Christians are expected to exercise choice, Jack, not to submit
to every jot and tittle of a written Law.
|
| 20.1963 | How sad. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Fri Mar 31 1995 21:37 | 17 |
| Re: 1940, 1945 et. al.
Why is it I get the impression from your entries in this topic that the
only thing you care about is insuring the right to kill babies. In
that effort you strike off in all sorts of directions trying anything
and everything to support an unsupportable position.
Your latest entries regarding the Pope's position on abortion,
euthanasia and capital punishment is another poor attempt to no only
advance your agenda, but a the same time hold the Pope up to ridicule,
when you did not read his statements, just the unbiased reports of the
fair and equitable news media who have no agenda of their own.
Your arguments get sillier and sillier, particularly when you refuse
to ever respond to a direct question or response to one of your
outrageous postings.
|
| 20.1964 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Mar 31 1995 23:32 | 15 |
| I've come to the conclusion that abortion will never be able to be
discussed without a high emotional energy surrounding the discussion.
Whether people even care or not there are women reading this file who
have had abortions and there are men who have contributed to abortions.
This makes for a very volatile environment, when the the pro-life camp
decries abortion as murder. I think if folks like me who are pro-life
[and pro-choice for political reasons], could take that into
consideration when noting, or reading others notes, this insight could
possibly lend towards to some compassion.
Maybe, Maybe Not, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
Nancy
|
| 20.1965 | hah | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Sat Apr 01 1995 01:42 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.1966 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Sat Apr 01 1995 23:06 | 4 |
| Well Deb, not sure how to take that "hah"... but "hah" back at ya!
:-) :-)
Nancy
|
| 20.1967 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Sun Apr 02 1995 14:56 | 4 |
|
Not hah-ing at you, Nancy. I agree with your sentiment. I just don't
think it'll ever happen that the two sides will view each other with
compassion.
|
| 20.1968 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Mon Apr 03 1995 11:47 | 6 |
| If one side side sees abortion as murder and the other side sees it
as yet another means of birth control (92% of abortions performed for
this reason - Planned Parenthood) you will never have compassion from
the other side.
ME
|
| 20.1969 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Apr 03 1995 12:33 | 38 |
| ZZ Which is why Jews are still bound by the Law. But Christians are
ZZ NOT bound by the Law, as was made evident by the clean/unclean vision
ZZ given Peter. Christians are expected to exercise choice, Jack, not to
ZZ submit to every jot and tittle of a written Law.
Paul made that very clear in his epistle to the Galatians that those
who are under the law are under a curse...why? Because no one is
justified by the law in the sight of God. Therefore, you are correct
that the Christians are not under the law; however, the Jews are also
justified by faith only. Abraham was justified by faith and it was
accredited to him as righteousness.
ZZ Christians are expected to exercise choice, Jack, not to submit
ZZ to every jot and tittle of a written Law.
If this is in the context of abortion, then the statement above is
absurd. We are instructed in Gods word how to choose and not just to
choose...in many many ways.
Flee youthful lust
Choose whom you will serve this day...
Be anxious in nothing...
Avoid the sin that so easily entangles us...
Etc.
And by the way, the Jews are included in this. They are no longer
bound by the law either. If they truly believed this, they would also
realize their need for the sacrifice which hasn't been done since the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The reason I brought the whole issue up to Mary Michael was to show her
that although we are not justified by the law of Moses, the law in
itself was perfect and Holy; revealing Gods will in matters of holiness
and justice. When somebody is executed by the state for the crime of
murder, they are held accountable before God for their own life...not
just the life on the one they took.
-Jack
|
| 20.1970 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Apr 03 1995 12:44 | 8 |
| Nancy:
If you could help me understand this a little better...where does the
role of compassion come into the fold on my part for women who use
abortion for birth control...which is most women who have abortions by
the way?
Jack
|
| 20.1971 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Apr 03 1995 13:45 | 19 |
| jack,
while you may consider having an abortion when a primary contraceptive
method fails being having an abortion for BC purposes, I see it as a
dealing with the results when BC fails.
Women do not go out of their way to get pregnant just to have an
abortion. Most women do try to avoid pregnancy when they aren't ready
for one. there are some exceptions, such as the very young, the
substance abusers, and those who depend on a diety to prevent
pregnancy, and get surprised when it happens to them, but in the main,
abortions among women happen because their particular Contracptive
method failed them. Because of this, the best way to lower the number
of abortions is to improve contraception for men and women, and to make
continuing a pregnancy more attractive for those times when
contraception fails, something the contract on children seems to
forget.
meg
|
| 20.1972 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Mon Apr 03 1995 13:51 | 1 |
| "contract on children"??(!)
|
| 20.1973 | | REFINE::KOMAR | Whoooo! Pig Suey | Mon Apr 03 1995 13:52 | 11 |
| RE: .1971
> and those who depend on a diety to prevent
> pregnancy
If you are referring to RC's (of which I am one), they
preach abstinance. This method does not require a diety - just
willpower. This is something that many people who wish to have
an abortion apparently lack.
ME
|
| 20.1974 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Apr 03 1995 13:55 | 8 |
| No, I am not exactly referring to RC's. There are many people and
sects who depend on their diety for BC and for fertility. BTW, did you
realize RC's have abortions at about the same rate as other women do
for unplanned pregnancies? Part of this is from the abstinence is the
only form of BC, and the fact that if the pregnancy doesn't show,
nobody knows you failed to be abstinent.
meg
|
| 20.1975 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Apr 03 1995 14:05 | 13 |
| Meg,
While I share many of your views regarding the needs to keep legal
abortions as a safe alternative and to keep the government from
legislating how people may control their own bodies/destinies, I
tire of hearing about "the contract on children". It is not my
responsibility as a citizen of this country to ensure that the
general welfare of every woman and child (or man, for that matter)
is guaranteed, and I applaud the efforts of the current legislatures
to stem the dependency on the dole which has become so prevalent
in our society since LBJ leaked all over it.
Let's try to keep the issues separate.
|
| 20.1976 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Mon Apr 03 1995 14:15 | 3 |
| What's an RC?? I feel soooooo uninformed :-)
...Tom
|
| 20.1977 | ex | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Mon Apr 03 1995 14:16 | 3 |
| Nevermind I figgered it out!! Noe I feel soooooo dumb :-)
...Tom
|
| 20.1978 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | aspiring peasant | Mon Apr 03 1995 14:30 | 2 |
| Radio Controlled - They listen to Radio Free Vatican.
^ ^
|
| 20.1979 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Apr 03 1995 14:53 | 14 |
| re: .1963
I've answered your "direct question" twice. I'm awfully tired
of arguing with you. If you want to think of abortion as murder,
fine, be my guest, go ahead, I don't care. I don't think of it as
murder, I won't ever think of it as murder, and you or anybody else
including the Vatican won't ever change my mind. Work to change
the laws if it makes you feel useful. I will work to keep choice
available to all who need it. But, please, do us both a favor. If you
don't like my answers to your questions, don't answer my notes.
Thank you,
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1980 | Well..... | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Mon Apr 03 1995 16:12 | 23 |
| Re: 1979
If you really want to stop arguing then why do you keep posting
inflamatory entries?
You make a ridiculous statement about the Pope and then refuse to back
it up. It's like you run into a building, throw a bomb and then wonder
why everyone has some questions about your actions.
It's rather clear that you are pro-abortion, but that never stops you
from entering your comments. Quite frankly, I think that's agood idea.
I do; however, question your tactic of making unsupportable statements
and then taking offense when you're questioned.
Re: a few back.
Your statement regarding the "contract on children" is one of the most
blatant attempts to ignore the efforts to change society for the better
that I have ever seen.
If you really want to talk about a "contract on children" I'd suggest
you do it in a separte note so things don't get intertwined.
|
| 20.1981 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Apr 03 1995 16:27 | 29 |
| .1969
>> Christians are expected to exercise choice, Jack, not to submit
>> to every jot and tittle of a written Law.
>
> If this is in the context of abortion, then the statement above is
> absurd. We are instructed in Gods word how to choose and not just to
> choose...in many many ways.
No, Jack, it's not absurd. I did not say we're supposed to choose
whatever we happen to think is convenient. There is a difference
between what Jews are bound by, i.e., "do not do this," and what
Christians are bound by, i.e., "you know what's right, you know the
consequences of your choice, now you choose." And whether you like it
or not, that's EXACTLY what Christianity is all about - it's founded on
the principle that we can be, and should be, responsible for our own
actions.
When it comes to abortion, you know what you've been told. You also
know that not everyone believes what you believe - and you also know
that NOWHERE does the Lord tell Christians to FORCE their beliefs on
other people. Quite the contrary, in fact, Jesus says explicitly to
give your message and, if the hearers will not listen, shake the dust
of their town from your feet and leave them to their own business.
Do you dare to trust your Lord, Jack? Do you dare to believe that he
knows better than you know how to deal with other people? If you
insist on forcing your morality on them, the answer to those questions
is no.
|
| 20.1982 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Apr 03 1995 16:59 | 22 |
| ZZ that NOWHERE does the Lord tell Christians to FORCE their beliefs on
ZZ other people. Quite the contrary, in fact, Jesus says explicitly
ZZ to give your message and, if the hearers will not listen, shake the
ZZ dust of their town from your feet and leave them to their own business.
Ya see Dick, this is the type of thing that pisses me off. No where
did I say that I should FORCE my beliefs on anybody else. Like I've
said...many a time in fact, people can do as their conscience dictates
them...as long as it DOESN'T INTERFERE IN THE RIGHTS OF AANYBODY ELSE
(Not shouting, just emphasizing).
Bottom line is Dick...once again....if you like to walk your dog down
the street, I have no problem with this. Just make sure he chites on
your lawn and not somebody elses (the fetus in this case). Morals have
absolutely nothing to do with it. Men can be Johns and women can
prostitute themselves to the hilt if they so desire. This is between
them and their god. I don't have any desire to stop you or anybody
else from doing what you want, not my business mon. But just because
the written law negates a capital crime doesn't mean it isn't in
actuality the same result...right?
-Jack
|
| 20.1983 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Mon Apr 03 1995 17:06 | 15 |
|
Preaching abstinance is absurd for adult women who
absolutely do not want a child now, and do not want to undergo
irreversible sterilization because maybe 10 years down the road we may
or may not change our minds.
I'm 29 now, with no hot prospects in sight. Every year that I check
off in the 'single' column statistically reduces my chances of finding
Prince Charming. If Prince Charming exists. I've seen too much
divorce in my family to get married for a silly reason like I want to
have sex with my partner. But then, I don't want a kid now, so I guess
that marriage is out of the question because someone's god says that
eventually I have to consummate it.
Lisa
|
| 20.1984 | | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Mon Apr 03 1995 17:09 | 5 |
| .1983
nice one!
ric
|
| 20.1985 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Apr 03 1995 17:09 | 13 |
| .1982
But what it comes down to, Jack, is that some people do not believe
that abortion is murder. To those people, dogchite on the lawn doesn't
involve the fetus because the fetus is not human.
And you (generically, not necessarily Jack Martin) are FORCING your
morality on them if you deny them the right, currently recognized by US
law, to act in the matter as they see fit, based on their own morals.
I have no objection with working to change the law, but remember, it's
a two-way street. Those working to change the laws on abortion must be
prepared to accept that the majority of the population might happen to
disagree with them.
|
| 20.1986 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Apr 03 1995 17:22 | 14 |
| I am going to ask this once again even though you have answered it
probably a few times.
Had the Civil war been strictly over the issue of slavery, which we
know it wasn't, would you see the union as interfering in the morality
of southern cotton growers? Keep in mind the union was fully aware of
how slaves were treated down south...simply as chattel.
I anticipate your answer is going to be a resounding yes...that the
Union would be interfering and would have no business waging war on the
south because of slavery. Of course my follow up question will be...
how do you reconcile this with human rights issues?
-Jack
|
| 20.1987 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Apr 03 1995 17:44 | 29 |
| The Union did not interfere in the MORALITY of cotton growers, it
interfered in the LEGALITY of their right to self-determination even to
the extent of throwing off a government they considered oppressive, a
right for which the American Revolution was fought but which was lost
as the federal monster overwhelmed the states that had given it birth.
Even the name of this country, the United STATES of America, should
make it clear that the states are more important than the fed. Lincoln
lost sight of this central principle.
Lincoln made the war an issue of morality because he knew that the
North would not prosecute it to a successful conclusion of only the law
was at issue. He himself, while hating slavery, said, in so many
words, that if he could have ended the war without freeing so much as a
single slave, he would have done so.
As for the morality of the issue once begun, you're wrong. The
Founding Fathers believed that all men [sic] are created equal; the
only reason that slavery was not abolished at the time of the
Revolution was that there would not have been popular backing for such
a radical move, either in the South or in the North. The equality
stance makes slavery a moral issue - even Southern slaveowners conceded
that blacks were human, they just deemed them less intelligent than
whites - and so yes, if the issue had been slavery exclusively, rather
than secession, the government under Lincoln would have been within its
rights to fight the war.
But this still doesn't touch on abortion, Jack, because - and I'm tired
of repeating it - ABORTION IS NOT CONSIDERED MURDER BY EVERYBODY. And
in the legal sense that makes it not an issue of morals but one of law.
|
| 20.1988 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Apr 03 1995 17:46 | 19 |
| re: .1980
If you re-read the section of notes, you'll see that after I
made the statement about the Pope, someone corrected me, and
I said I'd like to see the text of the Pope's encyclical (or
whatever) since I had heard something different. I'm not
real sure how that relates to running into a building and
tossing a bomb, but hey, it's your metaphor not mine.... :-)
I don't recall ever using the term "contract on children"
in my notes. Are you sure you're arguing with the right person?
Or are you arguing with a compendium of noters and I'm the only
one who is answering you? :-)
By the way, I am pro choice, not pro abortion. I believe
there is a difference, YMMV.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.1989 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Fan Club Baloney | Mon Apr 03 1995 17:52 | 3 |
| re: .1987
Interesting insight.
|
| 20.1990 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Mon Apr 03 1995 18:05 | 9 |
| One nit to .1987:
Not everyone considered killing a slave as murder, either, in the
1800's. Sad, but true.
Therefore, it is irrelevent if "everyone" views things in the same way.
-steve
|
| 20.1991 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Apr 03 1995 18:07 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.1990 by CSOA1::LEECH "Go Hogs!" >>>
| Not everyone considered killing a slave as murder, either, in the
| 1800's. Sad, but true.
Steve, what it does do is show they did not think they were doing
anything wrong. I think that is the point people are trying to make.
|
| 20.1992 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Apr 03 1995 18:09 | 8 |
| .1990
Killing a slave wasn't considered murder by everyone, but it wasn't
because slaves weren't human, it was because slaves, as slaves, had no
rights. Fetuses aren't considered human by all concerned - although
things look on the surface enough alike that the slavery analogy works,
in fact a student of history and a Founding Father such as you, Steve,
ought to be able to discern the difference.
|
| 20.1993 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Apr 03 1995 18:34 | 10 |
| I am the one who uses the term "contract on children." Apparently this
is one time, prehaps one of the only time this will happen. the US
catholic bishops council and I agree. the "welfare reform" being
talked about is child-unfriendly and will lead to more abortions in the
short and long run.
The birth rate to AFDC mothers in NJ has gone down, but the pregnancy
rate has not. Does this say anything to anyone out here?
meg
|
| 20.1994 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Mon Apr 03 1995 18:36 | 26 |
| .1992
I'm not the one using the slavery analogy, Dick. I was just pointing
out a nit.
It is safe to say that not *everyone* thought of slaves as human, even
though it was obvious they were. The fetus is obviously human (what
else would it be?), yet not everyone thinks of it as human.
The facts are: slaves were human; the unborn are human
The argument seems to revolve around what type of situation constitutes
enough reason to abort the fetus (which is any reason by today's law),
and when will society consider the unborn as being human enough to have
the right to life.
There are certain parallels to be made in the slavery/abortion analogy,
even if the argument, as a whole, is somewhat flawed.
I agree that the Declaration of Independence was the first nail in the
coffin of slavery. The FF knew this when they penned it, I'm sure.
It was never pushed as there would not have been enough support to end
slavery at that particular time (sadly).
-steve
|
| 20.1995 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Mon Apr 03 1995 19:23 | 5 |
| >The birth rate to AFDC mothers in NJ has gone down, but the pregnancy
>rate has not. Does this say anything to anyone out here?
Yup. It says that NJ is trying to discourage the proliferation of
poverty.
|
| 20.1996 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon Apr 03 1995 20:16 | 9 |
| doc,
but what is happening to all those pregnancies that aren't comming to
term?
Just curious to see what you think. I know wht the Catholic Biships
think.
meg
|
| 20.1997 | Just My Opinion | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Mon Apr 03 1995 21:59 | 21 |
| Jack,
Because we sit behind a terminal and see only words written, this lends
towards some very uncompassionate phrases in notes. I am saying
regardless of your perceptions that there are some very wonderful and
warm women in this file that if you knew they had abortions, you'd
tread a little more lightly [that is if you truly understand
compassion].
I'm so tired of seeing Christians forget what Christ actually did... he
had compassion for us.. .that in while *we* were yet sinners, Christ
died for all of humankind.
The key word to me is "deception". I believe that in this day and age
many women are deceived by the Liar into believing that science can
define when life begins. When you think about it in these terms and
knowing our God is a "just" God and "merciful", I think you can then
live the compassion of Christ.
Nancy
|
| 20.1998 | Can I hear the argument again please! | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Mon Apr 03 1995 23:52 | 15 |
| Abortion argument
1. Should abortion be legal??
yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no
2. Is abortion murder??
yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no
3. Should I be able to decide for myself??
yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no
4. Go to 1. (yawn)
|
| 20.1999 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Apr 04 1995 03:05 | 3 |
|
<------ I like that note
|
| 20.2000 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Apr 04 1995 03:06 | 3 |
|
another aborted snarf.... how many have there been? 2K I think!
|
| 20.2001 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Apr 04 1995 11:37 | 324 |
| VATICAN CITY, March 30 - The following are excerpts
from Pope John Paul's new encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The
Gospel of Life):
ON ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA:
``Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an
innocent human being whether a foetus or an embryo, an infant or
an adult, and old person, or one suffering from an incurable
disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is
permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or
herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor
can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly.
Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an
action.''
ON THE MEDICAL PROFESSION AND ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA:
``In order to facilitate the spread of abortion, enormous
sums of money have been invested and continue to be invested in
the production of pharmaceutical products which make it possible
to kill the foetus in the mother's womb without recourse to
medical assistance. On this point, scientific research itself
seems to be almost exclusively preoccupied with developing
products which are ever more simple and effective in suppressing
life and which at the same time are capable of removing abortion
from any kind of control or social responsibility...
``Even certain sectors of the medical profession, which by
its calling is directed to the defence and care of human life,
are increasingly willing to carry out these acts against the
person. In this way the very nature of the medical profession is
distorted and contradicted, and the dignity of those who
practise it is degraded''
ON DEMOCRACY AND ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA:
``To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthansia,
and to recognise that right in law, means to attribute to human
freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute
power over others and against others. This is the death of true
freedom.''
``This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns
unopposed: the ``right' ceases to be such, because it is no
longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person,
but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this
way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively
moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The state is no longer
the ``common home' where all can live together on the basis of
principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a
tyrant state, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of
the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the
unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest
which is really nothing but the interest of one part.''
ON ``PRO-LIFE'' GROUPS AND ACTIVISTS:
``When, in accordance with their principles, such movements
act resolutely, but without resorting to violence, they promote
a wider and more profound consciousness of the value of life,
and evoke and bring about a more determined commitment to its
defence.''
``Abortion and euthanasia are...crimes which no human law
can claim to legitimise. There is no obligation in conscience to
obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to
oppose them by conscientious objection.''
``Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon
under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally
in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are
contrary to God's law.''
ON THE DEATH PENALTY:
``...the nature and extent of punishment must be carefully
evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of
executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in
other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend
society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in
the organisation of the penal system, such cases are very rare,
if not practically non-existent.''
ON PRE-NATAL THERAPY AND EMBRYO EXPERIMENTATION:
``...the use of human embryos or foetuses as an object of
experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as
human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a
child once born, just as to every person. This moral
condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living human
embryos and foetuses -- sometimes specifically ``produced' for
this purpose by in-vitro fertilisation -- either to be used as
``biological material' or as providers of organs or tissue for
transplants in the treatment of certain diseases. The killing of
innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others,
constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.''
ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF POLITICIANS:
``In a democratic system, where laws and decisions are made
on the basis of the consensus of many, the sense of personal
responsibility in the consciences of individuals invested with
authority may be weakened. But no one can ever renounce this
responsibility, especially when he or she has a legislative or
decision-making mandate, which calls that person to answer to
God, to his or her own conscience and to the whole of society
for choices which may be contrary to the common good.''
``I repeat once more that a law which violates an innocent
person's natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not
valid as a law. For this reason I urgently appeal once more to
all political leaders not to pass laws which, by disregarding
the dignity of the person, undermine the very fabric of
society.''
Today this proclamation is especially pressing because of the
extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of
individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and
defenseless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty,
hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats are
emerging on an alarmingly vast scale.
Unfortunately, this disturbing state of affairs, far from
decreasing, is expanding: With the new prospects opened up by
scientific and technological progress there arise new forms of
attacks on the dignity of the human being.
The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even
departing from basic principles of their Constitutions, has
determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to
make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a
significant cause of grave moral decline. Choices once unanimously
considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are
gradually becoming socially acceptable. Even certain sectors of the
medical profession, which by its calling is directed to the defense
and care of human life, are increasingly willing to carry out these
acts against the person. In this way the very nature of the medical
profession is distorted and contradicted, and the dignity of those
who practice it is degraded. ...
The end result of this is tragic: Not only is the fact of the
destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their
final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and
disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were
by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly
difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the
basic value of human life.
This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture
which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a
veritable ``culture of death.'' This culture is actively fostered
by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which
encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency.
Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to
speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak:
A life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is
considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is
therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of
illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises
the well-being or life-style of those who are more favored tends to
be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this
way a kind of ``conspiracy against life'' is unleashed.
It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and
available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion.
The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion,
because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness
of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is
clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception
with the view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion.
But the negative values inherent in the ``contraceptive mentality''
-- which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in
respect for the full truth of the conjugal act -- are such that they
in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is
conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong
precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected.
Prenatal diagnosis, which presents no moral objections if
carried out in order to identify the medical treatment which may be
needed by the child in the womb, all too often becomes an
opportunity for proposing and procuring an abortion. This is
eugenic abortion, justified in public opinion on the basis of a
mentality -- mistakenly held to be consistent with the demands of
``therapeutic interventions'' -- which accepts life only under
certain conditions and rejects it when it is affected by any
limitation, handicap or illness.
Today this proclamation is especially pressing because of the
extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of
individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and
defenseless. In addition to the ancient scourges of poverty,
hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war, new threats are
emerging on an alarmingly vast scale.
Unfortunately, this disturbing state of affairs, far from
decreasing, is expanding: With the new prospects opened up by
scientific and technological progress there arise new forms of
attacks on the dignity of the human being.
The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even
departing from basic principles of their Constitutions, has
determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to
make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a
significant cause of grave moral decline. Choices once unanimously
considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are
gradually becoming socially acceptable. Even certain sectors of the
medical profession, which by its calling is directed to the defense
and care of human life, are increasingly willing to carry out these
acts against the person. In this way the very nature of the medical
profession is distorted and contradicted, and the dignity of those
who practice it is degraded. ...
The end result of this is tragic: Not only is the fact of the
destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their
final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and
disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were
by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly
difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the
basic value of human life.
This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture
which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a
veritable ``culture of death.'' This culture is actively fostered
by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which
encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency.
Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to
speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak:
A life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is
considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is
therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of
illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises
the well-being or life-style of those who are more favored tends to
be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this
way a kind of ``conspiracy against life'' is unleashed.
It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and
available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion.
The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion,
because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness
of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is
clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception
with the view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion.
But the negative values inherent in the ``contraceptive mentality''
-- which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in
respect for the full truth of the conjugal act -- are such that they
in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is
conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong
precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected.
Prenatal diagnosis, which presents no moral objections if
carried out in order to identify the medical treatment which may be
needed by the child in the womb, all too often becomes an
opportunity for proposing and procuring an abortion. This is
eugenic abortion, justified in public opinion on the basis of a
mentality -- mistakenly held to be consistent with the demands of
``therapeutic interventions'' -- which accepts life only under
certain conditions and rejects it when it is affected by any
limitation, handicap or illness.
Threats which are no less serious hang over the incurably ill
and the dying. In a social and cultural context which makes it more
difficult to face and accept suffering, the temptation becomes all
the greater to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it
at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment
considered most suitable.
Precisely in an age when the inviolable rights of the person are
solemnly proclaimed and the value of life is publicly affirmed, the
very right to life is being denied or trampled upon, especially at
the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and
the moment of death.
This view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in
society. ... Everything is negotiable, everything is open to
bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to
life. ... In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles,
effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism.
Among the signs of hope ... there is evidence of a growing
public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is
seen as a kind of ``legitimate defense'' on the part of society.
Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing
crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying
them the chance to reform. ... As a result of steady improvements
in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare,
if not practically non-existent.
I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent
human being is always gravely immoral.
It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic
and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself
of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons
or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain
important values such as her own health or a decent standard of
living for the other members of the family. ... Nevertheless, these
reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never
justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter
and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops --who on various
occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned
consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown
unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine -- I declare that
direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means,
always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the
deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
This evaluation of the morality of abortion is to be applied
also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos.
Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego
so-called ``aggressive medical treatment,'' in other words, medical
procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the
patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any
expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the
patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly
imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience ``refuse forms of
treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome
prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick
person in similar cases is not interrupted.'' (Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Euthanasia).
I would like to say a special word to women who have had an
abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have
influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases
it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your
heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and
remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do
not lose hope.
|
| 20.2002 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 04 1995 12:19 | 9 |
|
zz 2. Is abortion murder??
zz yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes
zz no
More like....Yes but we're going to allow it anyway!
-Jack
|
| 20.2003 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Tue Apr 04 1995 12:26 | 2 |
| .2002
Well you do allow capital punishment.
|
| 20.2004 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 04 1995 12:29 | 3 |
| The murderer made a choice and hence put himself in the chair!
-Jack
|
| 20.2005 | | MAIL2::CRANE | | Tue Apr 04 1995 12:40 | 2 |
| .2004
Not a very good argument in my book.
|
| 20.2006 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 04 1995 12:51 | 9 |
| Okay...how about this.
Execution or exile into a cold miserable penal colony with no chance of
ever seeing life as they once knew it. Revoking of citizenship and
stranded on an Island similar to the Rock but big enough to grow food.
No assistance from me as a taxpayer and served with justice in mind,
not rehabilitation!
-Jack
|
| 20.2007 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Reformatted to fit your screen | Tue Apr 04 1995 13:25 | 13 |
| Take it to crime and punishment Jack, please. This string has been so
coherently argued on both sides that it really doesn't need the
cluttering with unrelated issues such as you just brought up. Your
cooperation is much appreciated.
Oh, I am so glad the Pope is such a staunch advocate of folks leading a
quality life. Yes, let's ensure folks with lingering diseases linger
ad infinitum because the sheer joy these folks experience just having
the respirator move in and out is what it's all about really. Pain is
a small burden for one to carry to be able to experience the above.
How thoughtful of the Pontiff to look out for his flock so.
Brian
|
| 20.2008 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 04 1995 13:42 | 7 |
| ZZ Take it to crime and punishment Jack, please. This string has been
ZZ so coherently argued on both sides that it really doesn't need the
ZZ cluttering with unrelated issues such as you just brought up. Your
ZZ cooperation is much appreciated.
Ha ha....I perceive! (As the rock creature said on Star Trek) (The one
with Abe Lincoln)
|
| 20.2009 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:30 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.2004 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| The murderer made a choice and hence put himself in the chair!
Jack, the murderer made a choice, to kill someone.
Others made the punishment.
Your logic fails.
|
| 20.2010 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:31 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.2006 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Execution or exile into a cold miserable penal colony
With or without speedos?
Glen
|
| 20.2011 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:37 | 1 |
| Glen, that penAL.
|
| 20.2012 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:38 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.2011 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
| Glen, that penAL.
Huh?
|
| 20.2013 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159 | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:39 | 1 |
| Gerald, you are bad. You are very, very bad.
|
| 20.2014 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:40 | 1 |
| Mea culpa. I meant "Glen, that's penAL."
|
| 20.2015 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:41 | 4 |
|
again, huh?
|
| 20.2016 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:42 | 6 |
| Glen:
The killer was aware of the consequences of his/her actions.
Therefore, the killer in this case put himself in the chair.
-Jack
|
| 20.2017 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:43 | 18 |
| re: .2001
Thanks for posting that, John. I still feel that in order
to be completely consistent the Pope should have come down as
hard on capital punishment as he did on abortion. To leave
the door open to any execution is to give credence to the idea
that some are more human than others. If the Pope wishes to
truely leave humanity in the hands of eternal judgement, this
should not be so.
I think the Pope is extremely out of touch with the real issues
Catholics (especially American Catholics) face every days, and
lastly, IMO the final paragraph is a slap in the face to every Catholic
woman who has ever had an abortion.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2018 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:43 | 3 |
|
Jack, who made the laws, the killer?
|
| 20.2019 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:46 | 4 |
| No, the legislative and judiciary branches of the government which are
of the people, for the people, and by the people!!
-Jack
|
| 20.2020 | Just wondering | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:50 | 8 |
| Jack:
>No, the legislative and judiciary branches of the government which are
>of the people, for the people, and by the people!!
Are these the same people that made abortion legal??
...Tom
|
| 20.2021 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:54 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.2019 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| No, the legislative and judiciary branches of the government which are
| of the people, for the people, and by the people!!
I'm gonna save this one Jack. So the next time you bitch about the
government, this will come your way! :-)
|
| 20.2022 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 04 1995 15:19 | 14 |
| Glen:
I wrote it with trepidation as I figured you'd say that. Our
government wrote the laws and it is a biblical principle that
government is ordained by God and we are to submit to those who rule
over us. I can bitch if I want however as this is a republic and under
the Constitution, I have the right to petition the government.
The object as a citizen is to try and change the laws that are put into
place. It is your right to try and make me give to charity...which you
have successfully done over the last thirty plus years. It is your
right to attempt to change capital punishment laws and abortion.
-Jack
|
| 20.2023 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Apr 04 1995 16:51 | 4 |
| re .1971
I disagree that the main reason for abortion-for-birth-control
is the failure of some other primary form of birth control.
|
| 20.2024 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue Apr 04 1995 17:04 | 32 |
| <<< Note 20.1981 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>
> I did not say we're supposed to choose
> whatever we happen to think is convenient.
Unfortunately, Dick, far too many people take "choice" as a
license to do precisely that.
> Quite the contrary, in fact, Jesus says explicitly to
> give your message and, if the hearers will not listen, shake the dust
> of their town from your feet and leave them to their own business.
It is evident, Dick, that people here (myself included) do not
heed your argument. Should you consider shaking the dust from
YOUR sandals?
> Do you dare to trust your Lord, Jack? Do you dare to believe that he
> knows better than you know how to deal with other people? If you
> insist on forcing your morality on them, the answer to those questions
> is no.
I disagree that this is a matter of forcing one's morality any
more than the ultimate change in the slavery laws during the
Civil War. You spun a slick argument in .1992, but I do not
accept that either. Speaking out against abortion *IS* a matter
of changing the law. Why this particular change is considered
a matter of "forcing morality" when other things are not (slavery,
kiddie porn, embezzlement, etc., -- there are people who think
these things aren't wrong either, you know...) escapes me. I
think the "shake the dust from your feet and don't force your
morality" argument is merely intended to silence my voice in
the political process.
|
| 20.2025 | Such a pity. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed Apr 05 1995 19:16 | 30 |
| It's very interesting to jump intyo this note every so often to see how
things have progressed. I keep seeing the same responses form the
pro-abortion side. These are basically; (1) It's the law of the land
so shut up, and (2) don't try to force your morals on anyone, everybody
is entitled to chose their own morals and government should stay out.
The problem with those arguments are many, but in essence they boil
down to these; the people of this country have passed many laws that
turned out to be bad and when enough public support was gathered, these
laws were changed - even Constitutional ammendments i.e., prohibition.
Also, I don't see alot of people complaining about the laws prohibiting
prostitution, child porn, etc. these laws all try to "force someone's
morals" on the general population. Why are the pro-abortion folks so
myopic that they only extend this logic to this topic?
The answer is rather clear to me, and that is that the issue of
abortion gets into the basic societal values and an insistence on
personal accountability for one's actions. Those in support of
abortion really want to say that I can create a life through my actions
and lack of self-respect and self-control and if that little thing
called a fetus might be a problem, well then I just get rid of it and
no consequences to me.
Until those who favor abortion rights understand that we have all sorts
of laws addressing morals and behavior, which may or may not affect you
directly, they will continue to castigate those who raise objections on
the issue of "morals".
You will still be wrong, but you will still raise the objections.
|
| 20.2026 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Apr 05 1995 19:48 | 11 |
| RE <<< Note 20.2025 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
>Those in support of
> abortion really want to say that I can create a life through my actions
> and lack of self-respect and self-control and if that little thing
> called a fetus might be a problem, well then I just get rid of it and
> no consequences to me.
Yes, that's exactly what we are saying. So what's the problem?
George
|
| 20.2027 | My 2 cents worth | DECLNE::SHEPARD | It's paddlin' time | Wed Apr 05 1995 19:49 | 10 |
| To both sides of the issue:
Abortion is one of the most horrible things on this earth today. One
should condemn it at every possible opportunity. However, keep in mind that
"vengance is mine" sayeth the Lord. That has always meant to me to speak out,
but not take action. God will deal with those who choose to have an abortion.
His wisdom is perfect is it not. The choice is still the woman's, and it is not
our place to do anything, other than speak out on this heinous thing.
Mikey
|
| 20.2028 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap! | Wed Apr 05 1995 19:57 | 11 |
|
RE: .2026
>Yes, that's exactly what we are saying. So what's the problem?
What ski????
No appeal?????
|
| 20.2029 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:00 | 12 |
| RE <<< Note 20.2027 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "It's paddlin' time" >>>
>God will deal with those who choose to have an abortion.
>His wisdom is perfect is it not. The choice is still the woman's, and it is not
>our place to do anything, other than speak out on this heinous thing.
When did God tell you this?
I was talking to Him the other day and He said that pro-life has it all
wrong, abortion is ok.
George
|
| 20.2030 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap! | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:02 | 3 |
|
You and Silva oughta get together....
|
| 20.2031 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:02 | 15 |
| RE <<< Note 20.2028 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!" >>>
> What ski????
>
> No appeal?????
All U.S. citizens have a right to due process. As defined by the 14th
amendment:
Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
====
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside."
George
|
| 20.2032 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:13 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.2030 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!" >>>
| You and Silva oughta get together....
But Andy, when I was talking to God the other day, He wasn't saying the
same thing about abortion that Goerge said He did.
|
| 20.2033 | Your pro-life sticker is on it's way. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:19 | 8 |
| Re: 2029 & 2032
Well, those were really deep entries. I guess when all else fails and
you can no longer support your position feeble attempts at humor and
sarcasm is all that's left.
I accept your entries as agreement that your position is unsupportable.
|
| 20.2034 | | DECLNE::SHEPARD | It's paddlin' time | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:21 | 27 |
| RE:2029
Ya know George I was beginning to take you seriously. Perhaps I should
have prefaced my remark with "The Bible says...". Or perhaps I should have
considered that you guys on the left blindly follow in lockstep to whatever the
party line is.(D@mn, thought that was what we Repub's are supposed to do). Or
maybe I should have known I would get remarks similar to yours, to cover up the
original point one is trying to make. And perhaps you got a little chuckle out
of getting one on that rube religious nut. You did not know I am an agnostic.
The bottom line is that I agree with freedom of choice. Maybe you
didn't read that far George. God, or whatever He/She may be known as, is
supposed to be in charge ultimatly. The decision to have an abortion must rest
solely with the woman. The consequences of that decision also rest with her.
If she is or has been raised Christian, then she would more understand a
biblical reference than me saying "you should not do that because I say it's
wrong. The bible BTW is an excellent reference for information concerning
matters of conscience. If you can find time and place where you can read some
of it without your bed wetting friends finding out you did so, you may find
something interesting there. Who knows, you may even find something pertinent
to your life in there. If not try the Koran, or the Torah. All three have a
message of love and forgiveness.
My Father and Brother are ministers and I am the family embarassment when it
comes to matters of religion, and Christian Living.
Mikey
|
| 20.2035 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:39 | 34 |
| re: .2025
Why do I do this? It doesn't matter whay I say, you're going
to come back and tell me I'm ridiculous simply because I don't
agree with you........ :-)
ah, it's a disease, I have to answer anyway.......:-)
The reason you see the pro-choice point of view as "myopic" is
because abortion happens to be what were discussing, or at least
trying to anyway. For the record, I believe prostitution should
be legalized. I also believe drug use should be legalized. There
should be laws regulating disease transmission, etc. but basically
what goes on between consenting adults in private is pretty much
their own business, or should be.
Child pornography does not involve a consenting adult. Therefore
it should be illegal. Rape and/or incest does not involve a
consenting adult. These too should be illegal. Sex involves two
consenting adults. Sex is legal (as long as money doesn't change
hands). We've lost the concept of privacy in our haste to
press our morals on people who do not subscribe to them, and who do
not wish to subscribe to them.
I do not know why you wish to villify women who have had abortions,
or even women who choose to have sex outside of marriage. Certainly
our society has not historically imposed the same stigma on men
exhibiting similar behaviors, in fact, it champions them. Until
society is willing to stigmatize them in a similar fashion for the
same behavior, we aren't getting anywhere.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2037 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:44 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.2033 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
| Well, those were really deep entries.
Well, I can only speak for my own entry. It wasn't meant to be deep.
| I guess when all else fails and you can no longer support your position
| feeble attempts at humor and sarcasm is all that's left.
Tell me, what position was I supporting in my note? I'd love to hear
this.
| I accept your entries as agreement that your position is unsupportable.
What crawled up your butt today?
|
| 20.2038 | edited and reposted from .3036 | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:44 | 18 |
| I disagree with two points in .2034:
1) I don't think that it should be *just* the woman's choice. What
about the rights of the father?
2) I don't think that it is fair to lay all of the responsibility at the
woman's feet.
What I'm getting at, is that it takes TWO to make a baby. Both are
equally responsible for what they have created, and for how this new
life is nurtured. I don't think it is fair to heap *all* the
responsibility and choice, or all the condemnation of the act
of aborting the fetus, solely on the woman. If God views abortion as
sin, then both man and woman share in it equally.
-steve
|
| 20.2039 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap! | Wed Apr 05 1995 20:45 | 11 |
|
re: .2036
> If God views abortion as sin, then both man and woman share in it
>equally.
But but Steve!!!
Meowski talked to God last night and He told him it was okay to get rid
of some ridiculous piece of tissue clinging to ones body!!!
|
| 20.2040 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Wed Apr 05 1995 21:07 | 40 |
| re: .2039 (there are other guilty parties, this in particular
set me off)
Honestly, I've about had it with this. What in heaven's name
do you people think?
I'm sure you'd just all LOVE to believe that women who have
abortions are born with 666 tattooed on the back of their
necks, and they spend all their free time trying to have
sex with unsuspecting men so that they can get pregnant and
run off and have another abortion with no more worry or care
than they would spend blowing their nose.
I'd like to believe you're all not thick. It's getting tougher.
The decision alone is a killer. The emotional, physical and
phychological damage is real. The guilt, the pain, the thoughts
of suicide, the idea that you must be the most totally worthless
human on the face of this planet, this stuff is REAL, folks.
The flippant things you say hurt. Actually wrench is a better word.
These are real women. Christian women, Catholic women, Jewish women,
women with real faces and real names. These are real decisions,
agonizing, heart wrenching decisions. Sometimes made by couples,
sometimes made by parents fearful of the shame of a community, mostly
made by women alone. Unless you have walked in their shoes, you have
no right to question their motives. The only one to judge them is
the Creator they believe in and themselves. Not you. Not the law.
Not anyone else.
It would be nice if perhaps someone might think to question what
it is in our society that would make so many women feel that they
have inadequate resources, inadequate support and inadequate choices
that they cannot bring these children into the world. But it
would seem to be enough for you to point the finger and shout
"Wrong!" to satify your God that you've done enough.
I think I pity you.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2041 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Wed Apr 05 1995 21:23 | 15 |
| No one has yet examined the issue of what happens to all those adult
women who absolutely 100% do not want to be pregnant/bear a child but
who also do not want to undergo permanent sterilization because at some
point later in their life, perhaps much later, they might change their
mind.
Where do these women fit in your god's world? Are they supposed to
forego the comforts of companionship for 30 or 40 years because they
absolutely do not want to bear children? Are they not supposed to get
married? Or are they supposed to wait until the maternal instinct hits
at age 37 and then start dating?
Please advise.
Lisa
|
| 20.2042 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Apr 05 1995 21:58 | 36 |
| <<< Note 20.2041 by ASDG::GASSAWAY "Insert clever personal name here" >>>
Lisa --
> women who absolutely 100% do not want to be pregnant/bear a child but
> who also do not want to undergo permanent sterilization because at some
> point later in their life, perhaps much later, they might change their
> mind.
First of all, sterilization is not permanent. We get a publication
from an organization called the Couple To Couple League. (CCL).
Nearly every issue highlights couples who get to experience the
miracle of conception and birth after a sterilization reversal.
> Where do these women fit in your god's world? Are they supposed to
> forego the comforts of companionship for 30 or 40 years because they
> absolutely do not want to bear children? Are they not supposed to get
> married? Or are they supposed to wait until the maternal instinct hits
> at age 37 and then start dating?
First of all in "my God's world" one doesn't separate sex from
the possibility of creating new life. So in a sense you are
asking for conditions that are exclusive of each other.
But there is a practice of natural birth control called Natural
Family Planning (NFP) that enables a couple to know when the woman
is fertile (not guess, but KNOW) and to abstain from sex during
those days. CCL (see above) is a major proponent of NFP. Couples
use NFP not only to avoid pregnancy, but also to promote it when
they want to have a new baby. I don't see why your example woman
wouldn't be able to benefit from this.
And while the mindset of most couples who use NFP would not include
artificial birth control, I see no reason why your example woman
(or couple) could not also include it with NFP if they are unable
to abstain from sex during her fertile periods.
|
| 20.2043 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Apr 05 1995 22:07 | 35 |
| <<< Note 20.2040 by SMURF::MSCANLON "oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye." >>>
Mary-Michael
> I'm sure you'd just all LOVE to believe that women who have
> abortions are born with 666 tattooed on the back of their
> necks, ...
I'm equally sure that you'd just LOVE to believe that we'd
LOVE to believe this.
Really. Can't we dispense with the theatrical hyperbole?
> The decision alone is a killer. The emotional, physical and
> phychological damage is real. The guilt, the pain, the thoughts
> of suicide, the idea that you must be the most totally worthless
> human on the face of this planet, this stuff is REAL, folks.
But even with all that, I guess it is still more important to
eliminate the baby than to face the risk of all these after-
effects. I can believe that this is true for SOME cases, but
for a million and a half cases per year? I hardly believe these
possibilities are considered beforehand in all those cases...
So you seem well aware of the tragedies that befall women -- and
their families -- after an abortion. Why do you want to see this
practice continue if you know that these women are destined for
such turmoil afterwards?
> It would be nice if perhaps someone might think to question what
> it is in our society that would make so many women feel that they
> have inadequate resources, inadequate support and inadequate choices
> that they cannot bring these children into the world.
I'm with you 100% on this question. I truly am.
|
| 20.2044 | | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Wed Apr 05 1995 22:38 | 43 |
|
Joe,
Although your magazine lists examples of couples who have had kids
after sterilization reversal, it doesn't appear to have information
about how many couples have sterilization reversal and are still
infertile. I would also think that after a number of years of having
your tubes tied, there would be a number of medical concerns when you
go try to cut them back open and stitch them together.
And other forms of birth control are not 100% effective, meaning that
the woman can get pregnant when she absolutely doesn't want to be. The
reason I phrased my last note "In Your God's World" is because I don't
believe in your god. In my world, sex is sex, and children are
children. You have sex when you and your partner feel is the right
time, and if you don't want kids then you both take the proper
precautions, and discuss beforehand what the plan of action will be if
the precautions fail. In my world, a 5 week old fetus is not
equivalent to a newborn child, although in my world I realize that not
everyone agrees with when the fetus becomes equivalent to a child,
which is why you cannot legislate when people must or can't give birth.
In my world, you don't bear a child unless you 110% want that child to
exist and unless you know there will be someone there to take care of
it. In my world, the women have feelings, health concerns and life
concerns to think about, and quality of life supercedes quantity of
life.
My world is not the same as your god's world. There is no reason why
we should not be able to co-exist. There are enough areas where our
worlds intersect, such as the agreement that killing a born child is
murder, that you should treat your neighbors as you would wish them
treat you, that you should take care of yourself and not be a slacker,
there are enough areas of intersection to form a stable community
environment where everyone, regardless of religious affiliation could
co-exist. And if you disapprove of what someone else practices behind
their closed doors, and if that practice involves only consenting
adults who aren't causing harm, then don't do it. And if you fear for
your children, then explain to them what it is that you disapprove of
in that action and why you think it is wrong for them to do it, and if
they have the strength of conviction that you work so hard to instill
in them, then they will abstain from it.
Lisa
|
| 20.2045 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap! | Wed Apr 05 1995 22:41 | 17 |
| re: .2040
Mary-Michael,
If you couldn't see that my response was aimed at George and meant to
be a parody of his ridiculous opinion on abortion, then there's not
much I can say...
Unless of course you tend to agree with him, then I can see why it
set you off...
Otherwise, it's best to take it in the context it was meant..
Andy
|
| 20.2046 | Replies. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed Apr 05 1995 23:03 | 45 |
| Re: 2035
I notice that in the entire debate around abortion that people keep
creating their own terms and fictions and then wonder why others
disagree. Your latest attempt is to use the phrase "consenting
adults". Well, why do you make such a distinction? You make
statements with certain disclaimers and expect that that is sufficient
to support your point. If others don't accept it, then they are
narrow-minded, etc, etc. What you do is draw the line of aceptable
behavior further down the line than others are willing to accept.
Please don't split hairs about acceptable between "consenting adults"
and expect any agreement. OBTW, what about consenting children? Is sex
OK between consenting children? And, if so, why the distinction
between children and adults? If not, why not? If so, you just,
well.....
I do; however, agree totally with you on your point regarding the man's
participation. I feel that he has an equal, if not greater,
responsibility in the procreation of life and the results therefrom.
No debate from me on this point.
Re: 2040
You make an impassioned entry ending with a woman having inadequate
resources chosing not to bring a baby into the world. Although that
sounds real good, what happened to this persons resources between the
time she jumped into the sack with Mr. Sperm and the time she realized
that she was pregnant. I don't think that many women find themselves
in significantly different situations before or after. What your entry
tells me is that inadequate thought goes on before the fact and then a
way out has to be found after.
Re: 2044
Once again you make up this fiction that what goes on behind closed
doors is nobody's business and that it doesn't make a difference.
Well, your wrong. Because it doesn't stay behind closed dooors. It
gets dragged out into the public, particularly in treating sex as a
simple recreational activity. this attitude devalues sex, devalues
life and ultimately brings societal values to a new low.
That's what's wrong with "keeping it behind closed doors." It doesn't
stay there.
|
| 20.2047 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Apr 05 1995 23:23 | 76 |
| <<< Note 20.2044 by ASDG::GASSAWAY "Insert clever personal name here" >>>
Lisa
> Although your magazine lists examples of couples who have had kids
> after sterilization reversal, it doesn't appear to have information
> about how many couples have sterilization reversal and are still
> infertile.
Undoubtedly sterilization reversal is not guaranteed. I have read
that a vasectomy reversal is 90% successful if done within 6 years
of the vasectomy, and drops off the longer the time between the
vasectomy and the reversal. It is also my understanding that
tubal reversal is also do-able, but less successfully so than
vasectomies, and also more of a major procedure. All I was trying
to point out was that sterilizations are NOT irreversable as you
were indicating.
> And other forms of birth control are not 100% effective, meaning that
> the woman can get pregnant when she absolutely doesn't want to be.
NFP is 100% effective because it involves abstinence during
fertile times. Granted that some women's cycles are simply
so erratic that NFP becomes difficult, but these are far from
representative.
> reason I phrased my last note "In Your God's World" is because I don't
> believe in your god.
Understood. Still, you *did* ask about "my God's world" and
I told you about it. I hope I was clear.
> In my world, a 5 week old fetus is not
> equivalent to a newborn child, although in my world I realize that not
> everyone agrees with when the fetus becomes equivalent to a child,
> which is why you cannot legislate when people must or can't give birth.
I know it's a tired argument (as is yours) but in P. J. Calhoun's
world (1800's Alabama cotton plantation owner) a black was not
human, which is why he believed that people could not legislate
who could or couldn't own slaves.
I noticed that you chose 5 weeks as an example. It is one that
is comfortably-extreme. I suspect that you would not choose 8.5
months to be an acceptable abortion candidate. Somewhere in
between lies some line for you. Am I correct? Would you be
comfortable with a national abortion policy that prohibited
third-trimester abortions except for special cases?
> In my world, you don't bear a child unless you 110% want that child to
> exist and unless you know there will be someone there to take care of
> it. In my world, the women have feelings, health concerns and life
> concerns to think about, and quality of life supercedes quantity of
> life.
I know. I know. And I'm sure you don't want to hear my arguments
to the contrary again either.
> My world is not the same as your god's world. There is no reason why
> we should not be able to co-exist. There are enough areas where our
> worlds intersect, such as the agreement that killing a born child is
> murder, that you should treat your neighbors as you would wish them
> treat you, that you should take care of yourself and not be a slacker,
> there are enough areas of intersection to form a stable community
> environment where everyone, regardless of religious affiliation could
> co-exist.
So you can list some places where our moralities intersect. What
of those people who don't share those intersection points? Should
we accommodate them too? Where does it end?
> And if you disapprove of what someone else practices behind
> their closed doors, and if that practice involves only consenting
> adults who aren't causing harm, then don't do it.
Abortion involves more than consenting adults.
|
| 20.2048 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Thu Apr 06 1995 13:53 | 55 |
| re: 2046
I think the term "consenting adults" has been around quite a while.
I should be extremely surprised if I "invented it". :-) For the purposes
of my reply, the term "consenting adults" refers to two adults who have
attained an age at which consensual sex is not satutory rape (I believe
this varies from state to state) and have both agreed to the
scope and possible consequences of the acitivity in which they agree
to participate together. I have no idea what you mean by "making statements
with certain disclaimers"; you're going to have to explain that a
bit better. The idea of "consenting children" is absurd. Children
are not mentally, emotionally or physically developed enough to
have a full understanding of the consequences of their actions. The
distinctions between children and adults are fairly obvious and certainly
agreed upon in the legal field. If this is the best argument you can
come up with, I've most certainly made my point.
As far as ye olde Mr. Sperm goes, unfortunately, often by the time Mr. Sperm
and Ms. Egg have "tied the knot", the owner of Mr. Sperm may have
distanced himself from the owner of Ms. Egg. If not, he may soon
choose to do so when the owner of Ms. Egg calls up to inform him
what Mr. Sperm did on his summer vacation....and the owner of Mr. Sperm
may need further convincing to the point of legal intervention to
provide the owner of Ms. Egg with monetary remuneration for the
raising of the resulting Little Omlette.
The upshot of all this is that the man, can and does walk away,
often with no consequences. While all men certainly are not
"deadbeat Dads", we wouldn't have an expression for it if it
only happened once in a blue moon. And a women must bear the
physical, emotional and medical brunt of carrying the child to
term, in addition to the costs if Dad is conspicuously absent.
So, until you can figure out a way that 100% of the fathers bear
their 50% of the responsibility, I'd prefer safe, legal abortion
to poverty stricken, abused and abandoned children.
Inadequate thought *does* go on before the fact. I could use
your exact words and apply them to marriage and they would be
equally valid. We are imperfect. We are human. We don't
always think things through. If we did there would be no
divorce, no business failures, no crime, no murder, no
need for the IRS because there would be no tax fraud, and
the stock market would never go up or down because no one would
make a mistake. What does this ultimately prove? Nothing,
life is like that. People can and will make mistakes.
In closing, I could further say that if you believe providing accessibility
to abortion is nothing more than a "convenience" for women and
involves murder, I equally believe that denying accessibility to abortion
is nothing more than a "convenience" to clear your conscience,
and involves the murder of women and born, breathing children who
die in povery and as victims of abuse.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2049 | | TUBORG::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:18 | 13 |
| could one of the biblical people explain leviticus chapter 26 and 27 to
this ignorant pagan? From what I read, it looks like children are
considered valueless until the have lived 1 month.
joe, sterilization reversal is expensive, often ineffective, and
far more dangerous to people than the original surgery. On a woman the
reversal looks much like a c-section scar. also while the reconnection
is 90% the effectiveness of the surgery is generally closer to <70%
with a large number of ectopic pregnancies that must be terminated, or
you lose the woman as well as the embryo. It also leads to IVF or gift
procedures, which the pope condemns, if people use it.
meg
|
| 20.2050 | Thenks for the answer, but.... | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 06 1995 16:05 | 46 |
| Re: 2048
My point regarding "disclaimers" is you say that what goes on between
"consenting adults" is separate and distinct from others. Your current
reply clarifies your term, but certainly does nothing to support your
argument or point. If your definition of consenting adults includes
all of the considerations you list, then the need for abortion under
such circumstances would be so rare as to be inconsequential.
Unfortunately, the number of abortions is not inconsequential. This
owuld lead me to beleive that sexual activity does not occur between
consenting adults as you put forth. Most sexual activity is conducted
with a lot less, if not none, of the stipulations you identify.
My question regarding "consenting children" and particularly your
response makes my point. The pro-abortion crowd sees no difference
between children and adults when it comes to sexual activity. that
being the case they will accept no limitations on abortion access for
children. If, as you say, children are immature and unable to make
adult decisions, then why would a potentially life-threatening and
emotionally devastating decision be placed in their hands with no
requirement that a resposnible adult give consent to the procedure.
Unfortunately I get back to my basic question. I beleive almost
everyone knows how to avoid pregnancy to just about 100%. Just about
everyone knows how devastating pregnancy and child birth can be to a
single parent. this being the case, I would think that a significant
amount of thought would go into just who you jump into the sack with.
For all of the reasons you put forth, I would think that no woman, nor
man, would want to engage in an activity that could have the negative
effects that you identify without a very firm and long-term commited
relationship prior to any sexual commitment. What I see, is that the
majority of abortions are not amoung married people who encounter an
unplanned pregnancy. The statistics that I see show that these are
single people who are in an inconvenient position.
Lastly, I agree that we must make sure that the men who father children
are financially and emotionally repsonsible for them. I do not
beleive; however, that men will begin to recognize and accept their
repsonsibility until such time as they clearly understand that sex is
not a sport nor something that is a casual activity. Unfortunately,
the woman is the best person to communicate this. If she it makes it
clear that Mr. sperm and Ms. egg are no going to meet until their
respectiver owners have established a clear and mutual long-term
relationship, then men may begin to recognize that sex is more than
just a fun thing to do whenever.
|
| 20.2051 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Thu Apr 06 1995 16:29 | 21 |
| RE <<< Note 20.2034 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "It's paddlin' time" >>>
>RE:2029
> Ya know George I was beginning to take you seriously. Perhaps I should
>have prefaced my remark with "The Bible says...". Or perhaps I should have
>considered that you guys on the left blindly follow in lockstep to whatever the
>party line is...
Ok so let me get this straight.
If someone says "God says pro-life is right and wooo be to you if you get
an abortion", then that's ok.
If someone says "Well I talked to God the other day and He told me pro-life
was wrong", then that's not ok.
I realized I'll get criticized for this as well but to me that sounds like
more hypocrisy from the right. Why should pro-life get to claim God is on
their side while anyone from pro-choice who makes that claim gets flack?
George
|
| 20.2052 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu Apr 06 1995 16:32 | 9 |
| >I realized I'll get criticized for this as well but to me that sounds like
>more hypocrisy from the right. Why should pro-life get to claim God is on
>their side while anyone from pro-choice who makes that claim gets flack?
You certainly won't get any flack from me on this George! I've been
wondering the same thing myself for years. Thanks for asking the
question!
-b
|
| 20.2053 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Apr 06 1995 17:21 | 2 |
| By George, he may have said something inarguable for a change . . .
|
| 20.2054 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Apr 06 1995 17:30 | 5 |
| re .2049
Yes, Meg. I agree with all of that. I was only pointing out
(and you supported) that sterilization is not necessarily
permanent as was stated in .2041.
|
| 20.2055 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Apr 06 1995 17:42 | 7 |
| It should be pointed out that OR founder Terry Randall considers
sterilazation, and ANY for of birth control to be as immoral as
abortion. After all people use BC to prevent the "inconvenience" of
pregnancy and joy of giving birth to as many kids as is humanly
possible.
meg
|
| 20.2056 | any thing is bad and wrong | HBAHBA::HAAS | recurring recusancy | Thu Apr 06 1995 17:45 | 3 |
| Which is basically the Roman Catholic approach to the issue.
TTom
|
| 20.2057 | | DECLNE::SHEPARD | It's paddlin' time | Thu Apr 06 1995 17:54 | 28 |
| I want to state my personal opinion, and then bow out of this topic. Please
note I am not attempting to sway anyone either way.
1) There are so many emotional issues underlying the entire debate on abortion.
2) It is the most divisive issue facing the US since Slavery.
3) I am not personally in favor of the abortion procedure itself.
4) There are circumstances wherein I would agree with a woman's decision to
terminate her pregnancy.
5) I think at the point she determines she is pregnant, it is a woman's right to
choose to have an abortion.
6) The man's decision comes before the sex act itself. He either takes steps
towards responsible birth control, or he abrogates that responsibility by
ignoring it or assuming the woman will do something.
7) I recognize that I lack the wisdom, & experience to decide when an abortion
is proper.
8) This subject drains me emotionally. Even if I am only thinking about it.
Everyone in this conference have a wonderful day.
Mikey
|
| 20.2058 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Thu Apr 06 1995 19:10 | 12 |
| > If someone says "God says pro-life is right and wooo be to you if you
>get an abortion", then that's ok.
> If someone says "Well I talked to God the other day and He told me
>pro-life was wrong", then that's not ok.
George,
You must have forgotten that they are right and we are wrong, it's just
that damn simply?!?!?! :-)
...Tom
|
| 20.2059 | stir,stir,stir the pot... | CSOA1::LEECH | yawn | Thu Apr 06 1995 21:00 | 47 |
| I've spotted a possible inconsistency in arguments from a few
pro-choicers (and it is actually a *different* one, and not a rehash
8^) ).
Without naming names...
I've seen the argument against the death penalty on the *basis* of
the possibility of executing an innocent person. Now, I understand
that this argument is giving the *benefit of the doubt* to the one
convicted of a capital crime (even though the odds are greatly against
this happening). It is okay to send them to prison for
*life* (sentencing them to a life of misery), though.
On the other hand, there is no benefit of the doubt given to the fetus.
When it is officially a "baby" and has value, is solely up to the
interpretation of the individual. The fact that it is a unique life at
conception is tossed right out of the equation.
The rationalizations are that if it is not wanted, or is
a fetus of a poor person who cannot support it, then it is okay to
abort, as it will only suffer a life of misery (so the argument goes).
Why make the child suffer a life of misery, with only
a small chance of being successful in life, right?
Anyone see a problem with this logic? If not, I'll be even clearer:
1) give the criminal the benefit of the doubt, but sentence him to a
life of misery in prison, it's more humane
2) don't give the fetus the benefit of the doubt, it would be cruel to
sentence it to a life of misery; it has only a small chance to make
something of itself in a bad environment, so killing it is more humane
than birthing it
I keep hearing about the inconsistencies of the pro-choice, pro-death
penalty folk's arguments, so I thought I'd show that the pro-choice,
anti-death penalty side has an inconsistency or two of its own. Since
I fall into the former category, I've been told I'm inconsistent in
trying to save the unborn, yet wanted born people to be executed.
Those falling into the latter category have the same problem on the
surface, since killing unborn (who are innocent of any crime) is okay,
yet executing murderers is not; both rationalized the same way with
differing end results.
-steve
|
| 20.2060 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Apr 06 1995 21:05 | 16 |
| Leech,
Could you explain leviticus chapter 26 to me then? Seems the law of
the bible placed NO value on human life before it was 1 month out of the
womb.
Secondly, Remember Idon't consider a first trimester embryo a life. I
have learned through 7 confirmed pregnancies with three born, breathing
children, that nature or god is the worlds biggest abortionist, and she
certainly has brught that home to me.
2nd trimester up to the 24th week I have simalar feeling about, as do
some people who believe the soul comes into the body when the first
breath is taken.
meg
|
| 20.2061 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Thu Apr 06 1995 21:21 | 31 |
| RE <<< Note 20.2059 by CSOA1::LEECH "yawn" >>>
> On the other hand, there is no benefit of the doubt given to the fetus.
> When it is officially a "baby" and has value, is solely up to the
> interpretation of the individual.
Well not really. From the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States:
Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
====
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the State wherein they reside."
Before that time the fetus is not legally a "person" but part of a woman's
body. Her constitutional right to privacy gives her the right to medical
control over her own reproductive system including the right to abortion.
>The fact that it is a unique life at
> conception is tossed right out of the equation.
Right, just as the fact that a human egg is a unique life between ovulation
and conception is tossed by pro-lifers.
> I keep hearing about the inconsistencies of the pro-choice, pro-death
> penalty folk's arguments, so I thought I'd show that the pro-choice,
> anti-death penalty side has an inconsistency or two of its own.
Go right ahead, I'm waiting.
George
|
| 20.2062 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Apr 06 1995 21:41 | 7 |
| Meg. What specifically in Leviticus 26 are you referring to?
I really can't see anything to support what you are saying.
While you have your Bible open looking for that, let me suggest
that you also read Psalm 139 to see why a developing baby is more
than just "conception material" -- if you are really interested
in using the Bible for arguing this issue...
|
| 20.2063 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Fri Apr 07 1995 01:49 | 2 |
|
Actually, I think Meg's referring to Leviticus 27:6.
|
| 20.2064 | | CSOA1::LEECH | yawn | Fri Apr 07 1995 13:01 | 35 |
| >Note 20.2061 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI
> Well not really. From the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United
>States:
> Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
====
> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
> of the State wherein they reside."
> Before that time the fetus is not legally a "person" but part of a woman's
>body. Her constitutional right to privacy gives her the right to medical
>control over her own reproductive system including the right to abortion.
Irrelevent to my point. The woman determines when she considers the
life within her a baby. Those that abort the fetus don't consider it a
baby, I imagine. Others consider it a baby from day one. You are
talking law, I am talking mindset.
We disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution regarding
abortion and the right to privacy, and how the latter supports the
former. But I'm not in the mood to rehash that argument today.
>>The fact that it is a unique life at
>> conception is tossed right out of the equation.
> Right, just as the fact that a human egg is a unique life between ovulation
>and conception is tossed by pro-lifers.
The egg shares the DNA code from the woman. At conception, the egg and
sperm combine to create a unique DNA code- a unique life.
-steve
|
| 20.2065 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 07 1995 16:37 | 13 |
| re Leviticus 27:6
Thanks, Deb. I notice, though, that there isn't a Leviticus 27:7
(or any other verse) that says that this is a comprehensive list
of all ages of human life.
But let's just assume that it is. Should we take it, then, that
we should be allowed to kill babies up to one month of age with
God's permission? Does this one verse somehow negate all the
others that have been frequently quoted that show a Biblical
basis for life in the uterus?
I think not.
|
| 20.2066 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Apr 07 1995 16:47 | 40 |
| RE <<< Note 20.2064 by CSOA1::LEECH "yawn" >>>
> The woman determines when she considers the
> life within her a baby. Those that abort the fetus don't consider it a
> baby, I imagine. Others consider it a baby from day one. You are
> talking law, I am talking mindset.
This is exactly right. Most pro-choicers feels that the fetus is part of the
woman's reproductive system until she decides it's a baby or until it becomes
viable which ever comes 1st. The Constitution doesn't identify it as a person
until birth.
> We disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution regarding
> abortion and the right to privacy, and how the latter supports the
> former. But I'm not in the mood to rehash that argument today.
As George Carlin says, "You gotta wanna". I guess that applies to debate as
well.
> The egg shares the DNA code from the woman. At conception, the egg and
> sperm combine to create a unique DNA code- a unique life.
No at some point in the development of the egg before the DNA splits in half
genes from the woman's two halves are swapped so that the genetic composition
of the DNA in each egg is unique. Ok maybe there is something like a one in
gizzillion chance that it's not unique.
Think about it. If that didn't happen then any family with more than four
natural children would have children that were identical if not for age. There
would be a maximum of 4 sets of genetic codes possible from any couple.
That is not the case and in fact if you have a family with a dozen kids,
unless there are identical twins (or triplets, etc) they all have a unique
genetic code. There will be plenty of similarities in those codes but they will
be unique.
This is because gene swapping occurs during the creation of the half DNA
strand in both the egg and sperm.
George
|
| 20.2067 | there is a difference. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Fri Apr 07 1995 17:54 | 25 |
| Re: 2066
I have seen this argument put forth before about the unfertilized egg
and that pro-life folks don't see a problem with this be naturally
killed. I am at a complete loss to try and understand why this
argument gets put forward.
the majority of pro-life people feel that once the egg and sperm
combine, at that point life begins. Your contention regarding the egg
being a life is interesting but irrelavent. To try and keep this
simple an unfertilized egg is just that, an unfertilized egg. You can
keep that egg forever and will never develop into anything but an
unfertilized egg. Once you combine it with a sperm cell it then begins
to develop into something else. That something else is a human being.
Prior to the combination neither the sperm nor the egg is human. they
have the potential to become a human being, but are not human prior to
conception. Once conception occurs, then you have a human being
developing and preparing to exist on it's own.
If your point was that a woman should be able to abort an unfertilized
egg, then I don't think you would find much opposition. Conception;
however, changes everything. That is what you and others seem to have
a difficult time understanding.
|
| 20.2068 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri Apr 07 1995 18:16 | 17 |
| re .2067
Does an egg or sperm have a unique dna sequence seperate from its host?
given nature happening the way it should wouldn't it meet and develop
into a fetus after conception?
Terry Randall feels that they are human, and he tends to see himself as
a major spokesman for "pro-life."
BTW Joe,
TR also considers NFP to be genocide from what I read. Avoiding having
a child with any method for any reason is as bad as abortions, and is
only done for convenience according to him. what a wonderful person!
|
| 20.2069 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 07 1995 19:00 | 27 |
| <<< Note 20.2068 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> Does an egg or sperm have a unique dna sequence seperate from its host?
>
> given nature happening the way it should wouldn't it meet and develop
> into a fetus after conception?
That's exactly the point. (or are you using the word 'after'
instead of 'at' for some semantical purpose...)
> Terry Randall feels that they are human, and he tends to see himself as
> a major spokesman for "pro-life."
It seems to me that your statement agrees with the reply
to which you are responding. Was that your intent? (or are
you specifically using 'they' to refer to the individual
sperm and egg, rather than the union of the two? If so,
either you are wrong about Terry Randall's stand (I've
never seen that claim except from George) or Terry Randall
is way off base and not representative of pro-life sentiment.)
> TR also considers NFP to be genocide from what I read. Avoiding having
> a child with any method for any reason is as bad as abortions, and is
> only done for convenience according to him. what a wonderful person!
I'd appreciate some quote from him to back this up. Until
then I'll assume that you (or someone else) made this up.
|
| 20.2070 | 8^) | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Fri Apr 07 1995 19:01 | 6 |
|
I thought his name was Randall Terry, not Terry Randall.
Signed,
deb_mz
|
| 20.2071 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Apr 07 1995 19:03 | 1 |
| In some countries, the surname is first.
|
| 20.2072 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Apr 07 1995 19:17 | 35 |
| RE <<< Note 20.2067 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
> the majority of pro-life people feel that once the egg and sperm
> combine, at that point life begins.
And that's fine. Pro-choicers respect your right to that ** OPINION **. Now
can you respect the fact that someone might have an ** OPINION ** that is
different from yours?
>You can
> keep that egg forever and will never develop into anything but an
> unfertilized egg. Once you combine it with a sperm cell it then begins
> to develop into something else. That something else is a human being.
This is just plane wrong. The egg was "developing" into a human just as
much as the fetus is "developing" into a human. But as to whether or not
either one is a human is a matter of debate.
> If your point was that a woman should be able to abort an unfertilized
> egg, then I don't think you would find much opposition. Conception;
> however, changes everything. That is what you and others seem to have
> a difficult time understanding.
If you want to argue that the process becomes more automatic after conception
then fine. But where is it cast in stone that just because the default changes
from not proceeding to proceeding that suddenly women lose their rights to
control their reproductive systems?
Yes it is different after conception but so what? Why should everyone be
forced to see that difference as the critical point at which life begins? The
only thing you can say for certain that changes is the results of not
interfering with the process, but what's the relationship between that simple
fact and morality?
George
|
| 20.2073 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 07 1995 19:50 | 15 |
| <<< Note 20.2072 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
> And that's fine. Pro-choicers respect your right to that ** OPINION **. Now
>can you respect the fact that someone might have an ** OPINION ** that is
>different from yours?
Sure, you're entitled to hold a wrong opinion! :^)
> This is just plane wrong. The egg was "developing" into a human just as
>much as the fetus is "developing" into a human.
I disagree.
Is this just "plane wrong" simply because you said so? Weren't
you laying it into DougO yesterday for precisely the same posturing?
|
| 20.2074 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Apr 07 1995 19:58 | 22 |
| RE <<< Note 20.2073 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
>> This is just plane wrong. The egg was "developing" into a human just as
>>much as the fetus is "developing" into a human.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Is this just "plane wrong" simply because you said so? Weren't
> you laying it into DougO yesterday for precisely the same posturing?
>
Well think about it. If an egg inside a human is not developing into another
human, what is it developing into? A hamster? A duck? Perhaps a velociraptor?
Or are you saying that there is no development going on at all?
Most people agree that a human egg is a building block of human life and
those who have studied genetics know that it's genetic code is unique, not
just an identical copy of one of the two X strands of the woman, due to
gene swapping.
George
|
| 20.2075 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 07 1995 20:21 | 8 |
| <<< Note 20.2074 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
> Well think about it. If an egg inside a human is not developing into another
>human, what is it developing into? A hamster? A duck? Perhaps a velociraptor?
Once created, it is developing into nothing at all. It just
exists until it is expelled. It doesn't start developing into
anything until it is fertilized.
|
| 20.2076 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Fri Apr 07 1995 20:51 | 23 |
| RE <<< Note 20.2075 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>
> Once created, it is developing into nothing at all. It just
> exists until it is expelled. It doesn't start developing into
> anything until it is fertilized.
I'm not sure if that's exactly right. I believe that ovulation is the
process where by an egg is completed, released, and works it's way down
into position.
Those are steps in the process of creating a new human being, just as
the development of the brain and fingernails are steps.
And while it is true that you can say before conception the default action
is for the process to stop and after conception the default action is for the
process to continue, you can say before a certain point there are no finger
nails and after a point there are.
None of this proves anything, they are all just steps. It's only a matter
of opinion as to which of these steps, if any, represent a point before which
you don't have a person and after which you do.
George
|
| 20.2077 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 07 1995 22:41 | 19 |
| <<< Note 20.2076 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
Well, George, you can say that before a certain time a born
infant doesn't have teeth, and then at a later date it starts
getting permanent teeth, and that at a later point it hits
puberty... Why don't we allow termination of life of stressed/
unwanted/risky children at one of these timeline points?
What makes the baby at a timeline point of two minutes before
birth any different from one at a timeline two minutes after
birth? What is the difference between two minutes before
birth and two days before birth? Two days vs two weeks? Etc.
Somewhere you have to find a monent of significant difference,
and even you admit that conception is such a moment.
Now, I could understand if you were trying to argue for a
moment such as the first heartbeat, or the first brainwave,
but you choose fingernails to make your point. Your argument
is tenuous at best.
|
| 20.2078 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Apr 10 1995 13:26 | 6 |
| I was thinking about this a few nights ago. Can a fetus be addicted to
crack at the early stages of development? If so, then doesn't this
make there well being as important as the drug addict in downtown
Boston?
-Jack
|
| 20.2079 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Apr 10 1995 13:49 | 11 |
| Re Leviticus 27:6:
From early times it was possible to vow a person to the Lord,
i.e., to the sanctuary, where his services would be used for
liturgical ceremonies (1 Sam 1:11). Since, after the exile,
such functions were performed solely by the Levites, it seems
to have been customary to redeem persons so dedicated. ...
Verses 1-8 specify the amount to be paid, and the sum was
determined by the person's capacity to do work.
/john
|
| 20.2080 | Welcome. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue Apr 11 1995 23:27 | 23 |
| Re: 2074 & 2076
Those were very interesting entries, unfortunately they do nothing to
further your contention that a fetus is not human and can be eliminated
at the convenience of the mother.
You seem to want to claim that an unfertilized egg is a developing
human being and normal elimination of an unfertilized egg is identical
to abortion. I think even you can see the falacy of this position. AS
I stated earlier, you can leave an unfertilized egg forever and it will
develop into nothing but an unfertilized egg.
Once it combines with a sperm cell it has the necessary genetic code to
continue developing into a human being. If it makes you feel better, I
will accept any and all abortions of unfertilized eggs. Once
fertilized; however, you are dealing with a viable human life and
aborting it should only be done under very strict conditions.
I am sure you will again try to defend your position, but you have
nothing to support your argument any further other than jibberish.
Glad to have you on board.
|
| 20.2081 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Tue Apr 11 1995 23:44 | 3 |
|
Aha, I see! It's the sperm!
|
| 20.2082 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Apr 12 1995 00:17 | 16 |
| From an Internet Pro-Life newsletter:
The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL) responded to the papal
encyclical with a March 31 release entitled, "Pope Gets It Right," noting
that homosexuals, people with AIDS, and the unborn have one important
characteristic in common: "In the minds of many people we are considered
less than human. And because we are considered less than human, we are not
deemed entitled to the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. Pope John Paul II's passages that focus on prenatal testing
of unborn children echo the concerns of PLAGAL and of many in the lesbian
and gay community. We fear that prenatal tests will become an overture for
parents to do away with their gay and lesbian children before they are
born." PLAGAL's release went on to state, "While the Vatican document
clearly does not express any opinion with respect to the genetic origin of
homosexuality, it recognizes that prenatal diagnosis or testing can and
most likely will be used for 'eugenic abortions.'"
|
| 20.2083 | John, I guess you got the short version, huh? | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 12 1995 02:04 | 87 |
|
POPE GETS IT RIGHT
Boston, MASS. March 31, 1995. Philip Arcidi, President of the Pro-Life
Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, today praised yesterday's Vatican statement,
Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):
Gays, People With AIDS, and the unborn have an important characteristic in
common: In the minds of many people we are considered less than human. And
because we are considered less than human, we are not deemed entitled to the
basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pope John
Paul II's passages that focus on prenatal testing of unborn children echo the
concerns of PLAGAL and of many in the lesbian and gay community. We fear
that prenatal tests will become an overture for parents to do away with their
gay and lesbian children before they are born.
If, as recent scientific discoveries suggest, homosexuality has a genetic
basis, the day is not far off when doctors will be able to determine if a
child in the womb is predisposed to be gay. Once medical science achieves
that ability, it will be possible by a legal, surgical procedure to eliminate
lesbians and gays once and for all.
As soon as this "final solution" becomes available, a couple that finds gay
sexuality an affront to their sensibilities won't have to face up to it --
not in their own family, anyway. Or suppose that the parents-to- be consider
themselves to be good liberals. They may still decide that homosexuality is
too great a handicap for their unborn son or daughter to carry through life
-- or an added complication in child-rearing that they can do without. Why
should they borrow trouble when it would be so much easier to try again in
the hope of producing a straight child?
Specifically the Pope's statement said:
Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of prenatal
diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies
in the unborn child. . . . But since the possibilities of prenatal therapy
are today still limited, it not infrequently happens that these techniques
are used with a eugenic intention which accepts selective abortion in order
to prevent the birth of children affected by various types of anomalies.
Such an attitude is shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to
measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of "normality"
and physical well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing infanticide and
euthanasia as well. [Paragraph 63]
While the Vatican document clearly does not express any opinion with respect
to the genetic origin of homosexuality, it recognizes that prenatal diagnosis
or testing can and most likely will be used for "eugenic abortions."
The brutality of abortion hits home when you consider that "eugenic
abortions" could have snuffed you out before you drew your first breath.
Pro-choice advocates say that the issue of abortion boils down to a question
of whether or not people have the right to do what they choose with their own
bodies -- therefore gays and lesbians should be pro-choice. But once
abortion is perceived as a legal means of exterminating lesbians and gays,
the underlying fallacy of the "pro-choice" position is exposed. The freedom
for each of us to dispose of our bodies as we see fit does not give us the
freedom to dispose of someone else's body. No one has the right to decide
for others whether they will live or die. Each human life is its own
justification for being.
Pro-choicers talk about abortion rights without acknowledging what abortion
really is -- a violent act. Stop and consider what happens in an abortion:
a human being is ripped apart; then it dies. Doesn't your intuition tell
you that something horrible is happening?
America's abortion on demand policy -- the most sweeping of any developed
democracy -- says that some lives can be exterminated at will; birth is a
privilege reserved for those deemed eligible. While that policy exists,
neither gays nor lesbians -- nor, for that matter, the disabled, the elderly,
the terminally ill, or any other class of human beings who may be considered
"expendable" -- are safe.
We live in a culture that condones eugenic abortion, a culture that accepts
human life only under optimal conditions and rejects humans deemed imperfect,
limited, handicapped, or ill. Our society says that some of us are not fit
to live; that it is free to dehumanize gays, persons with AIDS, and the
unborn. This is a profoundly sinister perspective on life, one that both
PLAGAL and the Pope condemn.
__________
PLAGAL, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, was organized in 1990 to
advance the pro-life cause within the Lesbian and Gay Community. It is not
associated with any religious or sectarian group. Philip Arcidi is an
architect living in the Boston area.
|
| 20.2084 | Try again | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Apr 12 1995 03:27 | 5 |
| > fertilized; however, you are dealing with a viable human life and
Er, if it were truly (i.e. independently) viable at the point of
fertilization, we wouldn't be having this discussion, ya know, Al?
|
| 20.2085 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Apr 12 1995 11:53 | 8 |
| viable: 1) able to live; specif., a) having developed sufficiently
within the uterus to be able to live and continue normal
development outside the uterus (as a premature or viable
infant) b) able to take root and grow (as viable seeds)
2) workable and likely to survive or to have real meaning,
pertinence (as a viable economy, viable ideas)
Webster's New World Dictionary
|
| 20.2086 | | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Wed Apr 12 1995 11:55 | 6 |
| > Aha, I see! It's the sperm!
Not that I would speak for anybody, but a sperm by itself is similar
to an unfertilized egg - it will develop into nothing.
ME
|
| 20.2087 | Thanks for the definition. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed Apr 12 1995 13:09 | 13 |
| Re: 2085
Thanks for the definition from Webster's, although I'm not sure you
intended to support my position. I tend to use viable as is indicated
in the second definition, namely able to take root and grow. that is
how I use the term viable in terms of a fetus. It can grow to it's
ultimate development until delivery.
I did notice that no one bothered to respond to the entire note, just
the term viable, which by definition supports my use of the term.
Next.
|
| 20.2088 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Apr 12 1995 14:17 | 14 |
| > I tend to use viable as is indicated in the second definition,
> namely able to take root and grow.
So, when presented with a very specific definition practically _engineered_
to apply to the case in point, i.e. a developing zygote in the uterus,
you would prefer to ignore it and select the second more general one, which
speaks of vegetable seeds, since it's more supportive of your position.
I see.
I think that says rather a lot about you, Al.
When you'd like to be taken seriously, y'all come back.
|
| 20.2089 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Apr 12 1995 14:26 | 5 |
| BTW, when I entered the definition, I briefly thought to terminate
it after the primary definition, leaving off the part about the
seeds, but I thought better of it realizing that by so doing I
would only be stooping to your level of dishonesty.
|
| 20.2090 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Apr 12 1995 16:18 | 6 |
| I think you're being unfair, Jack. Where a word has many
meanings, people are entitled to use it for the entire
spectrum of meanings. If someone clarifies which meaning
he is thinking of when he uses a word, it is unfair to
call him dishonest for not using the one you (or Webster)
want him to use.
|
| 20.2091 | law being applied equally... | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Apr 12 1995 16:32 | 43 |
| AP 11 Apr 95 23:40 EDT V0071
Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) -- A man accused of threatening abortion opponents
was indicted Tuesday under a federal law designed to protect abortion
clinics and their staffs.
Daniel Adam Mathison is charged with violating the 1994 Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances Act and with making an unlawful interstate
communication.
Prosecutors say Mathison called First Way, which identifies itself as a
pregnancy-support service, in Wenatchee on Jan. 2 and threatened to
kill workers at the office.
They also say he called the National Life Center hot line in New Jersey
on the same day and told an operator he was going to shoot abortion
protesters outside abortion clinics.
First Way, an affiliate of the Woodbury, N.J.-based National Life
Center, opposes abortion and encourages pregnant women to choose other
options.
The indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in Yakima.
Prosecutors said it is the first case brought by the U.S. Justice
Department under the clinic access act that involves a facility that
doesn't provide abortions.
The act makes it a federal crime to use force or make threats against
clinics providing reproductive health services and counseling.
"In bringing these cases, we are concerned with conduct, not beliefs,"
said Deval L. Patrick, assistant attorney general for civil rights in
Washington, D.C.
No one was available for comment at First Way or the National Life
Center after business hours.
There is no telephone listing for Mathison in Wenatchee.
If convicted on both counts, Mathison would face up to 5 1/2 years in
prison and fines of $350,000. An arraignment date has not been set.
|
| 20.2092 | Another weak attempt. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed Apr 12 1995 16:36 | 29 |
| Re: 2089
Excuse me, but who is talking about dishonesty? Because the first
definition given supports your contention, you believe that that
should be the applicable definition used by all people. I tend to
beleive that the more general definition, particularly in terms of this
discussion, is more applicable. You are certainly free to disagree
with my use of the word viable, and since this can become a red
herring, it doesn't appear worth debating which definition is more
applicable. You don't like my use of the word, fine.
This does not; however, change the fact that my response addressed the
point raised around before and after fertilization. since you didn't
address that point, I assume you agree. You do disagree with the use
of viable, and I accept that.
BTW, your inflammatory use of the word dishonest is rather juvenile
since if you bothered to check the American Heritage Dictionary you
would have found the following definition as the primary for the word
viable: adj. 1. Capable of living or developing under normal or
favorable conditions. 2. Capable of success or continuing
effectiveness; practicable.
Once again your weak arguments and attempts to raise semantic
diversions do nothing to add to your unsupportable position, but do
continue to point out the indefensible position.
Thanks for the opportunity to point out your attempt.
|
| 20.2093 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Apr 12 1995 17:22 | 14 |
| I haven't access to an American Heritage Dictionary, Al. However I do have
yet another (New Century, Unabridged, two volumes) which concurs with
the Webster's reference earlier cited. Now, I have no doubt that we could
get into a great pissing contest over who can cite the most dictionaries
and we still wouldn't prove anything.
The fact remains that the term "viable" in relation to a developing embryo
is not applicable by any scientific or medical authorities until sometime
much later than (in terms of months) the point of conception. Trying to
confuse the issue by claiming "viability" in earlier stages is most definitely
dishonest. If you fully believe it to be "viable" at conception, then
by all means, please park your tush outside of the PP clinics with a
stack of petri dishes and take them home to start your own nursery.
|
| 20.2094 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Apr 12 1995 17:51 | 12 |
| > If someone clarifies which meaning
> he is thinking of when he uses a word, it is unfair to
> call him dishonest for not using the one you (or Webster)
> want him to use.
It's not a case of "wanting" a particular meaning to be used so much
as using one in a context that happens to be totally contradictory
to that given. Webster's 1st definition pertty clearly spells out
to me a meaning of "viable" that contradicts quite strongly exactly
what Al would "like" it to mean in relation to a developing embryo.
That's where the dishonesty lies, Joe.
|
| 20.2095 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Apr 12 1995 18:45 | 5 |
| I still think that dishonest is too strong for what you are
arguing. I *could* extrapolate your argument so that it applies
to your use of 'dishonest' :^) but since I've already dismissed
that argument as it stands, I guess that would be a dishonest thing
for me to do...
|
| 20.2096 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 12 1995 19:28 | 1 |
| <------ like your dismissing it changes the reality of the situation.....
|
| 20.2097 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Wed Apr 12 1995 20:02 | 6 |
| It's not reality. It's just his opinion that may or may not
be right. As of now he has not provided me with enough that
I can accept it into my sphere of reality.
Or are you suggesting that simply because he says something, you
accept it as reality?
|
| 20.2098 | You're still wrong, but certainly vocal. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed Apr 12 1995 20:10 | 15 |
| Re: 2093
You really seem to have a hang up with the term "dishonest". Do you
always resort to such tactics when you no longer have anything of
substance to add?
Also, as far as standing outside of a PP office with petri dishes is
concerned, I don't think so. I have enough of my own children and do
not desire any others. I would; however, certainly take care of any
that I was responsible for conceiving. That seems to be an issue many
don't want to address. simply, if you had a part in the conception of
this child, take care of it - raise it, feed it clothes it - whatever
it takes. It may be inconvenient, it may be hard, it may require
significant sacrifice, but you conceived the baby, you raise it.
|
| 20.2099 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Apr 13 1995 03:32 | 16 |
| > not desire any others. I would; however, certainly take care of any
> that I was responsible for conceiving. That seems to be an issue many
> don't want to address. simply, if you had a part in the conception of
> this child, take care of it - raise it, feed it clothes it - whatever
> it takes. It may be inconvenient, it may be hard, it may require
> significant sacrifice, but you conceived the baby, you raise it.
SO who's arguing that point with you, Al? Certainly not me.
When you find a medical or scientific authority who uses the term "viable"
with respect to a first trimester fetus, get back to me, will you?
Until then, I'll continue to hold your honesty in question if it's all
the same to you.
|
| 20.2100 | | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 13 1995 13:08 | 17 |
| Re: 2099
I would assume that any medical or scientific researcher who reads the
American Heritage Dictionary would refer to a first trimester fetus as
viable. Unless, of course, they choose to be dishonest. Now if the
question is whether or not a first trimester fetus can survive outside
of the womb with no assistance, well that's a different question. I
have never made such a claim.
You have managed to take my original response which included the term
viable rather far afield, and still, I have not seen any refutation to
my entry. Since your issue is with a word, or actually the preferred
use of a word, I assume you have no objection to the rest of my point.
that being the case, I certainly appreciate your agreement.
Sorry we can't agree on a common definition.
|
| 20.2101 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Apr 13 1995 14:32 | 1 |
| <---- i guess that snarf was TRULY aborted!
|
| 20.2102 | Grow up | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap! | Thu Apr 13 1995 14:44 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.2103 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Apr 13 1995 15:00 | 13 |
| -< Grow up >-
This is coming from someone with his personal names set up as:
"Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!"
You might want to listen to yourself sometime there Andy boy!
|
| 20.2104 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Thu Apr 13 1995 15:19 | 3 |
|
Analogies aren't your strong suit I see...
|
| 20.2105 | Not A 'Viable' Argument | STRATA::BARBIERI | | Thu Apr 13 1995 16:42 | 21 |
| A thought on viable...
Am I correct in the following notion regarding viable (that you
are trying to convey)?
Viable means able to live on its own, to survive without special
help. So with your definition, a fetus is NOT viable as it requires
the womb for life.
And the logical followup is that as the fetus is not viable, it is
not a person and thus to choose to terminate its life is ok.
Is a diabetic viable? Don't diabetics have a special need? Might
we then assume a diabetic is not a person and thus his life may be
terminated? How about a person on dialysis? Is he viable? Is he
a person?
My point is that too many applications OF YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF
VIABLE can be turned against your own argument.
Tony
|
| 20.2106 | Quanderies | STRATA::BARBIERI | | Thu Apr 13 1995 16:58 | 42 |
| Hi All,
I usually don't participate in this topic, but the following
are my general takes on it.
1) Often pro-choicers deflect one rationale by implementing
another.
The one rationale is that the fetus has the right to live.
The underlying presumption is the acknowledgment of a conflict
of rights (fetus' right to live vs. woman's right to privacy)
and the belief that the right to life SUPERCEDES the right to
privacy.
The deflection is to harp on the right to privacy all the while
not really confronting any possible conflict of rights with
the pro-lifer's obvious logical followup being that right to
life supercedes.
2) Pro-lifers have not confronted the grey area of the rights of
the fetus. I am assuming that pro-lifers would generally believe
that should the mother's life be in critical; (as in fatal)
danger, the fetus would be aborted.
The implication is an acknowledgment that should the above be
the case, the fetus has LESS rights...all the while the argument
has been that fetuses have EQUAL rights.
Assuming the above is true (that the fetus should be aborted
if the mother's life is in danger), pro-lifers should be candid
about the reality that the fetus has LESS rights than nonfetuses.
And given this, should define exactly how their rights are less.
3) It has not been determined whether or not the BASIS for the
personal belief that a fetus is a human life is UNIVERSAL (as
in obvious like other moral things are obvious no matter the
religious persuasion) or if the personal belief is SPIRITUAL
and just that - personal.
For if its the former, legislation would be a civil matter and
if its the latter, church state separation would imply that the
individual must decide based on her own spiritual beliefs.
By the way, I happen to be pro-life, but I like to be candid
about things!!
Tony
|
| 20.2107 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Apr 13 1995 17:17 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.2104 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>
| Analogies aren't your strong suit I see...
Comin from you.... doesn't mean too much....
|
| 20.2108 | Lots of logical difficulties... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Thu Apr 13 1995 17:56 | 8 |
|
The trouble with "viable" is that it is technology based. It is
easier to be viable in the USA today than 100 years ago.
And "on its own" is meaningless - no infant human can live "on
its own", so none are viable by that standard.
bb
|
| 20.2109 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Apr 13 1995 18:07 | 17 |
| Tony,
My point in bludgeoning Al's misuse of the term "viable" is that it
sets yet another example of clouding the issue. It's all well and
good for the pro-life side to claim "viability" of a 1st trimester
fetus in light of the "able to take root" definition on one hand and
then attempt to mean it in light of the "able to fully develop on
its own" definition with apparently little subterfuge when they later
feel that such argument makes the appropriate strong point for their
position, all the while the fact being that "able to fully develop
on its own" has not been the case, not to mention that it has been
a deliberate contradiction.
My point here hasn't to do with the rightness or wrongness of pro-choice
or pro-life. It has to do with maintaining honesty in the discussion
Calling a first trimester fetus "viable" by a standard and widely
accepted definition is no more honest than calling it a parasite.
|
| 20.2110 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Apr 13 1995 18:18 | 17 |
| <<< Note 20.2109 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
> My point in bludgeoning Al's misuse of the term "viable" is that it
> sets yet another example of clouding the issue.
I see the argument over the semantics of 'viable' as being
the more clouding factor here. Please feel free to take into
account my personal bias on the issue -- that would only be
fair.
So, Jack, would this whole issue dissolve if Al were to replace
the word 'viable' in his statement with 'now able to grow' when
speaking about the fertilized egg?
It seems to me that diluted among all these replies, he has done
that. If you don't see that he's done that, let me request of
Al that he do so to your satisfaction, and we can move on.
|
| 20.2111 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Apr 13 1995 18:22 | 5 |
| Yes, Joe. Al's discontinuance of use of the term "viable" would be more than
satisfactory. I would have thought that I'd made _that_ clear as well.
Largely because it's the only damn thing I've been harping on since this
all started. That was how it began, afterall.
|
| 20.2112 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Apr 13 1995 18:35 | 5 |
| Well, in .2092 he seems to have identified exactly what he
meant. It seems to me that he has given us all permission to
swap his use of 'viable' with 'able to grow'. I really don't
understand why the rest of the discussion was necessary after
that.
|
| 20.2113 | synonyms | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Thu Apr 13 1995 18:49 | 17 |
| viable synonyms
conceivable
feasible
possible
likely
imaginable
workable
potential
thinkable
practicable
Hope this helps in this important and exciting English lesson :).
...Tom
|
| 20.2114 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Thu Apr 13 1995 18:53 | 1 |
| Viable is also how Mongo got around in "Blazing Saddles".
|
| 20.2115 | Clear now. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 13 1995 22:54 | 7 |
| I stated exactly how I use the word viable and said that you were free
to ignore that word if you so chose.
I also stated that I have no intent of being dishonest in it's use. I
do, however, feel that you are being very dishonest in taking one word
out of a response, that is acceptable and go down rat holes.
|
| 20.2116 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Apr 14 1995 10:51 | 8 |
| I'm sure my ignoring your use of the word would have been _exactly_
what you might have liked.
Tell you what, Al, I'll lament my "dishonesty" in this about as much
as you are doing, and we should both be about equally satisfied.
:^)
|
| 20.2117 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Apr 14 1995 14:25 | 1 |
| <----would you two like a cigarette now? :-)
|
| 20.2118 | OR assets seized (chuckle) | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Apr 20 1995 18:03 | 47 |
| Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
DALLAS (AP) -- Officers seized furniture, computers and other office
equipment from Operation Rescue's new headquarters Wednesday under a
court order obtained by Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast
Texas to satisfy a court judgment.
Officials of Planned Parenthood's Houston office watched as movers,
overseen by Constable Rick Richardson, took everything of value inside
LifeChoices Inc., the national headquarters of Operation Rescue.
"We will do everything possible to find and take their assets," said
Planned Parenthood official Judy Reiner. "We've made that clear from
the day we won."
Planned Parenthood was awarded $1 million in punitive damages from
Dallas-based Operation Rescue and Houston-based Rescue America over the
anti-abortion groups' protests during the 1992 Republican National
Convention. A jury found that they and two other groups conspired to
hinder business at
Planned Parenthood and nine other clinics during the GOP convention.
The LifeChoices office opened two weeks ago in North Dallas, next door
to a clinic that performs abortions.
Workers at the clinic, which was not open for business Wednesday, said
they were glad to see the seizure.
"Things have been very tense," said Connie Gonzales, a medical
assistant for A Choice For Women.
She said Operation Rescue supporters had approached incoming patients
since they moved in but hadn't broken any trespassing or vandalism
laws.
Dallas County will hold the seized items for at least 10 days before it
is auctioned.
Operation Rescue spokesman Rick Blinn said the seizure didn't surprise
him. "I wouldn't put it past people who kill children to stoop to any
level," he said. "What they've done is use a corrupt legal system to
steal equipment and other tools used to protect children."
Operation Rescue has appealed the judgment, but Planned Parenthood can
pursue the damages unless the anti-abortion group posts a $1 million
bond. Blinn said his organization is unable to do so.
|
| 20.2119 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Apr 20 1995 18:20 | 1 |
| And you really think this is going to stop these people???
|
| 20.2120 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Apr 20 1995 19:02 | 5 |
| No,
But at least it can help to offset some of the increased security costs
for defending against the fringe elements who have been perpetrating
terrorism on clinics.
|
| 20.2121 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Apr 20 1995 20:22 | 7 |
| it'll hurt 'em. If their national hq isn't instrumental in organizing
their protest activities, like the summers of rescue [sic] work the last
few years, then why does it exist? So if this cripples their
organizational infrastructure, such that they can't do that again for
a few years, yes, that's worthwhile.
DougO
|
| 20.2122 | Few Years? Doubt it... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Thu Apr 20 1995 20:26 | 7 |
|
If they're smart (and they probably are...) they'll have all their
"assets" either loaned or in someone elses name...
They can't take what don't belong to them "terrorists"...
|
| 20.2123 | | CALDEC::RAH | How you play is who you are. | Fri Apr 21 1995 00:04 | 4 |
|
wait till its the liberal ox getting gored and then the chuckles
will dissolve into whingeing and distressed cries for the ACLU
professional agitators ..
|
| 20.2124 | Bingo!!!! | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Fri Apr 21 1995 13:36 | 4 |
|
<-------------------
|
| 20.2125 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Apr 21 1995 18:48 | 6 |
| nonsense. We reported just a week ago the application of the Freedom
of Access to Clinic law to a person who had made threats against
pro-lifers. Nary a peep out of us; we applaud the evenhanded
application of the law.
DougO
|
| 20.2126 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Fri Apr 21 1995 19:22 | 1 |
| Who is "we"?
|
| 20.2127 | put that 'liberals' in quote marks ;-) | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Apr 21 1995 20:11 | 4 |
| us soapbox liberals who are pro-choice, that's who. I reported the
incident, and all of us then dropped it.
DougO
|
| 20.2128 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Apr 21 1995 20:15 | 13 |
| Remember the church desecration outside Atlanta about two months ago?
The pastor of the most recent church to be trashed went to the FBI with a
copy of the Freedom of Access bill in his hand and said he wanted the FBI
to help with the investigation. (The bill makes it a federal felony to
damage the property of abortion clinics or places of worship.)
The FBI claimed they didn't have jurisdiction.
I think he was going to complain to Janet Reno. Don't know if he got any
response.
/john
|
| 20.2129 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Fri Apr 21 1995 20:16 | 2 |
|
Who did the FBI tell him to see about this?
|
| 20.2130 | Who were getting nowhere | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Apr 21 1995 20:20 | 1 |
| Local police.
|
| 20.2131 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Fri Apr 21 1995 20:24 | 4 |
|
and I bet they were trying reeeeeeeeeal hard too!
|
| 20.2132 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Apr 24 1995 19:26 | 7 |
| I just bought a used vehicle and on the back is a bumper sticker which
says..."Pray for an End to Abortion"
Assuming Pray is used as a generic term for hope, are there any pro
choicers who disagree with this?
-Jack
|
| 20.2133 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Mon Apr 24 1995 19:29 | 7 |
| >Assuming Pray is used as a generic term for hope, are there any pro
>choicers who disagree with this?
You betcha! If "an end" means, "made illegal", then yes, I most
definitely disagree.
-b
|
| 20.2134 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Mon Apr 24 1995 19:33 | 3 |
| Pray all you want.
...Tom
|
| 20.2135 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Apr 24 1995 19:40 | 6 |
| Jack,
I hope you bought that used vehicle from an individual. I'd be
amazed to find that there's a used car dealer so stupid as to leave
anything of a politacl nature attached to a vehicle he's trying to
market.
|
| 20.2136 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Mon Apr 24 1995 19:46 | 10 |
|
re: .2134
Gee...
and I thought he phrased the question rather politely...
Could it be the messenger that (evidently) deserves your obvious
scorn?
|
| 20.2137 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Mon Apr 24 1995 19:48 | 2 |
|
I thought it was a polite response.
|
| 20.2138 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Apr 24 1995 19:59 | 4 |
| I think he was talking about Tom's potentially snide response...which
didn't answer the question.
-Jack
|
| 20.2139 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Mon Apr 24 1995 20:01 | 2 |
|
I didn't think it was a snide response.
|
| 20.2140 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Mon Apr 24 1995 20:02 | 4 |
|
So what's the question, is it ok for you to have that bumper sticker?
Of course it is. Is it ok for you to pray for an end to abortion? Of
course it is. I don't want you to obey me or anything 8^).
|
| 20.2141 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Apr 24 1995 20:11 | 8 |
| The reason I brought it up was because I know the Clintons want
abortion to supposedly go down drastically. I've heard feminists in
this forum say they would like to see abortion go down drastically.
I was thinking by asking the question I could see who is pro choice and
who is pro abortion. I guess it can't be done!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.2142 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon Apr 24 1995 20:18 | 5 |
| As Brian points out, the sentiment is ambiguous. If "Pray for the End
of Abortions" means "Pray that the powers-that-be will put a stop to
abortions," then obviously the pro-choice folks won't agree. If it
means "Pray that no one will feel the need to ask for an abortion,"
then pro-choice folks would agree.
|
| 20.2143 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Apr 24 1995 20:19 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.2135 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
| I hope you bought that used vehicle from an individual. I'd be amazed to find
| that there's a used car dealer so stupid as to leave anything of a politcal
| nature attached to a vehicle he's trying to market.
Maybe it was a Christian dealership???? Ok.... so that would be an
oxymoron.... :-)
|
| 20.2144 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Apr 24 1995 20:22 | 10 |
|
Deb, I think you were the only one to catch it. Andy & Jack took the
remark in a negative light, but reading it shows nothing negative. Unless they
talked to the author by mail/phone/whatever, how could they assume it was a
negative remark? Maybe they should have asked?
Glen
|
| 20.2145 | Why do you refuse to understand??? | TIS::HAMBURGER | REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS | Mon Apr 24 1995 20:22 | 20 |
| > <<< Note 20.2141 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
> I was thinking by asking the question I could see who is pro choice and
> who is pro abortion. I guess it can't be done!!!
How many times, in how many notes and strings do you have to be told that "no
one is pro-abortion"????
Not Meg, not DougO, not me, not any note-author I can think of.
Pro-choice means that keeping legal safe clinical abortions available has to
remain the law. The reality is that there are many people who need them.
You can hand wave all you want about "terrible persons who do it for
convienence" or any of your other smokescreens.
The point is PRO-CHOICE IS NOT PRO-ABORTION just as you would not like being
refered to as anti-rights because you wish to make it illegal(although the
description is apt).
|
| 20.2146 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Apr 24 1995 20:29 | 10 |
|
Wow..... good note! I am pro-life, but do not see pro-choice people as
Jack does. I think the word pro-choice fits, but to many I have talked to the
words make it sound good, and these same people do not want those who want
abortions to remain safe/etc seen in any kind of positive light. I do not know
why Jack does this though.
Glen
|
| 20.2147 | %-/ | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Mon Apr 24 1995 20:36 | 4 |
|
|
| 20.2148 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Apr 24 1995 21:40 | 10 |
| Once again another batch of reactionary replies..
ZZ Maybe they should have asked?
Glken, I said POSSIBLY CYNICAL. Apologize NOW you GHETT!!!!!
I put the note in to SEE if there was anybody pro abortion. There are
people in this world who are.
-Jack
|
| 20.2149 | re .2145 | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Apr 24 1995 21:46 | 3 |
| Texas Chainsaw and 'Ren Foster both claimed to be pro-abortion.
/john
|
| 20.2150 | Huh | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Mon Apr 24 1995 21:52 | 14 |
| >I think he was talking about Tom's potentially snide response...
SNIDE??? Jack...You have offended me and I want an apology. :)
>which didn't answer the question.
I think that the question was something like if pro-choice thought it
was OK for pro-life to pray for the end of abortion, or something like
that. My response answered the question and I repeat. "pray all you
want"
I don't understand the problem?!?!
...Tom
|
| 20.2151 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Apr 24 1995 21:57 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.2149 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| Texas Chainsaw and 'Ren Foster both claimed to be pro-abortion.
Koresh claimed to be a Christian. Should we therefor say he speaks for
all Christians?
|
| 20.2152 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Apr 25 1995 06:01 | 9 |
| re .2151 babble babble
I don't know what the words in .2151 have to do with .2149, which was
a reply to .2145, which said that noone is pro-abortion, not any note
author.
It didn't say "not any note author currently writing."
/john
|
| 20.2153 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 25 1995 12:58 | 3 |
| Tom:
No problem. I was just giving you an example of a victim!! :-)
|
| 20.2154 | Cuts both ways. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue Apr 25 1995 14:29 | 23 |
| Re: last few splitting hairs on pro-abortion.
I don't understand why those who claim to be pro-choice have such a
problem with the pro-abortion label. These same folks who want to have
such a distinction made have no problem putting all pro-life people in
with the anti-abortion folks. I rarely, if ever, see any difference
made. Why is it OK for one side of this debate to lump folks on the
otherside together, but then get all bent out of shape when the same
rules are applied to the other side.
Also, I still contend that if you support a particular position you are
"pro". The pro-choice folks claim that all they want is to insure that
choice is kept legal. However, the choice being advocated is the
choice to have an abortion. That seems to indicate that in order to be
pro-choice, you by definition are pro-abortion. You may not like the
fact, but it still remains. I have never seen any explanation that can
provide a clear differentiation between being pro-choice being
different from pro-abortion, other than people simply sayinf that it's
different.
Sorry, if pro-life is anti-abortion (which I don't beleive) then
pro-choice must be pro-abortion.
|
| 20.2155 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Apr 25 1995 14:32 | 3 |
| Oh, why not go all the way and make pro-choice = anti-life, Al? Seems
to fit your style of reasoning.
|
| 20.2156 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 25 1995 15:00 | 4 |
| Like I said before, pro abortion is when somebody gets mad when an
abortion doesn't happen. NOW is pro abortion IMO.
-Jack
|
| 20.2157 | Thanks. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue Apr 25 1995 15:17 | 11 |
| Re: 2155
I was going to spewnd some time putting together a response to your
entry, but I would rather have the stupidity of your entry stand all by
itself.
I don't believe anything I could add would point out the shallowness of
your position any better than your entry.
Thank you.
|
| 20.2158 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Tue Apr 25 1995 15:22 | 41 |
| re: .2154 (hair splitting between pro-abortion and pro-choice)
The answer lies in the conscience. I think everyone realizes that
abortion is not a "good" thing, therefore they wish to separate themselves
from this reality that such labels as pro-abortion state. Pro-choice is
much better sounding, and has no connection with the actual act of abortion.
Is abortion a necessary evil? Some think so, some may not think it is
evil at all, and have no problem with a pro-abortion label (George wins
the honesty award here, and I respect his intellectual honesty on this
particular issue- even though we may not agree on much else 8^) ).
"Choice" is too broad a term. I doubt anyone who accepts the label of
pro-"choice" would think that murder of children (who have been born)
is a good thing- even though this is a choice (the repercussions of
which are quite heavy, I might add, if said murderer is caught). In
the same light, labelling the pro-life groups as anti-choice is a
rather specious argument. Anti-abortion, yes, definitely. So, since
the issue is abortion, we end up with TWO sides: pro- and anti-. One
group wishes to keep abortion on demand legal, the other wishes to
limit abortions strictly.
If you take offence at being labelled as pro-abortion, think about WHY
you take offence at it. Is it due to the conflict (thinking abortion
is wrong, yet wanting to keep it as a legal option?)? And if you don't
view abortion as a wrong, then why do you flinch at taking the
pro-abortion label?
A parallel can be made to the gun control issue. You have two sides to
this as well. Pro-gun control and anti-gun control. Would you call
pro-controllers anti-choice? You could, but it is far too generic.
Are they anti-gun? Some are, some are not anti-ALL guns, so this
doesn't really fit well, either. The best label is "pro-gun control".
The best label for the anti- crowd is "anti-gun control".
Why is abortion any different? Why confuse the issue with terminology
that is so generic? Why distance yourself from the side you choose to
take?
-steve
|
| 20.2159 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Apr 25 1995 15:23 | 11 |
|
>> I was going to spewnd some time putting together a response to your
>> entry, but...
Don't waste your time. If it makes as little sense as your last
note, you'll just look all the denser.
Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. That's why there's a
different term for it, see? No, you probably don't.
|
| 20.2160 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 25 1995 15:40 | 13 |
| Di is correct. Pro abortion will use whatever they can politically to
BE SURE that an abortion happens.
Now I know I will be on other peoples chit list but I must ask it. Who
is more disingenuous about the whole thing...somebody who is pro
abortion or somebody who is pro choice? It seems somebody who is pro
choice is like somebody who knows something awful is happening...knows
in their heart it is a crime...but allows it to go on anyway.
I realize the word crime is a loose term. It is legal under Roe v.
Wade but it is criminal nonetheless.
-Jack
|
| 20.2161 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Apr 25 1995 15:52 | 11 |
| >> <<< Note 20.2160 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
>> Now I know I will be on other peoples chit list but I must ask it. Who
>> is more disingenuous about the whole thing...somebody who is pro
>> abortion or somebody who is pro choice?
Well, let's see... how about the possibility that neither is
being disingenuous? I don't suppose we could allow for that,
could we, Jack?
|
| 20.2162 | | BRITE::FYFE | Lorena Bobbitt for Surgeon General | Tue Apr 25 1995 16:00 | 15 |
|
>Di is correct. Pro abortion will use whatever they can politically to
>BE SURE that an abortion happens.
Wrong. Ensuring that the option is equally available to all is no where
near the same as doing anything to be sure that an abortion happens.
> It seems somebody who is (name your favorite religion/amendment/political
> leaning) is like somebody who knows something awful is happening...knows
> in their heart it is a crime...but allows it to go on anyway.
Get the picture Jack?
Doug.
|
| 20.2163 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Apr 25 1995 16:04 | 8 |
|
>Di is correct. Pro abortion will use whatever they can politically to
>BE SURE that an abortion happens.
I should probably point out, at this juncture, that the second
sentence is _not_ what I said, since this coupling of thoughts
is being proliferated.
|
| 20.2164 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 25 1995 17:22 | 1 |
| Noted!!
|
| 20.2165 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Apr 25 1995 17:33 | 3 |
| It's kinda like the Gulf War situation, or war in general. Now, I
don't think that the people who supported the Gulf War are pro-killing,
even though that was the consequence of their support for the war.
|
| 20.2166 | Keep ducking. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue Apr 25 1995 18:38 | 15 |
| It is absolutely amazing the gyrations that you
Pro-(fill-in-the-blanks) folks go through. If you think that abortion
is wrong and should be limited and rare, then you seem ot stand with
the majority of pro-life folks. If you don't agree with the preceding
then all you rprotestations to the contrary are meaningless since you
believe that abortions anytime, anywhere, anyhow, for anyone under any
circumstances is OK. If this doesn't define a pro-abortion position
then you are really ducking.
Also, the analogy about the Gulf war supporters being pro-killing is a
joke and a poor one at that. THose in support of the war would be
pro-war supporters. Not pro-killing. If killing is part of it, then
the folks who started the war have themselves to blame. The analogy is
poor and doesn't even stand up to cursory debate.
|
| 20.2167 | pro-choice is truly the middle between extremes | TIS::HAMBURGER | REMEMBER NOVEMBER: FREEDOM COUNTS | Tue Apr 25 1995 19:12 | 24 |
| > <<< Note 20.2166 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
> -< Keep ducking. >-
> then all you rprotestations to the contrary are meaningless since you
> believe that abortions anytime, anywhere, anyhow, for anyone under any
> circumstances is OK. If this doesn't define a pro-abortion position
> then you are really ducking.
You still don't see the difference do you?
Pro-choice means keeping safe legal abortions available as an option.
Pro-choice means agreeing that Roe-v-Wade was the correct decision.
Do not ever again tell me I believe in abortion anytime under any
circumstances. I consider this a direct insult. Abortion is legal
if you can get the law defining viable life changed then you MAY have
an argument. (although legislating a thing does not make it so).
Pro-Choice is not ducking an issue by semantics. Pro-choice is a legitimate
position where one can favor the option under the right circumstances which
also may include the mothers wishes.
Pro-abortion is the chinese gov't that dictates that aftyer you have one child
you must abort all other pregnancies.
Amos
|
| 20.2168 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue Apr 25 1995 19:24 | 27 |
| Re: .2166
>THose in support of the war would be pro-war supporters. Not
>pro-killing.
And those in support of choice would be pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
It is just as easy to be in favor of war and yet opposed to killing.
>If killing is part of it,
"If"? Gracious, what do you think a war entails?
>then the folks who started the war have themselves to blame.
Well, no one attacked the US. We chose to get involved. It was a
purely voluntary act. Therefore, we have to accept the consequences of
our choice.
But if you don't like that analogy, here's another. Let's say that
some folks got together and decided to lobby for an end to divorce,
even going so far as to disrupt divorce proceedings and block access to
civil courts where divorces took place. Now, the people who opposed
the no-divorce movement aren't necessarily in favor of divorce. They
aren't telling everyone to go out and get a divorce. They simply
believe that people who choose to get a divorce should be able to get
one, and that the consequences of banning divorce are worse than the
consequences of allowing it.
|
| 20.2169 | Noting in the Jack Martin style | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Tue Apr 25 1995 21:28 | 14 |
| .2160
ZZ Di is correct. Pro abortion will use whatever they can politically to
ZZ BE SURE that an abortion happens.
You ignorent GHETT!!! NOBODY is PRO ABORTION! The people you call
"pro abortion" don't WANT abortions to happen, they want for control
freaks like you to stop meddling in their business!
ZZ knows
ZZ in their heart it is a crime...but allows it to go on anyway.
When was the last time you stopped a Bosnian Serb from raping Muslims
in Sarajevo, you cynical hippocrit.
|
| 20.2170 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 25 1995 21:51 | 1 |
| Ahhhhh go back to your beer to Jezebel!!!!!
|
| 20.2171 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Apr 25 1995 22:31 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.2160 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Di is correct. Pro abortion will use whatever they can politically to
| BE SURE that an abortion happens.
Ohh... and pro-life does what Jack.... man, have a clue, will ya and
stop making it a one sided issue with the name?
Glen
|
| 20.2172 | | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Wed Apr 26 1995 11:42 | 13 |
| > You ignorent GHETT!!! NOBODY is PRO ABORTION! The people you call
> "pro abortion" don't WANT abortions to happen, they want for control
> freaks like you to stop meddling in their business!
How about "doctors" who perform abortions?
And whyizit that many of the "pro choice" people want to control other
such as guns, what we do with our own property (environmentist freaks), and
other things?
Answer me this.
ME
|
| 20.2173 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Apr 26 1995 11:49 | 10 |
| C'mon, judge - using doctors as an example is an extremely poor choice.
On a daily basis most surgeons perform tasks which they would just as
soon not have to. What's the point in singling out abortions?
As for the pro-choice/gun-control connection, we already "polled" that
once in this topic and found that the majority of pro-choice folks
were also anti-gun-control.
Don't try to make arguments out of indefensible points.
|
| 20.2174 | Make up your mind. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed Apr 26 1995 12:59 | 25 |
| Re: 2167
I still don't follow your point. If what you are saying is that
abortion is a choice that, under certain specific circumstances with
very clear restrictions, should be acceptable, then iti seems that you
agree with the majority of pro-life folks. this certainly does not
make you anti-abortion, nor those in the pro-life movement who, I
beleive, are the majority, are not anti-abortion.
The issue around pro-abortion/anti-abortion is really one of comfort.
A lot of folks like to say that they support choice, but then when they
have to identify at what level will they support choice, then it gets
dicey. Once again, if being pro-choice means no thought about the
circumstances nor who, when, etc, then it means you really are
pro-abortion.
I think you need to figure out exactly what you will accept and what
you won't, then decide where you really stand.
Re: 2168
Divorce is even a weaker argument than the Gulf war, and please don't
get me started on the divorce topic since, surprise, I have some very
clear opinions on the topic.
|
| 20.2175 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed Apr 26 1995 13:07 | 15 |
| RE: .2174
The density alarm has sounded and it will not shut off!
To say that one supports someone having _the choice_ to have
an abortion is _NOT_ the same as saying that one _desires_
them to have an abortion.
I want anyone to have a _choice_, however, I would _prefer_
that most people choose not to have an abortion; mainly because
I don't wish it upon anyone to be hounded by the pro-life
types and the system of guilt which they have so carefully
constructed.
-b
|
| 20.2176 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Apr 26 1995 13:15 | 3 |
| If a businessman owns 5 clinics in the Boston area, you can rest
assure he is pro abortion...and what's more, he could care less about
women! IMO
|
| 20.2178 | | BRITE::FYFE | Lorena Bobbitt for Surgeon General | Wed Apr 26 1995 13:47 | 17 |
| > If a businessman owns 5 clinics in the Boston area, you can rest
> assure he is pro abortion...and what's more, he could care less about
> women! IMO
So now its the evil business man we should be concerned with. Could it be that
this service is available for womens benifit? BTW: These clinics do a lot more
than perform abortions. They first counsel and illustrate alternatives. and
if the woman still chooses the abortion, they provide support services
afterward. (Yes even abortion clinics talk about the virtues of adoption as
a viable alternative to abortion).
But your probably right (NOT!). Could it be possible that the business woman
could own/run a clinic?
Do you have ANY IDEA how ridiculous your last note was?
Doug.
|
| 20.2179 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Apr 26 1995 13:52 | 15 |
| I was doing this my sweet! I was listening to a doctor who did this
very thing a few years ago on the radio. They interviewed her and she
revealed that the abortion business is big money...MONEY...and she
openly admitted that this was ALL she cared about. She owned two very
large homes and three summer homes in various parts of the world. She
stated that MONEY was the driving force behind her ventures...and that
getting women into clinics was as important as a multi level marketer
signing up another prospect.
She has since closed her businesses, sold her homes, donated most of
her money to charities and private causes...
So...NYAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
-Meaty
|
| 20.2180 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Apr 26 1995 13:59 | 21 |
| When an abortion clinic sues for _loss_of_business_ because protesters
reduced the number of women who would have normally had abortions, the
judge who agrees and awards damages is pro-abortion.
Yes, this happened.
When a counselor at Planned Parenthood tells a client that abortion is
her "best" option, that counselor is pro-abortion.
Yes, this happens.
When a so-called bishop in a Boston church sitting in a meeting of the
so-called pastoral outreach committee takes no action when the committee
tells the pro-life organization that if they allow the mailing of a list
of state and private resources to help women in problem pregnancies, the
list must also include abortion clinics, that so-called bishop and the
committee are pro-abortion.
Yes, this happened.
/john
|
| 20.2181 | Noting in the Jack Martin style | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Wed Apr 26 1995 14:00 | 9 |
| .2179
ZZ the abortion business is big money...MONEY...and she
ZZ openly admitted that this was ALL she cared about.
And you jumped on ONE woman's attitude to use as a broad brush for your
personal HATRED of abortion doctors. Do you even stop for a minute to
wonder why you get so much negetive reaction? We're sick and tired of
your PI one-trick pony act, can't you PLEASE get a clue?
|
| 20.2182 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Wed Apr 26 1995 14:03 | 11 |
| .2180
> When a counselor at Planned Parenthood tells a client that abortion is
> her "best" option, that counselor is pro-abortion.
When a priest tells an indigent couple with 7 children that they can't
use birth control, that priest is pro-poverty.
Get real, /john. Sometimes the best option for a specific person in a
specific circumstance isn't what you, as a committed Christian, would
like it to be. Take a dose of realism with your Pangloss pills.
|
| 20.2183 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 26 1995 16:24 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.2173 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
| C'mon, judge - using doctors as an example is an extremely poor choice.
^^^^^^
Jack.... what better words.... :-)
Glen
|
| 20.2184 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 26 1995 16:26 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.2176 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| If a businessman owns 5 clinics in the Boston area, you can rest assure he is
| pro abortion...and what's more, he could care less about women! IMO
Well Jack, seeing it is your opinion, you don't mind if people think
differently then, right? How did you form this opinion Jack? I guess it's a 2
catagory question (businessman/pro & care less about women)
Glen
|
| 20.2185 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 26 1995 16:27 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.2177 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Creamy Presents" >>>
| Jack, please. Remember to engage your brain before your put your mouth in
| gear. We'd all appreciate it.
Deb.... I can't hear him talk from where I am sitting.... :-)
|
| 20.2186 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 26 1995 16:32 | 21 |
| | <<< Note 20.2179 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| I was listening to a doctor who did this very thing a few years ago on the
| radio.
She performed an abortion on the radio???? :-)
| They interviewed her and she revealed that the abortion business is big money
| ...MONEY...and she openly admitted that this was ALL she cared about.
Jack, if we go by this one example, of one person, you will now be able
to say my views represent the views of all Christians? Jack, you have money
grabbing people everywhere. It does not mean that all, or even the majority do
abortions for the sake of money. I don't doubt that there are others out there
who would do the same, but I would expect these same people to be the same way
no matter what they did for a living.
Glen
|
| 20.2187 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 26 1995 16:35 | 2 |
| I suspect that whoever was in the abortion business only for the money has got
out. It's too dangerous now.
|
| 20.2188 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 26 1995 16:42 | 38 |
| | <<< Note 20.2180 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| When an abortion clinic sues for _loss_of_business_ because protesters reduced
| the number of women who would have normally had abortions, the judge who
| agrees and awards damages is pro-abortion.
The judge that is upholding the law is now pro-abortion? I suppose if a
judge lets someone off for murder because the police screwed up, the judges
become pro-murder because they followed the law?
| When a counselor at Planned Parenthood tells a client that abortion is her
| "best" option, that counselor is pro-abortion.
Let's see.... you have not listed any reasons behind the decision of
the client being told it's the "best" option. You SEEM to have lumped all of
the "best" options into the pro-abortion catagory. I guess that means when we
can put all pro-life people in the same group as Salvi using your method.
| When a so-called bishop in a Boston church sitting in a meeting of the
| so-called pastoral outreach committee takes no action when the committee
| tells the pro-life organization that if they allow the mailing of a list
| of state and private resources to help women in problem pregnancies, the
| list must also include abortion clinics, that so-called bishop and the
| committee are pro-abortion.
Yeah.... or that the abortion clinics that would be mentioned also do
other things for women besides abortions?
John, as usual, you're very vaigue, and have listed only partial claims.
Give us the details for each of these please, and maybe we'll see what is really
going on? I mean, you say, "yes it happened" for each thing. You must know the
detail behind them. Please tell us that as well so we can get an accurate
picture.
Glen
|
| 20.2177 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Wed Apr 26 1995 17:14 | 3 |
|
Jack, please. Remember to engage your brain before you put your
mouth in gear. We'd all appreciate it.
|
| 20.2189 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Wed Apr 26 1995 17:19 | 8 |
|
RE: .2177
Hmmmmmmmmmm... I wonder what word mz_deb mis-spelled to cause her to
delete/edit/re-enter .2177??
Or perhaps it didn't parse correctly??
|
| 20.2190 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed Apr 26 1995 17:21 | 5 |
| Re: .2174
>Divorce is even a weaker argument than the Gulf war
Horse hockey. Show me where the analogy breaks down, or piss off.
|
| 20.2191 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Wed Apr 26 1995 17:24 | 2 |
|
I wrote "your" rather than "you". It troubled me, and deeply 8^).
|
| 20.2192 | | BRITE::FYFE | Lorena Bobbitt for Surgeon General | Wed Apr 26 1995 17:25 | 10 |
|
>Do you have ANY IDEA how ridiculous your last note was?
>So...NYAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> -Meaty
I'll have to guess the answer is no.
Doug.
|
| 20.2193 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed Apr 26 1995 18:10 | 4 |
| Hasty Generalization. A percentage of Doctors who own multiple clinics
care not for the women but are in it for the money.
Better?
|
| 20.2194 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Apr 26 1995 18:13 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.2193 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Hasty Generalization. A percentage of Doctors who own multiple clinics
| care not for the women but are in it for the money.
| Better?
Jack, while I don't think it hasty, I do think if someone says, "a
percentage of <insert topic>" is still generalizing.
|
| 20.2195 | Please use better analogies. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed Apr 26 1995 22:19 | 8 |
| Re: 2190
Back at ya.
Divorce does not include killing someone. Both abortion and war do.
If you can't see the difference, then piss off.
|
| 20.2196 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Thu Apr 27 1995 02:43 | 9 |
|
War includes "killing someone".
Abortion does not.
Therein lies the difference.
Just my opinion, of course, just as your .2195 is just your opinion.
|
| 20.2197 | Back to the beginning. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 27 1995 12:37 | 14 |
| Re: 2196
This seems to get us back to one of the original points of contention.
quite frankly, at what point are you killing someone. Most of the
pro-"whatever-you-want-to-be-called" folks seem to beleive that until
the first breath is taken, no person is involved. Those on the other
side beleive something quite different.
It seems that there has been enough information posted here to indicate
that there is more than a reasonable doubt that the "first breath"
belief is convenient, but inaccurate.
OBTW, thanks for agreeing that the divorce analogy was poor.
|
| 20.2198 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Apr 27 1995 12:53 | 4 |
| ZZ Horse hockey. Show me where the analogy breaks down, or piss off.
Chelsea we love it when you talk mean like this!
|
| 20.2199 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu Apr 27 1995 13:33 | 18 |
| RE: .2196
You have a talent for telling people what they believe (regarding
believing that "it's not a person until the first breath is drawn").
As a pro-whatever-I-want-to-called, I'll give you a free hint:
babies "breath" from some point in the first trimester. amniotic
fluid is taken in and expelled from their lungs. The clearing
of this fluid is represented in childbirth folklore by turning
the newborn upside down and smacking it... truth is, the infant
will pretty much evacuate the fluid on its own, and a syringe is
generally used to clear it from his/her mouth.
I personally do not make the distinction myself. Being a male,
beyond counseling anyone who asks me (no one ever has), it's
none of my damn business.
-b
|
| 20.2200 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu Apr 27 1995 13:50 | 1 |
| Disagree...it is your business if it's your little spermies!
|
| 20.2201 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Apr 27 1995 14:00 | 7 |
| I guess you could call me anti-unwanted-pregnancy, if you wanted to.
Abortions don't happen if there isn't a pregnancy, that for one reason
or another a person feels she can't carry to term.
More and better BC options can help stop abortion.
meg
|
| 20.2202 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu Apr 27 1995 15:27 | 12 |
| Re: .2195
>Divorce does not include killing someone. Both abortion and war do.
True. So what? How does that invalidate the analogy? The issue is
the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion: how someone can be
one and not the other. I have given two examples (one of which _did_
involve killing people) that show how someone can support a policy and
yet not support the inevitable outcome. It's obvious to me that you
have decided that a person cannot be both pro-choice and anti-abortion;
therefore I can never come up with an analogy that you'll find good
enough. So I'll not waste any more time with you.
|
| 20.2203 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Thu Apr 27 1995 16:57 | 17 |
| >Note 20.2197 by POBOX::ROCUSH
>Re: 2196
>OBTW, thanks for agreeing that the divorce analogy was poor.
Are you sure you're talking to me?
>Note 20.2199 by MPGS::MARKEY
>RE: .2196
>You have a talent for telling people what they believe (regarding
>believing that "it's not a person until the first breath is drawn").
Are you sure you're talking to me?
|
| 20.2204 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu Apr 27 1995 17:01 | 6 |
|
I'm sorry Dear (.2203) I was referring to .2197 in .2199,
who had previously referred incorrectly to your .2196,
when in fact he probably meant .2195. I think.
-b
|
| 20.2205 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Apr 27 1995 17:04 | 10 |
|
re: .2196
and just where do you come off saying that all men are
worthless, lying pond scum?? hunh??
er, oh... sorry. never mind.
|
| 20.2206 | :) | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Thu Apr 27 1995 17:10 | 8 |
|
re: .2205
> and just where do you come off saying that all men are
> worthless, lying pond scum?? hunh??
Take it to =wn=....
|
| 20.2207 | | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Thu Apr 27 1995 17:14 | 8 |
| .2205
mz_deb thinks that???
i am crestfallen
ric
8^(
|
| 20.2208 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Thu Apr 27 1995 17:30 | 3 |
|
<-- do try to keep up, our ric 8^).
|
| 20.2209 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Apr 30 1995 04:24 | 49 |
| An excerpt from the Eastern Orthodox Office of Prayer and Supplication
for the Victims of Abortion. (edited)
http://www.ocf.org:80/OrthodoxPage/prayers/abrtpryr.html
Deacon:
Let us pray to the Lord.
People:
Lord, have mercy.
Priest:
O most merciful, all gracious and compassionate Lord Jesus Christ our
Savior, Son of God: we entreat Thee, most gracious Master: look with
compassion upon Thy children who have been condemned to death by
the unjust judgment of men. And as Thou hast promised to bestow the
heavenly kingdom on them born of water and the Spirit, and who in
blamelessness of life have been translated unto Thee; and Who said,
"Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom
of heaven" - we humbly pray, according to Thy unfailing promise: grant
the inheritance of Thy kingdom to the multitude of blameless infants who
have been cruelly killed in the abortuaries of this land; for Thou art
the resurrection and the life and the repose of all Thy servants and of
these innocents, O Christ our God.
Turn the hearts of those who seek to destroy Thy little ones. We beseech
Thee to pour forth Thy healing grace upon them, that they may be
convicted in their hearts and turn from their evil ways. Remember all of
them that kill our children as on the altars of Moloch, and render not
unto them according to their deeds, but according to Thy great mercy
convert them: the unbelieving to true faith and piety, and the believing
that they may turn from evil and do good.
O Holy Master, Almighty Father and pre-eternal God, Who alone made
and directs all things; Who rises up quickly against the evil of the
impious ones; who, by providence, teaches Thy people preservation of
justice and the obliteration of evil on earth; Who condescends to raise
up warriors for the protection of the people of God: we entreat Thee
with compunction, that as Thou didst give David power to defeat Goliath;
so too, grant protection to us, Thy servants against the enemies
rising against us as we go forth to do spiritual battle against the evil
one and those who do his will rather than Thine.
For Thou art a merciful God, and lovest mankind, and unto Thee do we
send up glory: to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
Now and ever, and unto the ages of ages.
People:
Amen.
|
| 20.2210 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Sun Apr 30 1995 17:07 | 3 |
|
It's the edited part you put in that makes me wonder.....
|
| 20.2211 | I made it a little more moderate | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Apr 30 1995 18:13 | 1 |
| No need to wonder; you can read the original.
|
| 20.2212 | Better BC could have prevented this | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon May 01 1995 13:31 | 45 |
| 60% of american pregnancies are unintended and most of them occur in
adult women, a new report by the National Institue of Medicine said
Thursday.
"The country has created an elaborate mythology that says most
uninteneded pregnancies occur in teens," said Dr. Leon Eisenburg, a
rtire psychiatry rofessor at harvard Medical School.
Actually, only 21% of the country's unwanted pregnancies occur in
teenagers. The other 79% are among married and single adult women and
a surprising number occur to women over 40 who believe they have little
likelyhood of getting regnanct.
An 18-month study - chaired by Eisenberg and based on data compiled by
social scientists during the 1980's - indicated American women are
twice as likely to have unintended pregnancies that women in other
industrialized countries.
The report noted 5.4 million American women became pregnant in 1987
and 3.1 million of the conceptions were accidental, inconvenient or
unwanted.
Forty percent of those untintentional pregancies were among married
women, the report added, and 1.6 million of the pregnancies were
terminated by abortions. The report noted many of the unintended
babies were loved and nurtured by their parents.
"We need to better educate women about the pill and we need to develop
new male and female contraceptives, " said Dr. Allen Rosenfield, dean
of columbia University's School of Public Health.
The report said unwanted children have an increased risk of premature
birth, death in the first year of life, abuse and inadequate food,
shelter and clothing.
Furthermore, mothers of unwated babies have a higher rate of
depression, and both parents suffer educational , financial, and
economic hardships the report said.
The committee recommended establishing federal, state, and local
programs to reduce unintended pregnancies, much like the nationwide
campaigns that decreased smoking and drunken driving and popularized
use of seat belts.
|
| 20.2213 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon May 01 1995 13:33 | 5 |
| One really has to wonder why the U.S. has such a high rate of
unintended pregnancies. Is it part of the schizophrenic way we look
at sex and love?
meg
|
| 20.2214 | | CALDEC::RAH | an outlaw in town | Mon May 01 1995 13:37 | 3 |
|
unless someone is raped it's hard to see where a pregancy is
unintended, being the consequences of a voluntary act.
|
| 20.2215 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Reformatted to fit your screen | Mon May 01 1995 13:39 | 6 |
| Skydiving is a voluntary act, death is an unintended outcome on occasion.
A voluntary act may have uninteded consequences though naively
unexpected.
Brian
|
| 20.2216 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon May 01 1995 13:43 | 7 |
|
>> unless someone is raped it's hard to see where a pregancy is
>> unintended, being the consequences of a voluntary act.
er, well i just have to say "duh!". a weekend in kaliph can
really impact the old brain, eh rah? ;>
|
| 20.2217 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon May 01 1995 13:56 | 9 |
| People rock climb, and even with safety equipment there are accidents
and fatalities. Should we disband every high-angle Search and Rescue
group in the country since injuries are a consequence of this voluntary
act? Maybe we should not pick up and treat people who are hit by
automobiles when they are riding bicycles. After all the bicycle riding
is a voluntary act, and the accident a consequence of participating in
this voluntary act.
meg
|
| 20.2218 | | CALDEC::RAH | an outlaw in town | Mon May 01 1995 13:59 | 3 |
|
we don't refuse to treat them, but we require that they observe
safety rules, wear helmets, and pay the bill when treated at the ER.
|
| 20.2219 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon May 01 1995 14:06 | 7 |
|
>> we don't refuse to treat them, but we require that they observe
>> safety rules, wear helmets, and pay the bill when treated at the ER.
however, we probably wouldn't be ridiculous enough to tell them
their injuries were "intended".
|
| 20.2220 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Mon May 01 1995 14:08 | 3 |
| And do we allow them to use corprate health insurance, and when
medically indigent use government funding when engaging in these
voluntary risks?
|
| 20.2221 | | CALDEC::RAH | an outlaw in town | Mon May 01 1995 14:17 | 13 |
|
>And do we allow them to use corprate health insurance,
thats up to the corporation that paying the insurance premiums.
if they want to cover these risks they certainly can, but its
not the government's buisness to force them to.
>and when medically indigent use government funding
why is it the taxpayer's responsibility? if i fall on my face at
the rink i certainly don't think it was the fault of the people
of Mass. its not their fault that someone is indigent either.
|
| 20.2222 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Brakes just slow you down. | Mon May 01 1995 14:29 | 4 |
|
Unless one is pushed, it's hard to see how falling on your face at the
rink is unintended, being the consequence of a voluntary act.
|
| 20.2223 | | QUINCE::SILVA | | Mon May 01 1995 17:16 | 5 |
|
Joan, it's unintended if you think you won't fall. For me, it could not
be unintended as if you put wheels on these feet, I'm on the ground more than
not! :-)
|
| 20.2224 | abortuaries??? | CLYDE::KOWALEWICZ_M | The Ballad of the Lost C'Mell | Tue May 02 1995 12:42 | 8 |
| 20.2225 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue May 02 1995 16:45 | 5 |
| > And in what language would that be?
No need to wonder, you can read the original and see.
/john
|
| 20.2226 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue May 02 1995 18:41 | 63 |
| <<< Note 20.2212 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> Actually, only 21% of the country's unwanted pregnancies occur in
> teenagers.
It is important to note that nearly 100% of those 21% are
unintended (or should be.) Very few teens are in a position
(namely mature enough and married) to properly raise a baby.
Some *are* intended by teens who are not able to raise them,
and that is all the more sad and tragic.
> An 18-month study - chaired by Eisenberg and based on data compiled by
> social scientists during the 1980's - indicated American women are
> twice as likely to have unintended pregnancies that women in other
> industrialized countries.
in .2213 you said:
> One really has to wonder why the U.S. has such a high rate of
> unintended pregnancies. Is it part of the schizophrenic way we look
> at sex and love?
You and I may not be on the same wavelength here, but this is
precicely what I thought of when I first heard the report you
outlined in .2212. Our society has warped the menaing and
value of sex.
Your title of .2212 was:
> -< Better BC could have prevented this >-
With our society's convoluted view of sex, all the birth control
in the world -- short of sterilization -- will not reduce
unintended pregnancies. When you consider that for many people
*ANY* pregnancy is unintended, only sterilization or abstinence
will make a difference.
> The report noted 5.4 million American women became pregnant in 1987
> and 3.1 million of the conceptions were accidental, inconvenient or
> unwanted.
I wonder what percentage of pregnancies in, say, 1945, were
unintended. Is today's 60% really all that noteworthy? I
don't know, so if someone has data to show this, I'd appreciate
it.
> "We need to better educate women about the pill and we need to develop
> new male and female contraceptives, " said Dr. Allen Rosenfield, dean
> of columbia University's School of Public Health.
We need to readjust society's diminished respect for sex.
> The report said unwanted children have an increased risk of premature
> birth, death in the first year of life, abuse and inadequate food,
> shelter and clothing.
So it's better that we kill them up-front, then.
> Furthermore, mothers of unwated babies have a higher rate of
> depression, and both parents suffer educational , financial, and
> economic hardships the report said.
All the more reason to kill the offspring then!
|
| 20.2227 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue May 02 1995 19:22 | 25 |
| Joe,
this is also in .2212
An 18-month study - chaired by Eisenberg and based on data compiled
by social scientists during the 1980's - indicated American women are
*TWICE* as likely to have unintended pregnancies that women in other
industrialized countries.
Now there is definitely something wrong here when other industrialized
countries don't have the same rate of unintended, unwanted pregnancies.
Either other countries have better BC, or both members of couples are
more responsible about using it. The netherlands has a much more
matter-of-fact way of looking at sex than the US, and they have the
lowest number of unintended pregnancies AND one of the lowest number of
pregnancies voluntarily terminated in the industrial world.
Now who is more schizophrenic? The country that says don't do it, and
doesn't want to inform both genders of their responsiblity for disease
prevention and pregnancy prevention, or the one that teaches the
responsibility to both genders and realizes kids will be kids?
meg
|
| 20.2228 | Not all his fault... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue May 02 1995 19:41 | 5 |
|
What's this about a better BC lowering the rate ? Surely Clinton
can't be responsible for THAT many of the pregnancies ?
bb
|
| 20.2229 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Tue May 02 1995 19:46 | 4 |
|
Shirley Clinton can't, but Bill can
|
| 20.2230 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Tue May 02 1995 21:38 | 25 |
| <<< Note 20.2227 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>
> Now there is definitely something wrong here when other industrialized
> countries don't have the same rate of unintended, unwanted pregnancies.
> Either other countries have better BC, or both members of couples are
> more responsible about using it.
Yes, there is definitely something wrong. Since I don't know
of any nations that has better birth control than us, if I am
only given the two options you offer I'd have to say that other
countries are more responsible about using it. But yours
aren't the only choices, Meg. Other choices might be:
-- couples are more responsible about using SEX (not
just birth control.)
-- the definition of "unintended" maybe different
elsewhere. Could it be that elsewhere a
sexually active couple might consider it
"intended" simply because that is a valid
result of sexual intercourse?
> The netherlands (etc., etc.)
We've been down that road before.
|
| 20.2231 | Thanks for the support. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Fri May 05 1995 16:39 | 21 |
| Either I missed something in the original note about the unintended
pregnancies or someone is being disingenuous. On the one hand, it
appears that you are saying the majority of unintended pregnancies are
to women 40+. Then you say a lack of BC and sex education is the
problem. I doubt that people 40+ don't know all they need to know
about both subjects. This being the case, then no additional
"teaching" would seem to help here at all.
The second point is that children born to unintended parents suffer
abuse, etc and the parents suffer financial and educational harm. Once
again, if the 40+ figure is right, and I have no reason to doubt it,
then how do they suffer educational of financial harm. At 40+ they
probably have all of the education they are going to get and are
probably in the best financial position theya re going to be in.
These statistics seem to contrdict themselves and once again support
the contention that attitudes about sex and freedom seem to be more of
the problem than they could ever be part of the solution.
Thank you for the information and support.
|
| 20.2232 | don't want an abortion? don't have one. | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon May 15 1995 17:18 | 173 |
| AP 14 May 95 12:00 EDT V0048
Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
By ROGER MUNNS
Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Nobody but her boyfriend knows Gretchen has
come to the Planned Parenthood clinic today.
Her parents wouldn't understand. Neither would her friends on campus,
where her conservative and pro-life views are well known.
An ultrasound procedure shows she's 54 days along in a pregnancy she
doesn't want, and she is doing just the opposite of what she advised
others in similar positions. She is having an abortion.
But no doctor will put an instrument in her body.
Gretchen is among 2,100 women at a dozen clinics who are taking part in
a test of the "abortion pill," mifepristone, also known by its brand
name RU-486. The Population Council, which is conducting the test, will
make its recommendations to the Food and Drug Administration early next
year.
The report will discuss the pill, its side effects and its efficacy.
But it will not tell the stories of Gretchen, Anne or Gwen, of how they
came to this clinic and why they opted for mifepristone.
------
"I was very pro-life," said Gretchen. "If you're not mature enough to
have a child, then give it up for adoption" was her message.
But it's different now. She knows she could not give up the child if
she carried the pregnancy to term.
And a baby now in her life is unthinkable. She's an overachiever,
carrying an accelerated classload and working 25 hours a week in a
pizza joint. She's pretty, athletic, clear-spoken and at age 21, she's
focused on the future.
"I've never been in a predicament like this before," she said. "It's
easy to judge something when it doesn't happen to you."
She chose an abortion, but not the surgical kind, which scares her. She
agreed to be a mifepristone research subject.
Mifepristone counteracts progesterone, causing the uterus to let go of
the fetal tissue. Taken alone, it will cause a miscarriage 60 percent
to 80 percent of the time. Two days later, the woman returns to the
clinic and takes misoprostol, which causes uterine contractions.
Within four hours, which must be spent at the clinic, the fetal tissue
will pass in all but a percent or two of cases, in which surgery
completes the abortion. Two weeks later, the woman must return to the
clinic for an ultrasound to confirm the abortion.
Jill June, the clinic director, said mifepristone requires so much
medical supervision that it holds little hope for women to make the
abortion choice alone, in private. "It does expand a woman's choice,
but it doesn't expand it to the degree we had initially hoped," she
said.
The procedure is not for everybody, said clinic spokeswoman Deb
Steilen. There is pain and bleeding, and it takes more time than a
surgical abortion.
"It's not pleasant and it's not quick. But most are reporting a
positive experience, they describe it as more natural."
------
Fearing she was pregnant, Gwen, a 22-year-old cosmetologist, went to a
pro-life organization in a town about an hour away from Des Moines,
seeking a pregnancy test. "I didn't know at the time that I could get
the same thing at Wal-Mart," she said.
"They made me watch a video about abortions; it was awful, it showed
almost-babies or limbs being aborted. Then there was a lady on there
who said she had an abortion and it ruined her life," Gwen said.
She left and came to Planned Parenthood.
She wants children but she's not ready for that commitment now. Only a
few weeks pregnant, she, too, agreed to the mifepristone test. An
advantage of a medicinal abortion is that it can be done several weeks
sooner in the pregnancy.
"Surgery seems so unnatural, like something reaching in there and
sucking it out. I felt the pills would be more natural. My body's doing
the work, not some tool."
Gwen has completed the entire process. After she took the second set of
pills, it took more than three hours for the cramps to push out the
fetal material. The pain was sharp but not severe.
"You know how you feel when you have to go to the bathroom so bad but
you have to keep it in?" she asked.
She walked out of the clinic at 1:30 p.m., 4 1/2 hours after she
arrived.
Later that night, there were pains again, sharp enough for her to call
the clinic doctor at home. She took some pain pills, which worked;
passed more blood, and then recovered.
------
Anne is 25. She had her first abortion at age 13 and wishes she hadn't.
"My parents forced me into it," she said. "I've still got a place in my
heart" for the unborn child. "I carry that with me."
She waited until her 20s to start a family and has children aged 4 and
4 months. She reaches into her wallet to show a picture.
She's at the Planned Parenthood clinic today because she's pregnant
again -- a failure, she said, of the Norplant contraceptive.
As a nurse's aide, she doesn't have much money. And she's known
hardship in relationships; an abusive husband was found slain three
years ago. She has not remarried. But these are not the reasons she
cites for this abortion.
Instead, her doctor said this pregnancy is likely to be troublesome,
even dangerous to her, coming so closely on the heels of the Caesarean
section birth of her youngest child.
Anne would have risked it, though, if it weren't for mifepristone.
After counseling, paperwork, a physical exam, warnings about which pain
killers to use and avoid, and instructions on keeping a journal, an
abortion doctor personally gave Anne three mifepristone pills and a
paper cup full of water.
Anne said she understood everything; she took the pills, and went to a
resting area, where the women are required to stay for 30 minutes to
make sure the pills stay down.
Afterwards, she said: "I need a cigarette."
Two days later, she returned to complete the abortion without
complications.
------
Gretchen's abortion also was uncomplicated -- but only medically. She
remains torn between her lifelong beliefs and her decision in what she
considers a personal emergency.
She said she appreciated the controls on mifepristone. The drug should
not be available without medical supervision, she said. "Then you'd
have abortion as a contraceptive. Too many people would abuse it."
The pill has been controversial; anti-abortion forces are working to
prevent FDA approval. They say they are worried about its effect on
women's health, though their prime concern is preventing abortions.
Gwen says it is more important to ensure that children are wanted.
"It makes me angry, I see women bringing their children in all the
time. You can see they don't want those kids, they want somebody else
to take care of them. I don't want that ever happening to me. I want a
child when I'm prepared.
"There's no reason to bring a child into the world unless he has a
fighting chance."
Anne agrees.
"I believe it should be the right of everyone to make up their own
mind," she said. "God will make the decision" if it's right.
|
| 20.2233 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon May 15 1995 18:09 | 28 |
| ZZ And a baby now in her life is unthinkable. She's an overachiever,
ZZ carrying an accelerated classload and working 25 hours a week in a
ZZ pizza joint. She's pretty, athletic, clear-spoken and at age 21,
ZZ she's focused on the future.
ZZ "I've never been in a predicament like this before," she said.
ZZ "It's easy to judge something when it doesn't happen to you."
Ya know DougO, I am really really impressed with the character and
integrity of this young woman. I mean...as a pro lifer deciding to
terminate her pregnancy because she is an over achiever and very
athletic and all that...the reeeaall things in life that mean anything
in the long run.
All you managed to do here DougO is prove the frailty of the human
spirit. Yes, it is easy to judge something when it doesn't happen to
you. What I see here is a misguided young woman who out of sheer
desparation decided to take the plunge without thinking through the
consequences.
I don't mean to necessarily be harsh on her actions but if this is
supposed to be some sort of testimony of the value of the need for
abortion, well, you can just toss it. That's like Bill Clinton trying
to justify his actions in the 60's because of the McNamara book.
I see no value or anything virtuous about this example!
-Jack
|
| 20.2234 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Creamy Presents | Mon May 15 1995 18:21 | 6 |
|
My take on the whole point of the article is summed up in that one
sentence: "It's easy to judge something when it doesn't happen to
you".
|
| 20.2235 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Mon May 15 1995 18:32 | 19 |
| I disagree. It is just as easy to judge something when it happens to
you as it is when it happens to others. What is difficult is keeping
your values intact through the tough experiences.
Unfortunately, this young lady is compromising her deeply held values
for the easy way out. Harsh judgement? Perhaps. But I find the "It's
easy to judge something when it doesn't happen to you." rebuttle to be
a weak excuse for doing a complete 180 on your moral stance.
'I'm pro-life and believe in it very much, but circumstances are too
tough for me to follow through with my beliefs.' Seems rather
hypocritical to me, or at least circumstancial morality (being moral
when circumstances favor being moral).
The pro-choice crowd may now proceed to tar and feather me for daring
to say anything harsh about this woman.
-steve
|
| 20.2236 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon May 15 1995 18:38 | 11 |
| What I am saying Debra is...If you feel passionate enough on an issue,
then count the costs.
I'm sorry but I find her compromise on the issue, human as we are,
definitely not well thought out. All DougO provided...once again...is
a clear example of denial after the cock crows three times! I hope she
is able to deal with it as time goes on.
-Jack
|
| 20.2237 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon May 15 1995 18:46 | 5 |
| >> <<< Note 20.2235 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>
>> I disagree. It is just as easy to judge something when it happens to
>> you as it is when it happens to others.
hoho! you _have_ to be kidding.
|
| 20.2238 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon May 15 1995 18:54 | 21 |
| > Unfortunately, this young lady is compromising her deeply held values
> for the easy way out.
I find it far more realistic to say that those 'deeply-held values'
were actually pretty shallow. What she found, when push came to shove,
was that HER life was more important to her than was the lifelong
committment to the results of an accidental pregnancy she previously
pushed on others.
> Harsh judgement?
Nah, just wrong. Her deeply held values were to herself. And there's
nothing wrong with that.
Would that all prolifers looked in the mirror a little deeper and
admitted what this young woman did- rhetoric is cheap; having a baby is
accepting a huge responsibility- and sometimes it isn't the right
choice to make. Fortunately for her, the law protected her from her
previous advocacy of the no-choice position.
DougO
|
| 20.2239 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon May 15 1995 18:58 | 6 |
| Re: .2233
>All you managed to do here DougO is prove the frailty of the human
>spirit.
Actually, I think Gretchen did that.
|
| 20.2240 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon May 15 1995 19:00 | 7 |
| Right...Gretchen did that!
But now the good news is that Gretchen can still be the best runner on
the track team and Gretchen can graduate with honors then get a job as
a life insurance salesperson or selling office equipment.
-Jack
|
| 20.2241 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Mon May 15 1995 19:05 | 11 |
| You may be right, DougO. Her values may not have been deep rooted at
all, which is why they did not hold up when it became personal.
If it wasn't the right time to have a baby, and she knew it was not the
right time to have a baby, then why did she have sex? Being such a
pro-life advocate, I would think that she would realize the hard
choices she would be up against if she ever became pregnant- hypocrisy
or sacrifice.
-steve
|
| 20.2242 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Mon May 15 1995 19:07 | 7 |
| .2241
> If it wasn't the right time to have a baby, and she knew it was not the
> right time to have a baby, then why...?
One hopes you'll have pity on her for not being the paragon of ultimate
virtue that you and your self-righteous ilk must of course be.
|
| 20.2243 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Mon May 15 1995 19:08 | 5 |
| >If it wasn't the right time to have a baby, and she knew it was not the
>right time to have a baby, then why did she have sex?
Because like most human beings, wanting to have a baby and wanting to
have sex are pretty much orthogonal.
|
| 20.2244 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon May 15 1995 19:09 | 7 |
| Re: .2241
>then why did she have sex?
Probably because she took precautions against conception. If you have
a 1% chance of getting hit by a truck, are you never going to cross
another street again?
|
| 20.2245 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Anagram: Lost hat on Mars | Mon May 15 1995 19:10 | 7 |
| >If it wasn't the right time to have a baby, and she knew it was not the
>right time to have a baby, then why did she have sex?
Would someone explain this to Steve please!
...Tom
|
| 20.2246 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon May 15 1995 19:23 | 13 |
| Steve:
It's like this. We are a member of the animal kingdom. Like the lion
and his pride, the fish in the spawning ground, the cows and bulls in
the barn house, we are plagued by certain natural urges which beget the
animal kingdom. There is no sense of propriety and clear thinking is
only a barrier to our natural selves. I am kind of surprised at you
Steve, for not comprehending this. It is all a gift that mother earth
has provided for us. And it is something you need to keep in mind.
Please stop judging us on our devices and let us assume the course that
mother terra has bestowed upon us.
-Jack
|
| 20.2247 | not meaning to pry... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Mon May 15 1995 19:26 | 4 |
|
Steve - one, long ago...did you ever have a romantic evening ?
bb
|
| 20.2248 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon May 15 1995 19:29 | 9 |
| Really weird.
I just read .2247, and hit "next unseen" and ended up at 12.4478.
And they were both addressed to Steve.
So strange.
/john
|
| 20.2249 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Mon May 15 1995 19:48 | 4 |
|
More examples of our "no-fault" society...
|
| 20.2250 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Mon May 15 1995 19:51 | 31 |
| re: .2242
You, and everyone thereafter misunderstands my question. I guess the
sentence after it was ignored completely. Let me explain further,
since it seems I've inadvertantly hidden what I thought would be
obvious.
Being active in the pro-life movement, you would think she would:
a) be aware that no BC device is 100%
b) know how emotionally wrenching a surprise pregnancy can be
c) know what choices she would be forced into if she ever did get pregnant
It would make sense for her to abstain, being a SINGLE
pro-lifer, who is not ready to have a child. This seemed logical to me
anyway, from another single pro-life person who abstains.
I guess I need to put a disclaimer on all my notes, now, in order to
avoid the "you're cold and callous" and "self-righteous" responses.
Here's the one missing from my previous:
"I feel compassion for this woman and her emotionally wrenching ordeal,
even if my note doesn't mention it." {sheesh}
I'm not pulling any punches, though, when it comes to hypocrisy. Her
flip-flop was hypocritical. I figured the pro-choice crowd would at
least give me some credit for being even-handed and chastizing a
pro-life advocate for not following their own advertised values.
-steve
|
| 20.2251 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Mon May 15 1995 19:54 | 4 |
| re: .2246
Oh...okay. Thanks for explaining this complex suject in easy to
understand verbiage, Jack. 8^)
|
| 20.2252 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon May 15 1995 20:03 | 9 |
| Re: .2250
>a) be aware that no BC device is 100%
Yes, but I addressed that. Would you refrain from crossing the street?
>b) know how emotionally wrenching a surprise pregnancy can be
Oh? How?
|
| 20.2253 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Mon May 15 1995 20:37 | 7 |
| .2250
> It would make sense for her to abstain...
Well, yes, perhaps it would. But the simple fact is, Steve, that not
all of us are entirely ruled by common sense. Some of us have emotions
and, on occasion, act on them.
|
| 20.2254 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon May 15 1995 20:39 | 1 |
| <---- say it ain't SO!!!!!!!!! :-)
|
| 20.2255 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Anagram: Lost hat on Mars | Mon May 15 1995 23:26 | 8 |
| The problem I see is that Steve, Jack and others have no problem with
one moment of weakness equating to years of hardship. This girl made a
personal decision to do a completely available and legal procedure
in order to continue her life the way she wants it to continue. No
problem as far as I can see.
IMO
...Tom
|
| 20.2256 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Tue May 16 1995 12:43 | 5 |
|
<------
Except if the father of the child wanted the baby to live....
|
| 20.2257 | I like humour early in the morning | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150kts is TOO slow! | Tue May 16 1995 12:46 | 6 |
| re: .2246
> the barn house, we are plagued by certain natural urges which beget the
> animal kingdom.
BWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
|
| 20.2258 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue May 16 1995 12:49 | 12 |
| >This girl made a personal decision to do a completely available and legal
>procedure in order to continue her life the way she wants it to continue.
And slave owners made personal decisions to purchase completely available
and legal slaves in order to continue plantation life the way they wanted
it to continue.
And Nazi death camp workders made personal decisions to work at completely
available and legal jobs in order to continue their lives the way they
wanted them to continue.
/john
|
| 20.2259 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 13:06 | 14 |
| There is a problem Tom. This woman should have counted the cost before
she acted upon speaking to others on the evils of abortion.
As an example, I prefer not to have bumper stickers on my car. The
reason being that it isn't a good testimony to be pulled over the side
of the road with flashing blue lights behind me...and have a bumper
sticker that says, "Jesus is Lord" or whatever. It's simply bad
advertising.
You also don't need to point out the legality of abortion...like it
gives some sort of creedence to her act. I'm well aware of the
legality of it.
-Jack
|
| 20.2260 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 14:21 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.2256 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>
| Except if the father of the child wanted the baby to live....
Andy, are you saying abortion would be ok if both parents want it?
|
| 20.2261 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 14:25 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.2259 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| As an example, I prefer not to have bumper stickers on my car. The reason
| being that it isn't a good testimony to be pulled over the side of the road
| with flashing blue lights behind me...and have a bumper sticker that says,
| "Jesus is Lord" or whatever. It's simply bad advertising.
Jack, could you clarify this for me? Do you mean it would not be good
to have the bumpersticker because if you got pulled over, it would LOOK bad if
anyone saw it, (you lawbreaker Christian dude you!) or that the cop would react
differently (negative) because of the bumpersticker?
Glen
|
| 20.2262 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 14:26 | 5 |
| Because it would look bad. My greatest weakness is road skills and
protocol...although I try to be courteous, sometimes I won't come to a
complete stop and all that!
-Jack
|
| 20.2263 | Still no excuse. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue May 16 1995 14:29 | 19 |
| Once again the argument tries to get around to the hypocricy of the
pro-life people because somebody changed their mind. I wonder why we
don't see entries from those who fully supported abortion, until they
experienced it. Many examples can be cited that reflect that just
because a procedure is legal doesn't make it right.
I have read numerous accounts and talked with people who regreted their
decision to have an abortion and have serious reservations about the
ease and accessibility of abortions. These stories never seem to get
much play in any forum whatsoever.
The basic problem that seems to be the issue here, is quite frankly,
babies come from one place. The concept of telling folks that they are
responsible for their actions and holding them to that accountability
seems inconcievable to some people. the typical response is, "Gee, I
didn't think that I would get pregnant." Well, guess what. You can and
you did. You should have thought long and hard about what the
consequences are before the fact, not after.
|
| 20.2264 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue May 16 1995 14:35 | 4 |
| > sometimes I won't come to a
> complete stop and all that!
Sorta like Gretchen.
|
| 20.2265 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Tue May 16 1995 14:36 | 7 |
|
RE: .2260
>Andy, are you saying abortion would be ok if both parents want it?
And the price of potatoes in China is????
|
| 20.2266 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 14:43 | 6 |
| Yes...just like Gretchen...the frailty of humanity.
That's why I don't have bumperstickers. Maybe Gretchen shouldn't have
counseled people on the evils of abortion!
-Jack
|
| 20.2267 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 14:45 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 20.2262 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Because it would look bad. My greatest weakness is road skills and protocol..
| although I try to be courteous, sometimes I won't come to a complete stop and
| all that!
In the voice of Richard Maxwellhouse Nixon:
Baaad Christian.... Baaad!!!
Jack, what a lame excuse. :-) Gee, think of all the people that you
would bring a smile to when they saw they bumpersticker. Think of all the
people who would see you're human if you were pulled over. Jack, image reasons?
Hmmm....
Hey, I know what you're afraid of. You're afraid an episode of the
Simpson's will come into play here. Where the cop was arresting Ned Flanders
while saying, "Sooo.... where's your Messiah now, huh???" :-)
|
| 20.2268 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 14:47 | 8 |
| 20.2269 | | POWDML::CKELLY | Cute Li'l Rascal | Tue May 16 1995 14:48 | 6 |
| no, glen, he just doesn't want the hassles of you and others
like you (ie; who question every single little thing about
their beliefs/religion as though they don't have the right
to not be perfect) salivating over the 'evidence' that someone
isn't being a good christian because -GASP- he's been pulled
over for x,y,z.
|
| 20.2270 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 14:51 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.2269 by POWDML::CKELLY "Cute Li'l Rascal" >>>
| no, glen, he just doesn't want the hassles of you and others like you (ie; who
| question every single little thing about their beliefs/religion as though they
| don't have the right to not be perfect)
Oh come off it 'tine. It's only done when they have blasted or judged,
or etc, someone for doing the same thing.
| salivating over the 'evidence' that someone isn't being a good christian
| because -GASP- he's been pulled over for x,y,z.
Again, read what I wrote above.
|
| 20.2271 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 14:54 | 8 |
| Not true Glen. There are people in this very conference who categorize
all of a certain belief for the actions of a few. This should come as
no surprise to you.
Besides, consider the testimony aspect. If I were rip roaring drunk, I
wouldn't want to be wearing a shirt that says, "Jesus Saves".
-Jack
|
| 20.2272 | | POWDML::CKELLY | Cute Li'l Rascal | Tue May 16 1995 14:57 | 6 |
| well glen, as you are fond of saying, people may perceive you to be
this way, but maybe it isn't your reality. my perception is that you
do it to needle people with whom you will never be in agreement with
and for some reason, you come off at times as not being happy to agree
to disagree. i'll grant you, others do the same to you, but don't get
hissy about it when called on it.
|
| 20.2273 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 15:11 | 17 |
|
| <<< Note 20.2271 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Not true Glen. There are people in this very conference who categorize all of
| a certain belief for the actions of a few.
I agree that this is true Jack. But I got the impression, anyway, that
'tine was directing that in my direction, as well as towards others.
| Besides, consider the testimony aspect. If I were rip roaring drunk, I
| wouldn't want to be wearing a shirt that says, "Jesus Saves".
I guess I don't understand all this. If everything is ok, then wear
what you want. But incase something should happen, don't. I don't think Jesus
had all that good of a pr when He was around. At least not in the eyes of
everyone.
|
| 20.2274 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 15:14 | 25 |
| | <<< Note 20.2272 by POWDML::CKELLY "Cute Li'l Rascal" >>>
| well glen, as you are fond of saying, people may perceive you to be this way,
| but maybe it isn't your reality. my perception is that you do it to needle
| people with whom you will never be in agreement with
This is not an accurate perception. If I am horsing around, yeah. If I
am in a discussion, no. While I may be anal, it's only because I want to see
where people are coming from.
| and for some reason, you come off at times as not being happy to agree to
| disagree.
I guess the mail I get from some might have something to do with that.
| i'll grant you, others do the same to you, but don't get hissy about it when
| called on it.
If I'm called for the right reason, I don't get hissy. What you wrote
above is not correct.
Glen
|
| 20.2275 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Tue May 16 1995 15:36 | 8 |
| > While I may be anal, it's only because I want to see
> where people are coming from.
This may be the funniest unintentionally funny thing I have
ever read (or heard). I'm laughing so hard right now, my
kidneys hurt.
-b
|
| 20.2276 | | POWDML::CKELLY | Cute Li'l Rascal | Tue May 16 1995 15:38 | 13 |
| glen-
it's only my opinion after all. you don't have to agree with it,
but it is things like your referencing off-line stuff (as you just
did) that further the impression for me. Why? Because one would
think that someone going off line with you is to do just that, go
off line, but when that happens and you are in a 'heated' discussion,
on several occasions I've seen you respond back to whomever you are
arguing with (and these arguements tend to center around the
religious belief thing) a suggestion to post their mail. As you've
done with others, I'm just pointing out how some of your notes/style
lead me to the perception I have even tho that may not be what you
are trying to convey.
|
| 20.2277 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 15:39 | 1 |
| He said anal!
|
| 20.2278 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 15:52 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.2275 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>
| This may be the funniest unintentionally funny thing I have ever read (or
| heard). I'm laughing so hard right now, my kidneys hurt.
Brian... go relieve yerself! :-)
|
| 20.2279 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 16:01 | 38 |
| | <<< Note 20.2276 by POWDML::CKELLY "Cute Li'l Rascal" >>>
| it's only my opinion after all.
Agreed.
| you don't have to agree with it,
Agreed! :-)
| but it is things like your referencing off-line stuff (as you just did) that
| further the impression for me. Why? Because one would think that someone going
| off line with you is to do just that, go off line, but when that happens and
| you are in a 'heated' discussion, on several occasions I've seen you respond
| back to whomever you are arguing with (and these arguements tend to center
| around the religious belief thing) a suggestion to post their mail.
Notice why no one ever says to post their notes 'tine? They wouldn't be
too happy if they let me. They would look too hypocritical if they were posted.
Calling someone on what they are when you have proof to back you up is not a
problem. Getting them to let the world see what they are can be. :-) I will
say that whether Jack Martin and I have a discussion on line, or off, he writes
the same way. :-) luv ya Jack! Not everyone else is....
| As you've done with others, I'm just pointing out how some of your notes/style
| lead me to the perception I have even tho that may not be what you are trying
| to convey.
I fully understand this 'tine. But you know me. If someone implies a
falsehood about me, I'll be quick to react. Sometimes with humor, sometimes
with questions, sometimes by snapping back. I think it depends on how much
coffee I have had. (today was a 4 cupper) But also understand that not everyone
will go into the detail you have gone through explaining what you mean.
Glen
|
| 20.2280 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue May 16 1995 16:02 | 16 |
| >> This girl made a personal decision to do a completely available and
>> legal procedure in order to continue her life the way she wants it
>> to continue.
>
> And slave owners ...
>
> And Nazi death camp workders ...
Of course, John would like to see the slavery reversed, women beholden
to the state to deliver the fruit of their wombs, and death only to
those who transgressed and died seeking illegal abortions.
I know which situation *I* prefer.
DougO
|
| 20.2281 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 16:16 | 22 |
| Glen:
In my church, some abstain from wine. For some reason, it is taboo to
drink wine in some peoples minds. I happen not to be of this ilk but I
respect their beliefs that it is untouchable. Perhaps their parents
were alcoholics...or perhaps they are and are trying to escape it.
So, if I have a bottle of wine in my refrigerator, is it not best to
keep it out of their site lest they come to judgement and stumble in
their walk with God? Doesn't it say in the Bible that when these
issues arise that we cater to the needs of our weaker brother? Yes, it
does. Therefore, it is not hypocritical of me to keep bumperstickers
off my car. Why should I cause both believers and non believers to
judge or stumble in their own walks with God...or whatever because of
my stupidity on the road?
I have heard in this conference alone that people are shunning
Christianity because of the "bad" testimony of believers. To me,
exposing my beliefs in a bad situation isn't really noble. It is
another excuse for the world to shun Christianity!
-Jack
|
| 20.2282 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue May 16 1995 16:21 | 6 |
| >> <<< Note 20.2281 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
>>For some reason, it is taboo to
>>drink wine in some peoples minds.
well, it's trespassing, for one thing, and a tad cramped as well.
|
| 20.2283 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 16:23 | 1 |
| Cheeky!!
|
| 20.2284 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Tue May 16 1995 16:45 | 22 |
| re: .2281
Jack,
Do you often have people come into your house and search for
wine bottles in your refridgerator? :-) You must lead
a rather exciting life...... :-) Of course, people looking
in my fridge would get scared off by the bottles labeled,
"Cranberry Juice or Placebo", not to mention the talking food
but that's another story.......
What you believe is your business. In what is left of this
free country it is your right to speak your mind in public,
be it on your car, your tee shirt or your baseball cap.
Sure, some people might be offended, but hey, it's their
problem, not yours. Yes, people label you by what you
believe and how you publicize those beliefs. Yeah, you take
s**t from idiots who have no clue. But the world
never got changed when everyone stayed quiet and minded
their own business, now did it?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2285 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 16 1995 17:02 | 9 |
| Right...it didn't get changed over night!
If somebody becomes self righteous over the issue of wine drinking,
then in my interest to protect that person from sinning (becoming self
righteous), I find it more expedient to not offer it to them or drink
it in front of them. I don't feel the need to hide it but also
shouldn't bring it to their attention.
-Jack
|
| 20.2286 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Anagram: Lost hat on Mars | Tue May 16 1995 18:09 | 10 |
| Sign on bumper sticker:
------------------
| PROTOPLASM IS |
| PEOPLE TOO! |
------------------
I think it was a statement on abortion!?
...Tom
|
| 20.2287 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 18:38 | 49 |
| | <<< Note 20.2281 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| So, if I have a bottle of wine in my refrigerator, is it not best to keep it
| out of their site lest they come to judgement and stumble in their walk with
| God?
Jack, apples and oranges. You are trying to compare you trying to keep
something away from others so THEY will have better control on their lives, to
you controling your own life. While you can't always know what you may need to
do to help others, you do know up front, in the case of your driving, what
needs to be changed. You aren't responsible for anyone's actions but yourself.
You can help out whenever possible. But if they stumble, it is their thing to
work on. Comparing it to own self, doesn't make a connection to me. Doesn't
mean there isn't one, but that I just haven't seen it yet.
| Therefore, it is not hypocritical of me to keep bumperstickers off my car.
Jack, I don't believe I was referring to your not having a
bumpersticker to you being hypocritical. If so, please point me to
that note. It was not my intention, anyway. No one says you have to
have a bumpersticker on your car. I just said I couldn't see the logic
in your reasoning.
| Why should I cause both believers and non believers to judge or stumble in
| their own walks with God...or whatever because of my stupidity on the road?
Again, you are not responsible for their actions. Jack, if they see you
getting a ticket and stumble, then they have some real issues to deal with.
Would they have to make a judgement about you without even knowing the facts? I
mean, you could be pulled over because a tail light was out. You still get the
blues, but it could be just an informative stop. Again, that is why I don't, at
this time anyway, see the logic in your reasoning.
| I have heard in this conference alone that people are shunning Christianity
| because of the "bad" testimony of believers.
Jack, let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe that based just
on the testimony of others, whether it be perceived as bad or not, that would
be the only reason some will shun Christianity? OR, that would be the start of
someone shunning Christianity? My opinion on this is we are adults. We have our
beliefs based on our lifes experiences to this point. I truly do not believe
that peoples bad testimonies will MAKE someone shun Christianity. I truly think
that they need some life experiences to go along with it. (I could be wrong
though)
Glen
|
| 20.2288 | | TROOA::COLLINS | must ipso facto half not be | Tue May 16 1995 19:45 | 7 |
|
------------------
| SOYLENT GREEN |
| IS PEOPLE TOO! |
------------------
|
| 20.2289 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150kts is TOO slow! | Tue May 16 1995 19:52 | 6 |
| re: .2288
Tastes Great!
Bob
|
| 20.2290 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 19:55 | 1 |
| less filling
|
| 20.2291 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Indeedy Do Da Day | Tue May 16 1995 20:00 | 1 |
| They have Soylent Lite now?
|
| 20.2292 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member | Tue May 16 1995 20:02 | 3 |
|
Never hear of Soylent lite, Soylent Night, but not lite.
|
| 20.2293 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 16 1995 21:06 | 1 |
| <---- wow.... was that bad..... but funny!
|
| 20.2294 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 16 1995 22:14 | 12 |
| <<< Note 20.2244 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
> >then why did she have sex?
>
> Probably because she took precautions against conception. If you have
> a 1% chance of getting hit by a truck, are you never going to cross
> another street again?
What evidence do you have for that statement? I don't recall
anything in .2232 about Gretchen relying on birth control (and
the discussion in question between .2232 and .2244 was focused
on Gretchen...)
|
| 20.2295 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 16 1995 22:21 | 15 |
| <<< Note 20.2252 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
> Re: .2250
>
> >b) know how emotionally wrenching a surprise pregnancy can be
>
> Oh? How?
.2250 set the premise of "Being active in the pro-life movement"
Just because they may not have experienced it themselves doesn't
make them ignorant of what others go through.
I just wonder if Gretchen plans to go back to "being active in the
pro-life movement..."
|
| 20.2296 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 16 1995 22:27 | 7 |
| re .2267
I can't believe you're trying to indict Jack because of his
reasons for not wanting to use certain bumper stickers!
Maybe I don't understand it because I use the same reasoning
for not applying my "Promote Morality" bumper sticker...
|
| 20.2297 | Hatred. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 16 1995 22:28 | 3 |
| re .2280
What thought process conjured up THAT reply?
|
| 20.2298 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Anagram: Lost hat on Mars | Tue May 16 1995 23:23 | 8 |
| Gretchen is obviously just an oversexed little pervert who deserves a
life of misery because she committed the atrocity of having sexual
relations. I suggest that we tie her to a chair and drop her in a lake
for 5 minutes. If she lives she is forgiven by god, if she doesn't she
is banished to Hell for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
...Tom
|
| 20.2299 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 16 1995 23:28 | 6 |
| re .2250
Steve -- you forgot an important point to list under your "Being
active in the pro-life movement" argument.
d) her beliefs hold that what she did was murder.
|
| 20.2300 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue May 16 1995 23:33 | 9 |
| Re: .2294
>What evidence do you have for that statement?
As much as you would have if you claimed she didn't. But given that
she was pro-life, and by the description seemed to be a fairly
competent person, it's a decent assumption that she used birth control.
Which still leaves the question: Would you ever cross the street?
|
| 20.2301 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Tue May 16 1995 23:34 | 7 |
| Re: .2295
>Just because they may not have experienced it themselves doesn't make
>them ignorant of what others go through.
Not totally. But knowledge that someone has feelings, and knowledge of
what those feelings are like to experience, are two different things.
|
| 20.2302 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 16 1995 23:41 | 7 |
| <<< Note 20.2300 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
> But given that she was pro-life, ...
> it's a decent assumption that she used birth control.
I disagree.
|
| 20.2303 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 16 1995 23:43 | 7 |
| <<< Note 20.2301 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
> Not totally. But knowledge that someone has feelings, and knowledge of
> what those feelings are like to experience, are two different things.
Fair enough. Steve only expressed the former, not the latter,
in .2250, so I don't see what you are questioning in .2252.
|
| 20.2304 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed May 17 1995 02:19 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.2296 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>
| I can't believe you're trying to indict Jack because of his
| reasons for not wanting to use certain bumper stickers!
I think you need to read it again.... that's not what I said.
| Maybe I don't understand it because I use the same reasoning
| for not applying my "Promote Morality" bumper sticker...
How nice.
|
| 20.2305 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed May 17 1995 02:21 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.2297 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>
| -< Hatred. >-
| re .2280
| What thought process conjured up THAT reply?
Joe, why ask DougO about the his thought process if you're gonna answer
it for him anyway? What do you base your answer on?
|
| 20.2306 | Sorry example. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed May 17 1995 13:37 | 27 |
| It appears that the basic problem with poor little Gretchen is that
because she claimed to be a pro-life advocate she changed quickly when
she found herself in a family way. It seems as if Gretchen is so
typical of those who claim membership with a particular philosophy but
don't have a clue what it really means.
You can look across the spectrum of issues and find those who ardently
support a particular view only to react 180 degrees opposite when they
are feced with the source of their support/ opposition.
I seem to remember a few years a go that a very staunch anti-gun
columnist in Washington DC was very active in the gun control movement.
One night he had some teenagers show up to take a late night swim in
his pool and he opened fire with his own hand gun. When questioned
about the apparent conflict of his written words and statements and his
actions, he replied that he was protecting his home. He never
recognized the fact that what he railed against for years, and as far
as I know still does, created any dicotomy.
I believe that Gretchen falls into the same group. It is one thing to
voice a position, it is quite different to live by those beliefs.
Because Gretchen never really internalized the issue and behaved
according to her supposed beleifs, we now see her being held up as some
sort of icon for the pro-abortion movement.
She is shallow and those who use her are worse.
|
| 20.2307 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Wed May 17 1995 15:54 | 10 |
| <<< Note 20.2306 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
-< Sorry example. >-
I think your analogy with the anti-gun columnist is bogus - probably
because you, like many others who buy into the NRA line, think anyone who
is for gun control is against all gun ownership and use. That's nonsense.
It helps to generate hysteria about controls but completely pollutes the
debate.
Oops. YAGN... Sorry
|
| 20.2308 | Missed my point. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed May 17 1995 16:10 | 15 |
| RE: 2307
Excuse me, but I wasn't the one who wrote articles that opposed private
hand gun ownership. Personally, I think there are some restrictions
which should be considered.
Apparently you missed my point. This guy and poor little Gretchen
adopted certain views and were very vocal in expressing them. When
push came to shove, and they were personally involved, suddenly they
had excuses for changing their position. But only because they had a
good reason.
This is the issue and using Gretchen as a club against those who oppose
totally unrestricted abortions is specious.
|
| 20.2309 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed May 17 1995 16:46 | 21 |
| >What thought process conjured up THAT reply?
>
> -< Hatred. >-
As usual, Joe, you fail to comprehend my motive.
When Mr Covert feels free to compare people to slave holders and nazis
death camp guards, you don't ask him a similar question. Your
blindness, or selective biases, are showing. Doesn't Mr Covert show
just as much hatred with such rhetoric as do I? But you didn't ask him.
When Mr Covert makes such comparisons, though, some of us feel free
to point out the situation that would result from the position he
espouses- that women would be enslaved by pregnancy, that deaths would
be the lot of some of those who resisted their enslavement by seeking
illegal abortion. This is not hatred, Joe- this is the real logic of
Mr Covert's position, in words of his own rhetoric.
So nice educating you again.
DougO
|
| 20.2310 | Silly of me to expect something different. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed May 17 1995 16:55 | 19 |
| Re:2309
Gee, let's add a little more blind emotionalism to this issue. For
your reference, "enslavement". You do nothing to further your point by
using such clear emotionalism as opposed to some sort of reasoned
argument.
Just in case you were unware, but I doubt it, slavery means that you
are taken, against your will, and placed into servitude. Unless the
basic rules of pregnancy have changed, I don't think anyone can take
you against your will, rape excepted, and make a slave of you.
those who become pregnant took direct and specific action. No one
"forced" them to become pregnant. they took a chance and ended up
pregnant. This is about as far from "slavery" as you could possibly
get. You might gather some support, or at least stop being dismissed
out of hand, if you stopped using ridiculous emotionalism and tried to
present a rational position.
|
| 20.2311 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Wed May 17 1995 17:10 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.2308 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
-< Missed my point. >-
Sorry, old man. I didn't miss your point. I (apparently) guessed wrong
about your columnist. If he in fact argued that private ownership of
handguns should be banned - and still does - while owning and using one
himself, than he's simply a hypocrite. Much as you accuse Gretchen of
being.
Is it possible, however, that he has argued for Brady bill type controls,
and you have mistakenly perceived that to be a call for outright ban?
And on a different note, is it possible that Gretchen had a genuine change
of heart when faced with the reality she failed to understand beforehand?
No hypocracy, only discovery?
|
| 20.2312 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed May 17 1995 17:13 | 10 |
| It isn't so much hypocrisy as it is a weakness of the flesh. What
Gretchen discovered was candy coated poison. She pondered in her heart
a compromise...and when one does this, they can justify just about
anything...especially when something so hideous is government
sanctioned.
I truly feel for her. I believe she is going to be a candidate for
some problems in doing this.
-Jack
|
| 20.2313 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed May 17 1995 17:35 | 9 |
| Rocush, you are just as blind as I just showed Joe he was. You jump on
me for "enslavement" and "nazi death camp" rhetoric, yet you seem blind
to the nuance that mine are just replies to Covert's use of the same
EXACT rhetorical phrasing in .2258. So I'm introducing emotionalism,
am I? Tell it to Covert.
I *just* pointed this out to Joe. Read for comprehension, please.
DougO
|
| 20.2314 | Your wrong, again. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed May 17 1995 17:57 | 20 |
| Re: 2313
Oh, I do read for comprehension. What I find is that you consistently
take a writer's response out of context and then add your own
convoluted wording and claim that the original writer is wrong.
If you bother to re-read Mr. Covert's entry you will see he was
responding to what was entered in a previous note. He then used the
exact same wording and applied it to different situations. Your
insistence in ignoring the totality of a response and attempts to
change the intent of a response is really juvenile.
To compound the act you then use inflammatory and emotional diatribes
as if this makes up for the original act of taking responses out of
context.
You seem to have a serious problem with addressing the actual point
raised. I wonder if this might be due to the fact that you rarely can
offer any real substance to a discussion.
|
| 20.2315 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Wed May 17 1995 17:57 | 6 |
| DougO:
A woman has options other than abortion...adoption for example. Slaves
in earlier America had no choices at all.
-Jack
|
| 20.2316 | more. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed May 17 1995 18:03 | 14 |
| Re: 2311
As I remeber the issue this writer opposed all private ownership of
hand guns, and I believe, all firearms. And yes, he is a hypocrite
because he felt he was special and had needs that were different than
the rest of the riff raff that opposed various gun control laws.
The same applies to Gretchen. she claimed a particular belief until it
became difficult, then abandoned her beliefs. I don't know if she had
a change of heart or merely came to the realization that reality is a
lot different than words. You have to be ready to back up your beliefs
with actions, which this young lady was unable to do. this raises the
question about whether or not she really ever supported the belief.
|
| 20.2317 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed May 17 1995 18:07 | 7 |
| Re: .2303
>Steve only expressed the former, not the latter, in .2250
Wrong. You can't "know how emotionally wrenching" something is without
having some "knowledge of what those feelings are like to experience."
Don't bother arguing with me about it, you won't convince me.
|
| 20.2318 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed May 17 1995 19:13 | 6 |
| what twaddle, Rocush. Its ok for Covert to call people Nazis and
slavers but not for anyone opposed to him, no, we're introducing
"emotionalism" into the topic. If you can't see the fallacy of that
line of argument then you're hopeless.
DougO
|
| 20.2319 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Wed May 17 1995 19:24 | 17 |
| Rocush,
Only a person who has truly been faced with an unplanned, unwanted
pregnancy can walk in the shoes of women who have been in that boat
before them. There are more than one stories about people who
demonstrated outside of clinics only to show up on a quiet day to take
care of something they couldn't fathom getting into a few weeks before.
It seems the shame, as well as the expense (IE she boffs) drives a fair
number of people of certain religious faiths into clinics or private
dr's when evidnce that they "sinned" by the curches rules is going to
become apparent.
A few churches are finally recogniozing this, but then they have to
figure out how to walk the fine line between welcoming all babies, and
condemning sex out of procreative purposes.
meg
|
| 20.2320 | Additional information. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed May 17 1995 20:04 | 38 |
| Re: 2318
You're going to talk about twaddle!!! Once again you start the
name-calling and taking things out of context. Go back and read the
entry that Mr. Covert entered. He at no time called anyone a Nazi or
slaver. What he did, and you seem incapable of responding to without
diversion, is to take a poor argument and pose it in a different
context. His example points out the fact that the excuse given for the
girl's action was ludicrous. Hopeless, indeed.
Re: 2319
Obviously the entire issue of abortion is complex and that does not say
that there are not circumstances under which a pregnancy should be
terminated. Personally I think that those who inflexibly oppose
abortion and then persue one for themselves are hypocrites.
All that having been said, it does not change the fact that many people
oppose abortion on moral grounds having nothing whatsoever to do with
pre- or extra-marital sex. All to often people try to paint those
opposed to abortion as religious fanatics who are intent on imposing
Puritanical morals on people's behavior. there may be some, but I
believe that they are a significant minority.
Years ago I considered my self a typical pro-choice person. I changed
my position significantly when it became an "all-or-nothing" issue with
the pro-choice side. My views haven't changed but I no longer can
accept the abortion is OK at any time, for any one under any
circumstances arguments that are put forward. As I said there are
circumstances which could be considered, but these would be very
specific. Unfortunately all I hear is the "all-or-nothing" arguments.
I have yet to see anyone address a reasonable accomodation.
As long as those on the pro- side keep presenting polarizing positions,
then the anti- side will respond accordingly. People who use the same
techniques that DougO uses do nothing to advance any dialogue. More
the shame.
|
| 20.2321 | Line isn't that fine, IMHO | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Wed May 17 1995 20:20 | 9 |
| > A few churches are finally recogniozing this, but then they have to
> figure out how to walk the fine line between welcoming all babies, and
> condemning sex out of procreative purposes.
It's easy if you don't hold the babies responsible for their parents
actions, IMHO.
Also, if a man and a woman love each other enough to try to have
children together, they should get married. Again, IMHO.
|
| 20.2322 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed May 17 1995 21:11 | 14 |
| > Go back and read the entry that Mr. Covert entered. He at no time
> called anyone a Nazi or slaver.
lessee, he said:
"pregnant girl does X. Slaver does X. Nazi does X."
No, he didn't call her a Nazi or a slaver in so many words. The
implication was clear.
Similarly, I didn't "introduce" "emotionalism" into the topic Rocush.
But I guess you're too blind to see that.
DougO
|
| 20.2323 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Wed May 17 1995 21:37 | 32 |
| Mr Komar,
Sex .nes. trying to have children for all people. Sex is also used as
an expression of love, release of tension, and just because it feels
good.
Holding parents to the scarlet letter standard is one of many reasons
that abortions occur with unplanned pregnancies. Even if you say you
love the babies, condemning parents is likely to cause some men and
women to choose to abort an unplanned, immoral (for them, not the baby
IYO) pregnancy.
mr Rocush,
Being one of the more "unreasonable" pro-choice people in here, I would
like to know what limitations you want set on reproductive choice. I
really am curious. Would you also put similar restrictions on gun
ownership, after all this is in the spirit of compromise,. How about
on people's unhealthy diets, alcohol use, recreational activities......
I see no room for compromise beyond this point. The first trimester has
been ruled by the SCOTUS to be between a woman and her Dr, for the next
trim restrictions can be set by the state for the safety of the mother,
and for the 3rd timester states can take an interest in the fetus when
making restrictions on abortions. This seems sensible enough to me.
It leaves flexibility for those who find through genetic testing that
their (wanted) fetus has problems to make a choice. It also protects
youngsters and those with a high degree of denial, a second trimester
abortion, and keeps the government from deciding who can and can't
reproduce.
meg
|
| 20.2324 | There is room for agreement. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed May 17 1995 22:00 | 22 |
| Re: 2323
To make it simple, yes I do support restrictions on gun ownership,
alcohol, etc. I do not; however, believe that draconian measures in
these areas are reasonable. Just as I don't believe the all-or-nothing
approach by the out-spoken members of "your" side.
I beleive that rape and unviablity of the fetus after delivery should
certainly be considered. I do not support the concept of allowing a
child to have a surgical proceudre without her parents being informed.
there is no other procedure that a doctor will perform without the
signed consent of the parent or guardian. Anyway, I think there are
some accomdations that can be made, but the radical approach is wrong
and leads to alck of achievement.
I oppose the assault weapons ban and several other gun restrictions as
I have an ennumerated right to own a firearm. I do beleive in
background checks as felons should not be allowed to own a gun, I also
beleive that if you want to carry a gun you need to have proper
training and prove ability each year, just like your drivers license.
I can cite other examples as well.
|
| 20.2325 | You can get help. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Wed May 17 1995 22:05 | 14 |
| Re: 2322
No you didn't read what he said and once agian take it out of context.
A previous noter made the initial statement. All he did was extend it
to other groups to point out how ridiculous the statement was. There
is no place that he ever implied that the girl was a Nazi or slaver.
You can not tie the two together even with the most warped
interpretation that you are attempting.
You really need to consider the advantages of remedial reading training
or spend some time trying to formulate better support for your
positions. Twisting other people's statements out of context do
nothing for you.
|
| 20.2326 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Wed May 17 1995 22:10 | 5 |
| <<< Note 20.2317 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>
> Don't bother arguing with me about it, you won't convince me.
So noted. Thank you for your honesty.
|
| 20.2327 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed May 17 1995 22:12 | 19 |
| It may be that we've forgotten exactly what the argument is about, so
here is Mr. Covert's note:
<<< Note 20.2258 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>This girl made a personal decision to do a completely available and legal
>procedure in order to continue her life the way she wants it to continue.
And slave owners made personal decisions to purchase completely available
and legal slaves in order to continue plantation life the way they wanted
it to continue.
And Nazi death camp workders made personal decisions to work at completely
available and legal jobs in order to continue their lives the way they
wanted them to continue.
/john
|
| 20.2328 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed May 17 1995 22:17 | 10 |
| Re: .2325
>All he did was extend it to other groups to point out how ridiculous
>the statement was.
No, he did not. His point was not that the statement was ridiculous.
His point was that the statement described something reprehensible and
immoral, which is a far cry from ridiculous. His point was that
legality is no defense when it comes to moral issues. He did it not to
ridicule, but to condemn.
|
| 20.2329 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Wed May 17 1995 22:18 | 23 |
| <<< Note 20.2313 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> Rocush, you are just as blind as I just showed Joe he was.
You forgot the IMO there, buddy. Yes, I am blind to YOUR way
of thinking, just as I believe you are blind to mine. That
is not likely to change in the near future I suspect, so
perhaps it would be better for us to refrain from attacks like
this, wouldn't you agree? Do you see a benefit to name calling
in these circumstances? I don't.
> yet you seem blind
> to the nuance that mine are ...
To me, this is the crux of the matter. You need to rely on
nuance to make your argument. The fringe. The grey area.
It looks like shades of Isaiah 5:20 if you ask me.
> I *just* pointed this out to Joe.
About all you pointed out is reinforcement of my opinions.
I'm sure you'll wear it as a badge of honor, but I can't be
responsible for that.
|
| 20.2330 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu May 18 1995 03:36 | 23 |
| I did not call anyone who procures an abortion a slave owner or a Nazi.
I request that you stop claiming that I did. That claim is as absurd
as claiming that I had called someone who was a slave owner an abortionist
or a Nazi, which is just as obviously false to any honest person.
What I did was point out that just as abortion today is legal and justified
as being necessary, once slave ownership and genocide were legal and justified
as being necessary.
I agree that not making abortion available to a woman who wishes to terminate
her pregnancy restricts her freedom. Since a pregnancy is temporary and for
most women not so restrictive as to prevent continuation of her normal life
for most of it, including schooling, sports, and most jobs, comparing requiring
pregnant women to complete their pregnancies to selling someone into life-long
slavery is absurd.
There are many things you can do which result in temporary restrictions on
your freedom. Actions have consequences. Being pregnant for six or seven
months after an unintended pregnancy is confirmed is the natural consequence
of sexual intercourse. You made your bed, now lie in it.
/john
|
| 20.2332 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu May 18 1995 03:51 | 4 |
|
Gee, John wanted to say that so much, he said it twice!!! And the
second time he even added in an extra line!
|
| 20.2333 | | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Thu May 18 1995 12:03 | 34 |
| > Mr Komar,
>
> Sex .nes. trying to have children for all people. Sex is also used as
> an expression of love, release of tension, and just because it feels
> good.
One at a time please:
1) An expression of love: If there truly is love, there there is no problem
waiting for marriage, now is there?
2) Release of tension: ???? Can we get serious? So, in other words, if I
had some tension to be released, one of the ways to ease that tension is to
have sex? Honey, I've had a bad day at work - do me. :-) There are better
ways to release tension.
3) Just because it feels good: The ultimate 60s reaction. There are many
things that feel good, but are not right. If you're having sex just because
it "feels good", then IMHO you are not having sex for the right reason.
> Holding parents to the scarlet letter standard is one of many reasons
> that abortions occur with unplanned pregnancies. Even if you say you
> love the babies, condemning parents is likely to cause some men and
> women to choose to abort an unplanned, immoral (for them, not the baby
> IYO) pregnancy.
Possible, but shouldn't we hold people to a high standard -
especially parents? Parents do have a big responsibility, and if they are
not up to it, there is an incredibly easy way to avoid being parents.
Also, where do you get the idea that I condemn the parents? I will
condemn the immoral deed, but not the person. After all, let the one who is
sinless cast the first stone.
ME
|
| 20.2334 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Thu May 18 1995 12:08 | 15 |
| >Honey, I've had a bad day at work - do me. :-)
You that like it's a bad thing.
>There are better ways to release tension.
Name one.
>If you're having sex just because it "feels good", then IMHO you are
>not having sex for the right reason.
And what might that be? To make bebbes? Who gets to decide what the
"right reason" is for you? For me?
|
| 20.2335 | Fixing past mistakes | CADSE::ARMSTRONG | | Thu May 18 1995 12:23 | 17 |
| re: <<< Note 20.2330 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>What I did was point out that just as abortion today is legal and justified
>as being necessary, once slave ownership and genocide were legal and justified
>as being necessary.
Fortunately, under our legal system we are allowed to decide
that past laws were wrong and change them.
Slavery was legal and was made illegal.
Women were not permitted to vote, and it was changed to include them.
Abortion was illegal and was made legal.
Its good that we live in a country that can fix past mistakes.
bob
|
| 20.2336 | | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Thu May 18 1995 12:35 | 17 |
| > >There are better ways to release tension.
> Name one.
How about a couple: a real massage (non-X-rated), long soak in the tub,
violent video games (work for me!), exercise (particularly aerobic).
> And what might that be? To make bebbes?
Give the man a ceegar, we have a winner!
>Who gets to decide what the
> "right reason" is for you? For me?
An authority greater than us - God.
ME
|
| 20.2337 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu May 18 1995 12:50 | 6 |
| ZZ It leaves flexibility for those who find through genetic testing
ZZ that their (wanted) fetus has problems to make a choice.
Three cheers for Margaret Sanger and eugenics....Hip Hip...Hooray!!!!
Hip Hip...Hooray!!!!
Hip Hip...Hooray!!!!
|
| 20.2338 | like in "Roxanne" | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Thu May 18 1995 13:24 | 18 |
| >There are many things that feel good, but are not right.
list please :
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
.
.
.
ric
|
| 20.2339 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Thu May 18 1995 13:33 | 11 |
| re: .2336
Whoa, wait a minute there! You are against abortion, against
using sex as a tension reliever, yet you would use interactive video
programs which propagate the idea that violence is the ultimate tension
reliever!!!! ??????????????
'Scuse me, what's wrong with this picture?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2340 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Thu May 18 1995 13:53 | 33 |
| re: .2336
Ah, wait! I re-read it, there's more! What an incredibly
rich note!!!! :-)
Not everyone believes in God. Not everyone should. There's
room enough in this world for everyone's beliefs. Any time you
catch yourself thinking you know what is best for your neighbor,
your community, your country, and you think you need a law to
enforce it, you are starting to pervert the dream of a better world
and turn it into "a world in which I am right all the time". I
don't care who you call Boss, you have no right telling people how
to live their lives or what to believe while they're living them.
The Indians, I believe, have a wonderful saying, which goes something
like, "You cannot know another until you have walked a mile in his
shoes." You cannot possibly know the pain of an unwanted pregnancy
or the pain of making a decision to continue or abort that pregnancy,
unless you have experienced that first-hand. I was always annoyed
by the commericals that ran saying, "Life, what a beautiful choice."
They always showed perfect children in beautiful homes, loved by
their parents. They never showed handicapped children, poor children,
hungry children or inner city children. Children who didn't see life
as a beautiful thing. Yet there are far more of them resulting from
unwanted pregnancies that their are perfect children in loving homes.
You cannot believe a thing, propagate a thing, support a thing, until
you have picked it up and looked at all the stuff that grows on the
underside and determined whether or not you could live with that as
well, and then ask other people to live with it too.
That just isn't right.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2341 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu May 18 1995 15:42 | 22 |
| Violent video games are a better tension reliever than sex? You are
one sick puppy IMO. "Do me honey, I had a hellish day at work," to me
is a much more gentle, loving way for both people to share in tension
reduction, and bonding with each other. Violence, whether virtual or
real may seem to reduce tension, but I don't see much good coming from
it.
What is wrong with sex feeling good? It does, unless you have a
totally inept partner, or an illness that makes sex uncomfortable or
painful, or some phychological hangups about enjoying one's body. The
great mother made it that way, for more reasons than procreation, or we
would act more like cats, and other animals, and only have an interest
in sex during estrus. (That would make things awfully difficult for NFP
users, now wouldn't it?)
Do you honestly think if your "god" set up the human body to enjoy sex
outside of fertility, that he or she didn't intend for people to use it
in this fashion? since "god" doesn't make mistakes with his/her
creations if he/she in omnipotent, I fail to see this as something
he/she would do.
meg
|
| 20.2342 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu May 18 1995 15:57 | 11 |
| Meg:
What your mother goddess seems to fail in addressing is that the "If it
feels good, do it" mode of behavior is the preliminary step to
abortion, adultery, divorces, abuse, death, and an erosion of the trust
factor. You may be monogamous and find this philosophy to be fine.
However, the uneducated teenager who hasn't learned about honor,
monogamy, family, etc. will only feel the negative impacts that society
is experiencing today.
-Jack
|
| 20.2343 | | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Thu May 18 1995 16:01 | 3 |
| if it didn't feel good, who would bother to do it?
ric
|
| 20.2344 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu May 18 1995 16:05 | 12 |
| Re: .2342
>the "If it feels good, do it" mode of behavior
That's not what she said. But this is a typical interpretation.
X: "Having sex because it feels good is bad, bad, bad."
Y: "Wrong."
X: "Oh, so now you're telling us to do whatever feels good."
No. There are more possible stances than just "bad, bad, bad" and
"do whatever feels good." All Y has done is eliminate one stance.
|
| 20.2345 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu May 18 1995 16:14 | 6 |
| Correct...and I stated that Meg has a grip on her lifestyle and will
not get into any trouble. But the 16 year old ignorant uneducated girl
who has no clue will probably contract HIV, get an abortion, or some
such!
-Jack
|
| 20.2346 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu May 18 1995 16:23 | 21 |
| jack,
And who is this ignorant, uneducated 16-year-old girl? You mean
someone who has not been taught from birth about ethical behavior by
her parents? You mean one who hasn't been told how STD's are
transmitted and how to protect herself should she decide to stray from
some people norms? Do you mean one who hasn't been told about all the
appropriate ways to pleasure herself and/or a partner that are lower in
risk? Are you talking about a child who has been told by parental
units, or standins, that she is worthless and can only abase herself to
seek happiness in the next life?
My kids know about such things, and one has managed to make it in my
"godless" household to 21, without an STD, pregnancy (unplanned or not),
abortion or any other some such. I know the others will have learned
ethical behavior, and protection for themselves long before they are 16
as well. Ethical teachings do not require your particular channelled
writings, believe it or not, and don't require the threat of frying in
hell to enforce.
meg
|
| 20.2347 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Thu May 18 1995 16:37 | 3 |
| Who said anything about hell? Did I say anything about hell???
-Jack
|
| 20.2348 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu May 18 1995 16:58 | 20 |
| >I did not call anyone who procures an abortion a slave owner or a Nazi.
>
>I request that you stop claiming that I did.
After carefully following your nuances in .2309 and .2313, I used a
shorthand version in .2318 which does technically make this claim.
I clarified it in .2322. I request you stop claiming I'm still
claiming it, since you're going to pick nits over it.
> I agree that not making abortion available to a woman who wishes to
> terminate her pregnancy restricts her freedom.
You admit it, then, that your chosen position is akin to slavery.
Your hairsplitting about how temporary the situation is isn't germane.
Is a "little" bit of racism ok when practised by uniformed authority?
Is a "little" bit of slavery ok for the state to impose on pregnant
women? Not from where I sit.
DougO
|
| 20.2349 | Just an analogy, and not a great one... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Thu May 18 1995 17:20 | 14 |
|
The claim is made that, "If you are not breaking the law, you
can't be doing anything immoral or unethical." So, in 1965, it
might have been immoral or unethical to have an abortion, but in
1985 it can't be. By that logic, the analogy to slavery is pretty
good, although slavery went the opposite direction, from legal to
illegal. The analogy to the the Nazis is weaker. A better example
might be prohibition. But you get the idea.
But many of us here reject totally the premise. Our ideas about
morality make no reference to the state, and would continue if it
disappeared.
bb
|
| 20.2350 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Thu May 18 1995 17:30 | 17 |
| >How about a couple: a real massage (non-X-rated), long soak in the tub,
>violent video games (work for me!), exercise (particularly aerobic).
Who decided those things were ok? You did, didn't you? How would you
like some dork to come along and tell you that playing violent video
games is immoral and if you do that you're going to hell?
>Give the man a ceegar, we have a winner!
So what you're saying is that infertile couples should not have sex,
and long term monogamous marriages in which the woman has bypassed her
child bearing years should be celibate. How immensely absurd.
>An authority greater than us - God.
What did he tell you, specifically, and when did he tell you? And how
can I get in touch with him?
|
| 20.2351 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu May 18 1995 18:10 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.2347 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Who said anything about hell? Did I say anything about hell???
Life is hell Jack! :-)
|
| 20.2352 | Oh, stop. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Thu May 18 1995 21:23 | 14 |
| Re: 2340
What absolute drivel. Children come from one source and if you're
going to get up in arms about a commercial then you have a real
problem.
If a child runs the risk of being born into unfit conditions then it is
the person who creates the child that is responsible. Do not make
society accept actions that many hold deplorable because people can't
excercise self-control.
This argument gets used so many times it is tiresome, because it is
untrue and a cop out.
|
| 20.2353 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu May 18 1995 23:07 | 12 |
| No,
society shouldn't try to help unwanted children. Give the corporations
a tax break so they can use the Brazilian Solution on Street urchins.
In case, Mr Rocush, you hadn't noticed, Brazil has little access to
contraception, sterilization, or abortion, and a large population of
unwanted street children. the Brazilian solution involves private cops
going out ansd massacreing the urchins to lower the crime rate in urban
areas. Truly, their parents "chose" life. the beauty of it is left to
question.
|
| 20.2354 | | CALDEC::RAH | a wind from the East | Thu May 18 1995 23:10 | 4 |
|
>Brazil has little access to contraception
what about self control?
|
| 20.2355 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu May 18 1995 23:12 | 1 |
| Who knows? It is a primarily Catholic country. Ask a priest.
|
| 20.2356 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Thu May 18 1995 23:44 | 7 |
|
re: .2353
Ah yes....
and people talk about the christian "fringe"...
|
| 20.2357 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri May 19 1995 14:52 | 6 |
| It's as least as well-documented as anything any other fringe has been
putting out lately. I've known about the situation in Brazil for over
a year now. Brazil has a big tourist industry, and that brings people
into the cities. They have a large number of homeless children who
turn to stealing. This annoys the shopowners and others who depend on
the tourist business, so they've decided to clean up the streets.
|
| 20.2358 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri May 19 1995 18:07 | 12 |
| Kinsey has data regarding premarital sex activities and education.
Seems the more educated a man is, the less likely he is to have sex
before of marriage. Of adult males with an education of 8th grade or
less the rate is 98% and goes down to about 66% for college graduates.
So, maybe we should keep kids in school and fund them through grad
school, it looks like it will be at least as effective as trying to
beat the abstinence drum. besides better education should lead to
better economic opportunities, which should lower the number of
unwanted conceptions.
meg
|
| 20.2359 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri May 19 1995 18:45 | 9 |
| re .-1
But education today is not the same as education when Kinsey
did his reports -- especially with regard to teaching the value
of waiting (or lack thereof, considering that we "shouldn't be
forcing values down the kids' throats.")
And it will be even even worse tomorrow if we continue on the
path we as a society currently follow.
|
| 20.2360 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Fri May 19 1995 20:18 | 9 |
| Oh Joe,
You know the difference in education between now and then and what was
taught about waiting to younger teens?
Besides in Brazil, what do you think has hapened with educttion over
the last 40 years.
meg
|
| 20.2361 | Oh, stop the hysteria. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Fri May 19 1995 20:29 | 18 |
| Re: 2353
More drivel!!
Why is it that you want to compare the US to Brazil when it fiots your
argument, but then say the US isn't like any other country when it
doesn't.
What makes you think that we would start killing kids on the street if
we make abortion more difficult as a birth control device? I don't
seem to remember lots of dead bodis of children in the streets before
Roe v Wade.
Why do you need to resort to hysteria to try and prove your point. The
US is the US and Brazil is Brazil. We can have a rational policy that
encompasses the vast majority of opinions and still have a soicety that
respects life and yet acknowledges certain limitations.
|
| 20.2362 | | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Fri May 19 1995 20:30 | 8 |
| > Besides in Brazil, what do you think has hapened with educttion over
> the last 40 years.
hapPened, educAtion
Unless those were intentional spelling errors.
ME
|
| 20.2363 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri May 19 1995 21:59 | 4 |
| Frankly, I don't know anything about Brazilian education.
What's the point of it anyway? Did Kinsey use Brazilians
for the study?
|
| 20.2364 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Mon May 22 1995 14:23 | 4 |
| I guess women don't count as dead body count before the Roe vs Wade
decision...!!!!!!
|
| 20.2365 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Mon May 22 1995 17:16 | 9 |
| >I guess women don't count as dead body count before the Roe vs Wade
>decision...!!!!!!
Women who died as a result of childbirth? Of course they do. Women who
died because they sought back alley abortions? I imagine the most
militant anti-abortionists would consider them to be the moral
equivalents of people who OD on drugs; yes, it's unfortunate that they
died, but they did it to themselves. That sort of thing. I reserve my
opinion.
|
| 20.2366 | ....and the facts are? | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Mon May 22 1995 17:48 | 13 |
|
re: 2364
Another hysterical entry. Please identify the number of women who were
found dead on the streets from illegal abortions before Roe v Wade.
Better yet, just identify the number forund anywhere. Please use
reliable information and not generalizations. Also, the source of the
information would be helpful.
Entries like yours add a lot of emotion and no substance to the
discussion, but boy do they sound great. Seems like I've heard it
before.
|
| 20.2367 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon May 22 1995 19:02 | 3 |
| Straight from the Patricia Ireland ilk!
-Jack
|
| 20.2368 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon May 22 1995 20:42 | 96 |
| Pro-Abortion Protesters Howl for the Blood of Christians
By Kathleen Howley
The Basilica of Notre Dame in the old section of Montreal is
breathtakingly beautiful.
Its barrel-vaulted ceiling is leafed with gold. The stained glass windows
reach to the sky. Every nook and cranny holds a painting or a statue of the
greatest saints of the Church.
Behind the main altar, at the top of the four-story-high reredos, gold
figures portray a scene from the Coronation of the Blessed Mother, with a
triumphant Jesus leaning down from His kingly throne to place a crown on His
Mother's head.
Yes, it's a beautiful church. I'd like to go back sometime and really get
a good look at it. You see, when I was there, on April 19, I was a bit
distracted. It was under seige by an angry crowd of 3,000 pro-abortion
demonstrators, howling for the blood of Christians.
I got a close-up look at the mob on my way into the Basilica when I ran
a gauntlet of police security checks to get by the barricades. It wasn't a
pretty sight.
The demonstrators carried vulgar signs that mocked the Holy Father -- in
fact, some of them were dressed like him. They shook their fists at the
Basilica, shouted obscenities, and made a deafening racket with whistles. The
hatred stretched as far as the eye could see. It was like getting a glimpse
of the fury of Hell.
Inside, the opening Mass of the annual Human Life International
Conference was underway, with almost 1,000 pro-lifers in attendance. On the
altar, about 60 young and old priests and several bishops were gathered from
countries around the globe. The principal celebrant was Archbishop John
Onaiyekan of Nigeria.
All through the Mass, the chants and the jeers and the whistle blasts of
the mob managed to penetrate the thick stone walls of the church. They were
only drowned out when the huge pipe organ joined the Schola Cantorum for the
Sanctus and the Agnus Dei.
The sound of the distant howling gave particular emphasis to the Gospel,
as read by Archbishop Onaiyekan: "Happy are you when people abuse you and
persecute you and speak all kinds of calumny against you on my account.
Rejoice and be glad...You are the light of the world. A city built on a
hill-top cannot be hidden."
Every person at the Mass knew that soon we were going to get a chance to
put those sacred words into action. We were scheduled to participate in a
15-minute candlelight procession from the Basilica to the hotel that served
as the headquarters for the conference.
Mass ended at about 8:30 p.m., and the massive doors of the Basilica
slowly swung open, prompting a renewed roar from the mob. Four seminarians,
with a resolute look in their eyes, were the first to emerge, carrying a
statue of the Blessed Mother on their squared shoulders. They were followed
by four men carrying a statue of St. Joseph, and two more holding a large
painting of Jesus.
Behind them, the priests formed the head of the procession, followed by
the rest of the congregation, all singing "Immaculate Mary" and holding
candles that flickered in the breeze.
When it came my turn to descend the front steps of the Basilica, I paused
at the door, taking a moment to survey the angry crowd. I asked a young
priest, raising my voice to be heard above the mob, "Do you think this is
what is was like when they rounded up the Christians in early Rome?"
He smiled, and said: "I suppose it was something like this."
The protesters threw eggs, firecrackers, beer bottles and smoke bombs at
the procession. We had a force of 200 Montreal police to protect us, but it
wasn't enough to keep the demonstrators at bay.
They surged against the barricades, cursed the Catholic Church, and made
obscene gestures. As I looked at the individual faces, I wondered what could
have caused them to embrace such darkness.
Less than a dozen of the people in the procession were hit, and all of
them received minor injuries. Not one person at the conference complained,
and many said it was an experience that deepened their commitment to their
faith. That's the irony of the One, True Church that Christ established --
history shows that persecution makes it flourish.
Later that night, the demonstrators surrounded the hotel, assaulted some
police officers, and trashed and burned a police van.
In news articles the next day, reporters quoted the pro-abortion
protesters as saying they were making a statement against bigotry and hatred.
Ironic, isn't it? Said one member of the surly mob: "I came to stand up
against religious intolerance and fundamentalism." Another protester was
quoted as saying, "We don't breed hate. We breed love."
A word for the protesters: next time I visit Canada for a prayerful and
peaceful pro-life conference, I could do with a little less love, please.
|
| 20.2369 | Too bad it's not an emotional subject, huh? | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Mon May 22 1995 21:08 | 29 |
|
I don't need entertain your ignorance. I suppose that just because you
don't know the number of miscarriages per year, they don't exist
either. Better yet, lets bring to mind the two recent deaths from a
very legal clinic in Boston...how's that..emotional enough for you.
I'm sorry that this topic doesn't produce enough emotion for you or
your counter parts...that's right, it's not important enough for people
to make choice on their own without interference. I guess walking a
mile in your shoes would be a short trip, huh?
ROCUSH, this IS emotional...it's about a lot of things, most of which
lies in the minds of the people having to make a very difficult
decision. A friend of mine is having to make that very same
decision. Failed BC, she had brain surgery a year and a half ago and
guess what, the drugs she's on could harm the fetus, and if she goes
off them, could kill her...so what do you think is more important right
now, the two live children without a mother? better yet the three
children without a mother... So no, this isn't an emotional issue!!!
It has nothing to do with emotion does it. I can't tell you the pain in
my heart for her, but it's not MY decision or MY life. I can only be
there for her and the decision her and her husband make. I would HATE
to walk in her shoes.
Has this gotten emotional enough for you yet!!!
me
|
| 20.2370 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon May 22 1995 21:21 | 17 |
| Michele:
I sympathize with your friend. My wife experiences four miscarriages
and we are no strangers to heartbreak.
All I can say is it's too bad that the radical fringe of the womens
movement has used needless victim rhetoric to cheapen the true meaning
of what your friend is going through. I'm sorry but there are
individuals who reap curses in life through no fault of their own.
There are others who reap consequences through ignorance, lack of
knowledge. Then there are others who reap what they sow through sheer
stupidity and lack of forsight. Now have I ever done anything to put
me in group C? Unfortunately, yes and only by the grace of God have I
been spared the hurt. But then again, I don't ask for anybody's
sympathy and am willing to reap the consequences of my actions.
-Jack
|
| 20.2371 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon May 22 1995 21:21 | 3 |
| Sorry...meant to say Michelle. My wifes name is Michele!
-Jack
|
| 20.2372 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Mon May 22 1995 21:24 | 47 |
| re: .2352
Congratulations. You've managed to answer my reply, add
absolutely nothing of substance to the argument and totally
miss my point. This may be a record for you.
I take issue with the commercials for a very valid
reason - Like it or not, television shapes our views.
How many commericals and jingles can you remember off the top of
your head? These commericals can lead people to believe
that if you have the baby everything will be just fine.
Your child will be perfect, well-behaved, you'll have enough
money to raise it, life will be good. You don't think
people think this way? Spend a little time in the real world,
my friend. This commercial is deceptive, especially
to teenage girls, some of whom are vulnerable and starved for love
and believe they can find it in a child.
You want to get your point across fine, but be honest.
Tell them it's hard. Tell them they'll may be up all
night with a sick child who does not resemble the happy,
laughing children in the ad. Tell them it costs a fortune.
Tell them it could cost them their job and perhaps their
earning potential for life. Tell them there's a lot of
people out there who really hate women, and hate them for
having their child and raising it alone. Tell them there
are people who will hate their child for having only one
parent. Tell them a lot of these people are the same ones
who didn't want to give them any information about safe sex
or birth control.
Tell them it's worth it. Tell them that the love a mother has
for her child is like no other. Tell them the sacrifices may be
big, but they seem small and the rewards are huge. Tell them
there's help and tell them where to find it. Tell them raising
their child with their beliefs gives them a chance to change
the world so that the next generation may not experience the
hate that they do. Tell them it take strength and courage
and you will find it even when you do not know where it comes
from. And tell them not every person has what it takes to
do this, and tell them that's ok too. There's room in the
world for everyone.
What do you have to lose by being honest? Why try to make
gains through deception?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2373 | A time and place for everything. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Mon May 22 1995 21:35 | 25 |
| Re: 2369
No, actually not. What you term as emotion in your entry was fact.
Yes, it may be fact wrapped up in human emotions based on a specific
individual, but it is not a fact-free, name-calling emotional entry.
I can certainly appreciate the difficulty and wrenching decisions
facing these people. I can certainly, based on the information you
presented, agree that options need to be considered because of the
circumstances this couple faces.
All that being said, i still can not accept the emotional and
hysterical responses posted by so many people here. I understand the
emotion this topic presents, but the meat cleaver approach taken by
some to make their point or support their position does neither.
the references to Brazil, dead children on the street, or dead women on
the street have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion.
the example you cite does and reflects the issues surrounding this
topic. So emotion for emotion's sake is useless and under cuts any
possible discussion.
I trust your friends can be at peace with whatever decision they make
and my prayers and support go out to them.
|
| 20.2374 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon May 22 1995 21:45 | 17 |
| Re: Commercials.
If I were head of the Edward Moss foundation who puts those commercials
out, I would be more than happy to express reality just as you
presented it Mary Michael. However, the pendulum of truth must swing
both ways. You in turn must have Planned Parenthood clinics throughout
the country and have them inform all patience of the exact process that
happens in an abortion. They must be aware of the different methods
and the evacuation process...that if it be a late stage, recognizable
pieces of the anatomy will be removed...arms, legs, heads, torsoes, the
whole bit. They must also be informed that in regards to actually
killing a person, Planned Parenthood does not have an opinion on this
issue but that the personhood of a fetus is possible. Would you be
willing to make this compromise? I'll bet you 100 to 1 that Meg will
balk at this!!!!
-jACK
|
| 20.2375 | You see one side very palinly. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Mon May 22 1995 21:47 | 29 |
| Re: 2372
Excuse me!!! YOu say I missed your point and added nothing. Well your
original note could be considered a classic of mis-direction and this
note goes it one better.
You claim that the pro-life commercial is deceptive and it doesn't tell
the truth. Well then why don't the pro-abortion people tell the truth.
Why don't they tell about the heartache, self-recrimination, emptiness
and doubt that their "choice" causes. why don't they tell teens that
sex is not a simple, "feel good" activity. That their choices have
consequences and some of those choices kill babies. OH, that's right
the pro-abortion group don't think of a fetus a baby, so it foists
another lie on the unsuspecting teens. Yeah, it's alright to get rid
of that mass of tissue, it's not like it's alive or anything.
No, I'm sorry before you take off claiming that a commercial is a lie
you'ld better check just where you're coming from.
Yes, I de believe that the commercial may be a bit simplistic in it's
approach, but it is much more honest than anything I have ever heard
come out of the pro-abotion lobby.
this may sound cold-hearted and uncaring, but before you start thowing
rocks at me, get a REAL understanding of just what those on your side
of the issue a pumping out at our children. And not just related to
abortion, but personal values, responsibility and moral living. These
may be foreign to many, but are central to the discussion.
|
| 20.2376 | | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Tue May 23 1995 11:48 | 13 |
| RE: .2369
One should never let emotions get in the way of facts, though.
One also should not let emotions control their replies in places
like the 'box. Judging (since I am the Judge) from your reply, you take
offense to someone asking about miscarriages per year. There may be a valid
reason for this statistic, especially when people just spit out things
without backing them up.
ME (the REAL ME)
PS - As Judge, I ask that you change the way you sign off
|
| 20.2377 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Tue May 23 1995 13:58 | 46 |
| re: .2374 & .2375
I'm about to surprise you both. I'd be the first person to
suggest EVERYONE be up front and honest, and I ought to know.
Here's a list of what I wished I heard from someone, ANYone;
my gynocologist, a close friend, a parent, a teacher, my
catechism class, Planned Parenthood, BEFORE I became sexually
active:
Tell them how marvelous it feels when you tell the man who
said he was going to marry you that you are pregnant and he
says, "you're having an abortion, I don't want it." Tell them
how great it is when he spends the next three months saying,
"stop making it into a little person, if you have feelings
for it, it will be that much worse" every time you cry.
Tell them it hurts. Far worse than "bad cramps" ever did.
Tell them you could lose about three months worth of memories
while you mind is busy blocking out the pain of dealing with
a pregnancy you are ending while you are waiting for the
appointment to roll around. Tell them people you don't know
patting you on the hand and telling you you are "doing the
right thing" are useless. Tell them all the
other women in the waiting room look like death warmed over.
Tell them it can take five years of therapy to stop blaming
yourself, YMMV. Tell them how much fun it is to try and hide
your pregnancy from everyone when you have "morning sickness"
24 hours a day. Tell them the pills they give you don't always
knock you out, and if not you get to watch the entire procedure. Tell
them it can scar your reproductive system for life, leading to
cancer and other reproductive problems if it is poorly done.
Tell them it can scar you emotionally for life anyway, so you don't
trust anyone, love anyone or get close to anyone. Tell them
you can experience sexual dysfunction for years afterwards
because you are terrified of getting pregnant.
And for the love of mercy, tell them about birth control. Bang
it into their heads that they NEED it, that they HAVE to use it,
correctly, continuously, or they have to abstain. Because they'd
much rather use a diaphragm or roll on a condom than deal with an
abortion, take my word for it. Quite honestly, no matter how
romantic it looks, no matter what your friends may say, no matter
how much you think you love him/her now, the pleasure just isn't
worth the risk. You have many choices before you get pregnant,
you have far fewer afterwards, and believe me, they're all loaded.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2378 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Tue May 23 1995 14:28 | 1 |
| bravo. Now watch some ass come along and start judging you for it.
|
| 20.2379 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 23 1995 15:19 | 7 |
| No judgement here. I find the honesty factor quite refreshing.
ZZZ Now watch some ass come along and start judging you for it.
Are you calling our beloved Judge Komar an ass???!!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.2380 | Thanks | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue May 23 1995 15:20 | 11 |
| Re: 2377
I truly appreciate the things you said. I believe that the things
that you articulated need to be said and can go a long way in helping
address the issues of sex education, abortion and relationships.
I think that the last few entries can go a long way toward establishing
a rational and realistic approach to addressing these problems.
Thank you for sharing and it may not mean much to you, but best wishes.
|
| 20.2381 | | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Tue May 23 1995 15:22 | 5 |
| RE: .2379
He better not be!
ME, the Judge
|
| 20.2382 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Tue May 23 1995 15:29 | 10 |
| re: .2380
Actually it means more than you know. I think this is the
first time you didn't think something I'd written came from
an emotionalistic pinhead :-) :-) :-)
I may print you note and frame it. :-) :-)
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2383 | Much appreciated. | POBOX::ROCUSH | | Tue May 23 1995 15:48 | 8 |
| Re: 2392
Several different smart alec responses jumped to my mind, but
fortunately my mind works faster than my fingers.
I never thought of you as an emotionalistic pinhead, but that's for a
later time, I'd rather just enjoy the moment.
|
| 20.2384 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 23 1995 15:52 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.2383 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>
| Re: 2392
| Several different smart alec responses jumped to my mind, but
| fortunately my mind works faster than my fingers.
So doesn't time for you apparently. You were referencing a future note! :-)
|
| 20.2385 | So doesn't??????? | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Tue May 23 1995 15:53 | 2 |
|
|
| 20.2386 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 23 1995 15:55 | 3 |
|
What part of that didn't you understand????
|
| 20.2387 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Tue May 23 1995 15:56 | 7 |
|
re: .2386
>What part of that didn't you understand????
I guess the part where you butcher the english language...
|
| 20.2388 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Tue May 23 1995 15:58 | 4 |
|
I wonder where "so doesn't" and "so isn't", etc comes from..
|
| 20.2389 | | CSOA1::LEECH | | Tue May 23 1995 16:28 | 5 |
| re: .2377
A refreshingly honest note. Thanks.
-steve
|
| 20.2390 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 23 1995 16:43 | 5 |
| This is good because it will do exactly what women want it to do...that
is, allow them to make an INFORMED CHOICE. This is a responsibility
that has been shirked over the last 23 years!
-Jack
|
| 20.2392 | I could, like, use like all the like time if you like, like! | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 23 1995 20:45 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.2387 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>
| >What part of that didn't you understand????
| I guess the part where you butcher the english language...
So does that mean it's bad cuz you say so? I may do it, but so doesn't
a lot of other people... :-)
|
| 20.2393 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue May 23 1995 20:45 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.2388 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>
| I wonder where "so doesn't" and "so isn't", etc comes from..
God allowed them both to exist. He must have a reason for it.
|
| 20.2394 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue May 23 1995 21:43 | 3 |
| re: "walking the mile in their shoes"
Who will be walking the mile for the aborted baby?
|
| 20.2395 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue May 23 1995 21:46 | 4 |
| Doesn't matter. The baby is not a person and has no rights under the
Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Lord god Blackmum
|
| 20.2396 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri May 26 1995 02:46 | 10 |
| .2341> Do you honestly think if your "god" set up the human body to enjoy sex
.2341> outside of fertility, that he or she didn't intend for people to use it
.2341> in this fashion? since "god" doesn't make mistakes with his/her
.2341> creations if he/she in omnipotent, I fail to see this as something
.2341> he/she would do.
Why, Meg, didn't you know that this was done on purpose to put temptation
in man's path?
|
| 20.2397 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri May 26 1995 02:49 | 8 |
| .2302> I disagree.
Joe,
Do you find it more reasoanable that as a pro-life advocate she
would engage in unprotected sex knowing that it wasn't an appropriate
time in her life to be having a child? I'm curious as to why you'd
doubt that her pregnancy was a result of failed BC.
|
| 20.2398 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Fri May 26 1995 13:52 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.2397 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
> Do you find it more reasoanable that as a pro-life advocate she
>would engage in unprotected sex knowing that it wasn't an appropriate
>time in her life to be having a child? I'm curious as to why you'd
>doubt that her pregnancy was a result of failed BC.
She might've misplaced her faith instead of her diaphram. :')
|
| 20.2399 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri May 26 1995 16:10 | 20 |
| <<< Note 20.2397 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
> I'm curious as to why you'd
> doubt that her pregnancy was a result of failed BC.
In .2302 I said "I disagree" to the notion that her use of
birth control was a "decent assumption" *because she was
pro-life*. It very well could have been a case of failed birth
control. We simply don't know. I see no problem with having
doubt though. Specifically what I had in mind was the possibility
that she follows Vatican teaching, in which case she wouldn't
be using birth control at all. (Of course that begs the question
that if she was following Vatican teaching, what was she doing
getting pregnant out of wedlock, and even further, what was she
doing having an abortion -- at least under these circumstances.
Even more generally, if she was truly pro-life, what was she
doing having the abortion...)
I'm not sure what the purpose of this story really is supposed
to be.
|
| 20.2400 | YES! Got one before I leave | REFINE::KOMAR | The Barbarian | Fri May 26 1995 17:24 | 1 |
| Aborted SNARF
|
| 20.2401 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri May 26 1995 18:05 | 10 |
| > I'm not sure what the purpose of this story really is supposed
> to be.
I'm not sure, either, Joe. I guess I just presumed that as a pro-life
advocate, if she were sexually active she would be taking any and all steps
to ensure that abortion did not have a high probability of being one of
the options from which she might need to choose. I guess, no matter which
way you look at it, it was a case of a failed BC method, even if the
method was abstinence.
|
| 20.2402 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jun 02 1995 01:38 | 169 |
| Why Should Atheists Be Pro-Life?
by Judy Fetters
From _SisterLife_, a quarterly newsletter from Feminists for Life of America
Volume XIV, Number 1, Spring 1994
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am often asked this question. I usually answer, "Why shouldn't atheists be
pro-life?"
Nobody questions why non-religious persons fight drug abuse, drunk-driving,
rape, poverty, crime, etc. Why should fighting abortion be viewed so
differently?
Some people think that unless you believe in God, or more specifically, a
God that will punish you in Hell if you do something wrong, then you cannot
be made to behave. They apparently believe that atheists must be criminals.
Yet, many non-religious people actively fight crime, violence, and
"wrongdoing" for many reasons. We believe in fairness and justice,
protection of people's rights, lives and property. Heck, we even register to
vote and try to pass laws to govern the behavior of other citizens! I am
living proof that a belief in God or religion is not necessary for a person
to become involved in the fight against abortion.
In fact, one thing that both the abortion industry and the pro-life movement
agree on is that public ignorance about fetal development, abortion
methodology and post-abortion complications is necessary if abortion is to
remain legal. Ironically, the religious orientation of most pro-lifers may
act as the major factor preventing education from taking place.
Faith and Trust
Once upon a time, I was a "pro-choice" woman. I believed in many mythical
things back then: that sex could be "free" from any committments or
consequences, that legalized abortion was "safe", that "control" over female
reproductive functions would lead to equal rights for women. But the myth I
held to most dearly was that opposition to abortion was merely religious.
Since I had allowed my first child to be killed by abortion, I wanted to be
reassured that I had nothing to feel ashamed or guilty about. Certain
women's groups comforted me by calling abortion a woman's "right" - merely a
medical procedure. I would literally hold my breath whenever abortion was
the topic on television, waiting for religion to be mentioned. The media
never let me down. Abortionists Angrily complained about the trauma
experienced by patients because of pro-life picketers. Abortion-rights
activists harassed preachers who spoke up against abortion, accusing them of
being insensitive to women.
In a sense I was being repeatedly promised the same thing: as long as I
avoided pro-lifers or religion, I would not suffer any post-abortion regrets
or grief. I faithfully followed this advice for a decade. As an atheist, I
was confident that condemnation of abortion by religious leaders would never
bother me.
I gained so much confidence that I could even bring up abortion in
conversation or joke about it. I mouthed "pro-choice" slogans as if they
were proven truths. What little information about abortion that filtered
through my defenses I assumed was propaganda dreamed up by religious
fanatics who would even stoop to lying. I perceived the truth about abortion
to exist somewhere between bad enough to be a little upsetting (messy,
blood) but not so bad as to warrant further investigation. I placed such
faith and trust in the providers and defenders of abortion; I believed they
were there to help women, to protect women. I was totally unprepared when
reality hit.
Seeing The Light
Believing that the fetus was just a "blob of tissue", that pro-lifers were
lying about how developed aborted fetuses are, I had no reason to avoid
information from sources that were not "anti-abortion". I learned about
fetal development when my other children were born. I experienced
nightmares, crying spells and suicidal thoughts. I knew these were not
caused by the activities or words of pro-lifers or preachers. Was I supposed
to be upset with sonogram technicians or childbirth instructors for
educating me?
Still, I tried to defend abortion somehow. I didn't want to be called a
"right-to-lifer". I fell back on the "choice" slogans about child abuse,
rape, women's rights... but could not find any real evidence to back up
their assumptions. I even contacted "pro-choice" groups to ask questions. It
was made very clear to me that my support of the abortion industry was
supposed to be "no questions asked!" They had no answers.
As an atheist, one of the most ironic discoveries I made when I became
pro-life was the cultist nature of the followers of choice. To a skeptic
like myself, the "pro-choice" movement started to look frighteningly
fundamentalist. I started asking questions and was "answered" with slogans.
Dissatisfied with slogans, I continued asking questions and was accused of
being "anti-choice". To question was taboo; information from pro-lifers was
"heresy", and I had become a "heretic".
Non-Religious Rationale
Two major differences between atheists and religious persons are their
philosphies regarding the origin of the universe and what happens after
death. If you examine the atheist's beliefs, it is easy to understand why
they could or should oppose abortion.
Atheists do not believe that the universe was created; they believe that the
universe evolved, rather than being planned. "Choicists" believe that
"unplanned" life is not worthy of protection. Furthermore, they believe that
unplanned-for-lives are doomed to unhappiness, violence, and abuse.
Evidence that humanity has suffered unhappiness, abuse, and violence is easy
to find in any history book or just by looking around you now. If the "every
child a wanted child" (and if not wanted, destroyed) "prescription" for
"curing" child abuse were applied to the whole violent, unplanned
universe... well, that sort of "logic" leads directly to advocating for the
destruction of the entire human race! in fact, it doesn't take genius (just
honesty) to acknowledge that this sort of reasoning is already being
employed in targeting certain groups of humans for reduction or elimination
(for their own good, of course, to ease their suffering). Does violence
exist because the universe is a bastard, without even a "biological", let
alone spiritual "father"? The theory of evolution and the unplanned
pregnancy equals child abuse theory clash with each other.
Examining afterlife philosophies reveals more inconsistencies between
"choicism" and atheism. Religious persons generally believe in life after
death either in a heaven or via reincarnation; non-religious persons
generally believe in the finality of death or a kind of non-religious
reincarnation.
For the atheist who believes that when you die, your life is over, period,
the taking of an unborn human's life should be a very serious matter. There
will be no comforting of this being by a heavenly father, angels, or
relatives after a torturous death; there will be no mere reincarnational
transfer. Thousands of times each day unique, never-to-be-again, individual
beings have their one and only chance at life terminated without even a
trace of "due process".
Unfortunately, many pro-life individuals are keeping the link between
religion and opposition to abortion the primary focus in the debate. For
some religious pro-lifers, employing non-religious arguments against
abortion is sacrilegious. Not only do they see abortion as a sin, but
failing to make reference to religion with each pro-life effort is sinful.
They are upset and afraid of the idea of atheist or agnostic pro-lifers.
They answer questions with scripture regardless of their audience. They pray
at pro-life pickets and meetings. In short, they fit the negative,
stereotypical way that all pro-lifers are portrayed: as religious zealots
trying to "impose morality", mindless puppets directed by pro-life
preachers.
Some religious pro-lifers simply need more information. They would use the
medical, legal, and scientific facts to argue against abortion, if they knew
them. Lacking this information, they are not confident discussing abortion.
They worry that issues such as child abuse, rape, and "back-alley butchers"
will be brought up. They have not yet heard the well-researched, logical
explanations that disprove the popular "pro-choice" reasons for "needing" to
keep abortion legal.
I hope to educate others about the facts, confident that they will then
oppose legalized contract killing of the unborn once they know the truth. I
do not try to "impose morality".
The cold reality is that abortionists are prenatal hitmen, employed to
impose morality on innocent unborn humans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Fetters is a member of FFL of Delaware. For more information,
you may contact:
Atheists and Agnostics For Life
c/o Pro-life Provex
P.O. Box 4574
Fayetteville, AR, 72702-4574
|
| 20.2403 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Anagram: Lost hat on Mars | Fri Jun 02 1995 18:13 | 5 |
| I am pro-life John. I just don't think I should force everyone else to
conform to my belief. It seldom happens but, I could be wrong. :)
...Tom
|
| 20.2404 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Jun 02 1995 18:28 | 6 |
| Interesting...so in other words, if I don't believe in stealing from a
local store and I see somebody doing the same...and the manager is
within five feet from me, it is not my place to let the store manager
know. I should mind my own business right?
-Jack
|
| 20.2405 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Fri Jun 02 1995 18:49 | 6 |
| .2404
Stealing is not legal. Abortion is, at present, legal. Work to have
the law changed if your position is that it is wrong - but do not try
to force your own beliefs on others who do not accept their religious
foundation.
|
| 20.2406 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Jun 02 1995 19:20 | 4 |
|
But Dick..... Jack work to get something accomplished when he can just
sit back and complain about it? Nevah happen!
|
| 20.2407 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Fri Jun 02 1995 19:23 | 8 |
| Glen:
Haven't heard any solutions from you...except to leave people alone!
Yet the problem remains!
(Fill in the problem...Abortion, AIDS, Illigitamate kids...whatever!)
-Jack
|
| 20.2408 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri Jun 02 1995 19:37 | 8 |
| <<< Note 20.2405 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>
> Work to have
> the law changed if your position is that it is wrong - but do not try
> to force your own beliefs on others who do not accept their religious
> foundation.
I find this rather contradictory.
|
| 20.2409 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Jun 02 1995 19:41 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.2407 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| Haven't heard any solutions from you...except to leave people alone!
| Yet the problem remains!
Jack, how do you know what I have or have not done for any <insert
subject>? The answer is you don't. Thank you.
Glen
|
| 20.2410 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Fri Jun 02 1995 19:41 | 6 |
| .2408
There is a difference between shoving one's personal beliefs down
others' throats, willy nilly, and getting the majority of the
population, who represent a wide variety of personal beliefs, to vote a
change in the law. But you knew that.
|
| 20.2411 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri Jun 02 1995 19:55 | 4 |
| .2410
Accepted. You may hold that belief, but many include efforts
to change the law as "shoving" too.
|
| 20.2412 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri Jun 02 1995 19:57 | 7 |
| <<< Note 20.2409 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
> Jack, how do you know what I have or have not done ...
The "nevah happen" statement (sans smiley) in .2406 makes
this statement here seem rather hypocritical, wouldn't you
agree?
|
| 20.2413 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Jun 02 1995 22:00 | 3 |
|
Not when one is kidding around joey....
|
| 20.2414 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri Jun 02 1995 22:31 | 2 |
| And Jack wasn't? Perhaps if he was, he didn't make it clear...
Perhaps you didn't in your note either.
|
| 20.2415 | we'll let him clarify | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Jun 05 1995 00:00 | 2 |
|
Maybe..... maybe not....
|
| 20.2416 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Jun 05 1995 13:03 | 3 |
| I guess we'll never know until we get there!!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.2417 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Jun 05 1995 13:52 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.2416 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>
| I guess we'll never know until we get there!!!!
Jack... when I said him, I meant you, not Him. We would know if you
were kidding around if you told us. We won't need to wait till we get
anywhere... unless you want us to. :-)
Glen
|
| 20.2418 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Jun 12 1995 19:37 | 13 |
| Saw a bumper sticker today ....
"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a
baby?"
Apparently these people aren't getting it. I trust people with a
choice. Either this woman who had this bumpersticker is a pure
libertarian, misguided, or a liar. I'm inclined to think she is
misguided.
I could choose not to file my taxes next year...so what???
|
| 20.2419 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Mon Jun 12 1995 19:50 | 13 |
| re: .2418
I think she "gets it" just fine. Think about it. If you cannot
trust a woman to make her own life-choices, if you feel that
legislation is the best way, nay the only way, to get your
point across, where do you draw the line? It is a very small
step from legislating abortion to legislating child-rearing
methods, to legislating family size. If you are as concerned
as I believe you are about the government worming it's way
into areas it has no business being in, how can you justify working
so hard to get it's foot in the door?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2420 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Jun 12 1995 20:59 | 21 |
| Mary-Michael:
Abortion became legal in 1973 under specific guidelines. This means
that for just under 197 years, abortion in this country was illegal.
Therefore, the argument of government intervention is moot because it
was government intervention that made it legal in the first place.
What this woman fails to see is that the issue isn't regarding making
her own choices. The question is should this choice be legal and
available to her to make. Freedom from government does not preclude
complete removal of common sense and dignity or respect for our fellow
homo sapiens. I'm sure you will agree for example, that government
intervention prevents me from taking your personal property for my own
use.
I know this record has been played numerous times and we simply
disagree. However, this bumpersticker shows the shallowness of her
understanding of those who oppose her point of view. She's making this
a feminist issue and that has nada to do with it!
-Jack
|
| 20.2421 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Jun 12 1995 21:05 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.2420 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| Abortion became legal in 1973 under specific guidelines. This means that for
| just under 197 years, abortion in this country was illegal.
Does it mean that Jack? Was there a law specifying that fact back in
1776? If not, then can you really say that? I may not like abortions, but I
think you need to be fair about this. I don't KNOW if there was or wasn't a law
for this back then, so you'll have to tell us.... or I'm sure our founding
father will. :-)
Glen
|
| 20.2422 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Jun 12 1995 21:07 | 7 |
| We should really ask an expert. Had it been legal before 1973, Roe v.
Wade would be unnecessary.
Any Planned Parenthood proponents aware of laws regarding abortion
before 1973?
-Jack
|
| 20.2423 | varied from Sate to State... | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Jun 12 1995 21:15 | 8 |
|
State Law. Jane Roe lived in Texas, where abortion was illegal.
She could have travelled to another state and obtained a legal
abortion but she was too poor to afford the cost of travel.
(Or bring up the kid, which is why she wanted the abortion in the first
place.)
|
| 20.2424 | HERE IT COMES JACK! | ABACUS::MINICHINO | | Mon Jun 12 1995 21:21 | 50 |
| Jack,
How could I pass up such a "response filled" note.
Government didn't make abortion legal with out it being a subject
brought into the public light because of many cases ie: Roe vs Wade.
for one...don't know and can't site the others...but there's more.
This was brought about of the people, by the people, for the people.
What (generic) you fail to see is that WE as WOMEN have a choice and
yes, the government should stay out of our private decision making
lives. We have been making decision for centuries, nay...melleniums.
Even Eve made a decision, even Mary made a decision...
The question is not SHOULD this choice be legal...this CHOICE is legal
and available. It is up to the person, her HIGHER POWER and her spouse
to make the decision.
The government prevents you from taking others property...
that's illegal...
however, a woman's body isn't HER property, is it Jack..!
Neither is her mind...so she can't govern her own body or decisions.
I know this record has been played numerous times, and we simply
disagree....However the ANTI CHOICE bumperstickers shows the
shallowness of the understanding of those who oppose the LEGAL point of
view.
You're making an pretty one sided issue out of this...ARE'T YOU!
So the ANTI CHOICE side is the only RIGHT side...that's what I get from
your last statement. I really personally IMNSHO could care less if you
or anyone else opposes my OPINION on something...big deal. I have lot
of REAL issues in my daily life that what you or someone else thinks
isn't going to effect my ultimate decision.. so what if others oppose her
point of view.....yeah...your point..so it's ok for ANTI CHOICE to put
sick...sick..bumperstickers on their car...(THIER CAR NOT YOURS) and
that's ok..
I see ANTI CHOICE bumpersticker and I think how narrow minded and
shallow of people other than myself making choices for me and my
childrens and my children's children......
funny how different we all think ..... isn't it Jack!
|
| 20.2425 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Jun 12 1995 21:32 | 8 |
|
Jack, if you don't know when it was 1st made illegal, please don't
state the 197 years please. Thank you.
Glen
|
| 20.2426 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jun 12 1995 21:36 | 6 |
| Abortion was always illegal under common law.
Some states had laws providing for explicit penalties; other states had
laws which regulated it.
/john
|
| 20.2427 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Mon Jun 12 1995 21:57 | 4 |
| Was abortion illegal? Or was performing an abortion illegal? Because
it is possible to induce an abortion without visiting a doctor. Women
passed this information around by explaining what _not_ to do when one
is pregnant.
|
| 20.2428 | common law = precedent | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Jun 13 1995 13:29 | 27 |
|
> Abortion was always illegal under common law.
According to Archibald Cox, in "The Court and the Constitution"
"In Roe v. Wade it was argued that by pursuing the common law method,
the Court should derive from its own precedents the generalization
that the Constitution protects a fundamental "right of privacy"....
....Prior cases had upheld constitutional claims to be free from
specific instancesof State interference with aspects of marriage,
procreation, contraception and the rearing and education of children."
Cox seems to imply that prior to Roe v Wade there was no common law
precedent establishing the illegality or legality of abortion and he
does not state a specific statute.
He also states that there is no evidence in 1791 that the framers beleived abortion to
be protected by the Due process clause of the 5th amendment.....
....even though it (abortion) was not a crime although a number of
STATES had enacted statutes making abortion a crime.
regards,
Colin
|
| 20.2429 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Tue Jun 13 1995 14:09 | 38 |
| re: .2420
Jack,
I think we can agree that I do not purport to be a hard-line
feminist. However, I find your argument interesting from a
feminist perspective.
197 years ago women were property. They honestly had, in a legal
sense, very few choices. Their primary "duty" was child production,
and in particular the production of male children. Individual states
having laws against abortion would make sense for the time, since
it would be unthinkable that a women would want to do anything
without her husband's consent and permission.
Even so, many women sought the advice of herbalists, and most of
these herbalists and/or midwives were women. These women, while
often patronized extensively by the community in secret, were
sometimes held up to public scrutiny and labeled "witches". That
laws would been enacted by men which would punish "interference"
by these women should be no real surprise to anyone.
Now, in 1973, women were starting to mobilize politically as well
as in the work force. As in a few previous times in history, we
have women banding together to use their combined political clout
on a commen goal - equality. Laws prohibiting abortion represented
the male "status quo". It was an area where women could push to
reclaim rights which they felt had been historically usurped by male
interference.
In short, because something "has always been there" does not mean
that, a.) it was good, b.) it was necessary, c.) that it has not
outlived its usefulness. This can apply today as well as 200 years
ago. Tradition is a poor argument against change.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2430 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jun 13 1995 14:23 | 3 |
| .2420> She's making this a feminist issue
How the hell does that particular bumper sticker make a feminist position?
|
| 20.2431 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | M1A - The choice of champions ! | Tue Jun 13 1995 14:28 | 3 |
| I like feminists in all sorts of positions...
;-) Kidding, Kidding ! ! !
Dan
|
| 20.2432 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jun 13 1995 14:33 | 12 |
| This deserves being cross-posted to this topic:
"No society can exist unless the laws are respected to
a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected
is to make laws respectable. When law and morality
contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alter-
native of either losing his moral sense or losing his
respect for the law."
- Frederic Bastiat
The Law
|
| 20.2433 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Jun 13 1995 16:01 | 12 |
| Mary Michael:
I agree with your points A, B, and C. I was only stating that
government intervention established the freedoms to abortion in 1973.
Jack, the bumpersticker implies that I as a man don't think she, as a
woman is capable of making a choice. As I said before, she is probably
more than capable. The issue is should that choice be legally
available to her? She was putting her victim hat on Jack, and it
didn't hold water!
-Jack
|
| 20.2434 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue Jun 13 1995 19:09 | 30 |
| <<< Note 20.2424 by ABACUS::MINICHINO >>>
> What (generic) you fail to see is that WE as WOMEN have a choice and
> yes, the government should stay out of our private decision making
> lives.
You say "private". Others say that there is another life
besides your own involved.
> We have been making decision for centuries, nay...melleniums.
Abouth whether or not to kill your offspring? Perhaps in
extreme situations...
> The question is not SHOULD this choice be legal...this CHOICE is legal
> and available. It is up to the person, her HIGHER POWER and her spouse
> to make the decision.
The debate here is over the direction of our social conscience.
Do we as a society believe (as we once did) that the pre-born
fetus is a human life or not.
It's more than just a tidy little issue of "choice".
> however, a woman's body isn't HER property, is it Jack..!
Is the fetus also her "property"? You started your entry
by complaining about women being nothing but property of
men 200 years ago. Now we come full circle to debate
whether the fetus is the property of the woman.
|
| 20.2435 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Tue Jun 13 1995 19:35 | 21 |
| re: .2434
Actually, she wasn't "complaining" about women being the property
of men 200 years ago, I was.
If there was a means to separate the fetus and the woman, that would
be one thing. However, they are entwined for at least 7 months.
When you force a women to continue a pregnancy against her her will,
she loses her right to self-determination, and, in effect becomes
the property of whoever is forcing her to continue the pregnancy.
In an extreme way, you could say she becomes a slave to her fetus.
You cannot grant rights to the fetus without decreasing the
rights of the woman who carries it, and vice versa. Whomever
you feel is more important is where you stand on the abortion issue.
The father of the fetus appears to be removed or unconcerned about
this debate. This isn't fair. He should be subject to the same
liabilities as she is, since he did supply half the genetic material.
Problem is, being an "unwed father" carries no social stigma.
Being an "unwed mother" does.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2436 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Jun 13 1995 19:41 | 11 |
| Mary Michael:
For arguments sake, let's say your correct...
If you join the military, do you in essence become a willing servant of
the armed forces...required to follow the precepts of same?
If you become pregnant, do you consider carrying a baby less honorable
than the above?
-Jack
|
| 20.2437 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jun 13 1995 20:45 | 19 |
| > Jack, the bumpersticker implies that I as a man don't think she, as a
> woman is capable of making a choice.
Far out, Jack.
So your interpretation of the bumper sticker is that she/it's responding
to _YOUR_ thoughts and feelings, or those of _MEN_ in general eh? No
possibility that they'd be aimed toward the genderless Pro-life movement
in general, do you suppose?
Fits in nicely with your white-male-victim fixation, I guess.
It's always good to get these insights into how the mind of Our Jack Martin
functions.
For what it's worth, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of folks
reading that bumper sticker don't get quite the same implication you
did, regardless of their "side" in the matter.
|
| 20.2438 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Jun 13 1995 20:54 | 7 |
| Jack, don't point them fingers at me. It has been clearly pointed out
to me that abortion is a tool of oppression men use against women...or
the lack of abortion rights!
Check out Michele Minichino's response some back!
-Jack
|
| 20.2439 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Jun 13 1995 20:55 | 6 |
| Z What (generic) you fail to see is that WE as WOMEN have a choice and
Z yes, the government should stay out of our private decision making
Z lives. We have been making decision for centuries,
Z nay...melleniums. Even Eve made a decision, even Mary made a decision...
Case in point!
|
| 20.2440 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Tue Jun 13 1995 22:15 | 5 |
| jack are you saying Mary shouldn't have made tyhe choice she did?
I am shocked!
|
| 20.2441 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Tue Jun 13 1995 22:22 | 3 |
| No smileys, Meg?
Jack's point is that the choice comes BEFORE the baby is made.
|
| 20.2442 | WRONG>>>WRONG>>>but not surprise about it. | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Wed Jun 14 1995 13:47 | 21 |
| Wrong,
Mary's choice I was referring to was the apple bit.. with the snake...
Jack, JOE,
Thanks for ASSUMING what I was thinking...it's got nothing to do with
feminism..(SP). It's got to do with people other than ones self,
sticking their noses in their nieghbors business. So, Should
vasectomies be legally mandated? Like men can only produce (any number)
of children, then they MUST be snipped...? I think that would work
well. I can see the need for abortion decline rapidly.
So who wants to be the one to mandate a number for the men to
reproduce?
|
| 20.2443 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Jun 14 1995 14:06 | 27 |
| Michelle:
Sorry, it was the way you seemed to word it!
Z Thanks for ASSUMING what I was thinking...it's got nothing to do with
Z feminism..(SP). It's got to do with people other than ones self,
Z sticking their noses in their nieghbors business. So, Should
Z vasectomies be legally mandated? Like men can only produce (any
Z number) of children, then they MUST be snipped...? I think that would work
Z well. I can see the need for abortion decline rapidly.
Jay Leno in one of his attempts at a sour joke talked about a new form
of birth control. Men can get a shot right in the you know whats and
it will sterilize the man. Not sure if this is an actual possibility
but what I am for (for starters) is a mandate of birth control
(Something LIKE Norplant) for a man or a woman who collect welfare.
This is an argument from a few thousand replies back...something about
the government infringing on reproductive rights. I reject this simply
because the taxpayers get the bill. I saw absolutely no sign of
compromise on the Michelle.
Re; Minding my own business. You can be assured Michelle, that if we
were next door neighbors and I heard you crying while somebody was
hitting you, I would be over there with my brass knuckles! I don't
suppose you can draw the connection here can you???
-Jack
|
| 20.2444 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Jun 14 1995 14:16 | 5 |
|
Jack, maybe if you would stop staying up so late watching Jay Leno, and
spent time actually sleeping, we wouldn't get the same tired notes from you...
heh heh...
|
| 20.2445 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas | Wed Jun 14 1995 15:13 | 7 |
|
<--------
As 'tine suggested....
Why don't you give it a rest!
|
| 20.2446 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Jun 14 1995 15:26 | 12 |
| See, Glen even disagrees with me on how late I should stay up. What
are we going to do with this boy!!!!!????
Watch everybody, I'll prove to you Glen just likes to disagree!
Glen, Bisquick is a better tasting pancake than Aunt Jemima Pancake
mix.
Just watch...just watch everybody!
-Jack
|
| 20.2447 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Jun 14 1995 17:32 | 4 |
|
I couldn't tell ya which is better. I don't remember the last time
anyone made me pancakes from a box.
|
| 20.2448 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Wed Jun 14 1995 17:39 | 4 |
| re: .2447
I shouldn't think pancakes made out of a box would be
very tasty at all......
|
| 20.2449 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Jun 14 1995 18:09 | 3 |
|
And Jack thinks I should vote on who's box is better.... :-)
|
| 20.2450 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jun 15 1995 03:21 | 3 |
| Take care with those brass knuckles, Jack. You may find yourself
targetted by the Anti-Terrorism Bill.
|
| 20.2451 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jun 15 1995 13:27 | 3 |
| ZZZ And Jack thinks I should vote on who's box
Whose!
|
| 20.2452 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jun 15 1995 13:28 | 6 |
| ZZ Take care with those brass knuckles, Jack. You may find yourself
ZZ targetted by the Anti-Terrorism Bill.
I'm hip. By the way, I think it's targeted! Di???
-Jack
|
| 20.2453 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Jun 15 1995 13:33 | 3 |
|
.2452 yeah. although this task is supposed to be resting
squarely on the shoulders of mr. sacks, or something like that.
|
| 20.2454 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jun 15 1995 13:43 | 1 |
| Uhhhh....sorry
|
| 20.2455 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jun 15 1995 14:40 | 9 |
|
Ms Deb.... who is right in this case.... .2449 I have who's. Is it that
or whose, as Jack said? Had someone other than Jack, who spells as bad as eye,
said whose, I'd buy it. But it was Jack, so I can't be sure. I wanna use the
correct one, so if ya could, which version is it?
Glen
|
| 20.2456 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Thu Jun 15 1995 14:56 | 8 |
|
"Whose" is correct.
"Who's" extends out to "who is", which is wrong. Or it could
also extend out to "Belonging to Who", as in "See the Who's
dog ... it is very big". The latter can only be used in ref-
erence to a character in a Dr. Seuss book.
|
| 20.2457 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Thu Jun 15 1995 14:58 | 4 |
| Who's dog could belong to the person playing first, right?
Phil
|
| 20.2458 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Passhion | Thu Jun 15 1995 14:59 | 4 |
|
Yes Glen, "whose" would be correct in this case.
I know Shawn already answered you, but what does he know 8^).
|
| 20.2459 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jun 15 1995 15:00 | 4 |
| Glen's ticked off at me because I recommended sterilization for him and
he hates Hanes undies and I don't!
-Jack
|
| 20.2460 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Thu Jun 15 1995 15:01 | 8 |
|
>Who's dog could belong to the person playing first, right?
>
>Phil
I don't know.
|
| 20.2461 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Trouble with a capital 'T' | Thu Jun 15 1995 15:02 | 6 |
|
Thanks alot, Deb ... any thoughts I had of bringing you lunch
today are DEFINITELY gone as of the posting of that note.
8^)
|
| 20.2462 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Mr Blister | Thu Jun 15 1995 15:04 | 3 |
| > I don't know.
Third base.
|
| 20.2463 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Passhion | Thu Jun 15 1995 15:04 | 6 |
|
Oh, sorry, didn't mean to say that - I have a cold.
<hopeful look>
|
| 20.2464 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jun 15 1995 16:47 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.2459 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| Glen's ticked off at me because I recommended sterilization for him
I said a hot bath would feel good....
| he hates Hanes undies and I don't!
who said i even wear undies?
|
| 20.2465 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member | Thu Jul 13 1995 11:40 | 69 |
|
Well, I'm breaking a rule of mine here and getting into this discussion
for a minute.
from today's Washington Times
Partial-birth-abortion debate enrages 2 female democrats
By Rod Dreher
The house Judiciary Committee yesterday erupted into several
emotional disputes as it took up legislation to ban partial-birth
abortions.
Over the course of the day, a Republican committee member called
abortion doctors "hired killers", two Democrats invoked their
miscarriages as arguments against the bill and another exasperated
Democrat jokingly submitted his resignation at day's end to committee
chairman Henry Hyde, Illinois Republican (it was denied).
The measure at hand would outlaw, so called partial-birth
abortions, a relatively rare procedure used in terminating some late
term pregnancies. In the procedure, the doctor extracts the fetus feet
first. When only the head of the fetus remains inside the mother, the
doctor punctures the rear of its skull with scissors, opens them to
make a hole large enough to insert a suction catheter, then removes the
brain.
The bills sponsors, including Rep. Charles T. Canany, Florida
Republican, call the practice inhuman, maintaining that the fetus is
alive and within inches of being a legal person when its life is ended
by the physician.
Abortion rights supporters contend that the procedure is very rare
and often necessary to save the life of the mother. They argue that
abortion opponents are trying with this bill to chip away at the right
to an abortion guaranteed by the Supreme Court under Roe vs Wade.
In yesterday's session, Rep. Patricia Schroeder, Colorado Democrat,
called the Canady bill "one of the most extremist pieces of legislation
I've ever seen."
Claiming that she was once in critical condition in the hospital
after losing a lot of blood in a miscarriage, Mrs. Schroeder said to
the Republicans, "I want to tell you I'd be mad as hell if you guys
were to sit here and tell my doctor the best way I should be treated."
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Democrat, said the bill was taking
society "back to the old fashion witch hunt."
"I tell you I am not going back. This is the most outrageous
legislation I have ever heard!" she thundered, pounding her fist for
effect.
Mrs. Jackson Lee went on to mention that she too had lost a child
in a miscarriage and argued that the Republican men supporting the
abortion ban had no right to interfere with a woman's reproductive
decisions.
Rep. Bob Inglis, South Carolina Republican, accused the Democrats
of "not living in the real world".
"This is about 3 inches, because if that child comes out an
additional 3 inches, it has all the rights of a citizen," he said.
Mr. Inglis created a stir among committee Democrats when he suggested
the possibility that their consciences were too "seared" to recognize
the horrors of this procedure.
The members crossed swords over the credibility of Brenda Shafer, a
registered nurse who worked as a temporary in the clininc of Ohio Dr.
Martin Haskell, one of the pioneers of this procedure. Mrs. Schafer
claimed in a letter to a congressman that she had assisted Dr. Haskell
as he performed several partial-birth abortions. The experiment so
revolted her that she quit her job and changed her pro-choice
convictions, she said in the letter.
Mrs. Shafer, who attended yesterday's meeting and brought
documentation to prove she had worked at the Haskell clinic, told The
Washington Times she witnessed "six or seven" partial-birth abortions
in one afternoon while assisting Dr. Haskell.
**all typos are mine
|
| 20.2467 | more like 'lifestyle of the mother' | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | contents under pressure | Thu Jul 13 1995 13:20 | 2 |
| Life of the mother? Who the hell are they trying to kid? Or would that
be unkid?
|
| 20.2468 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | We the people? | Thu Jul 13 1995 13:23 | 9 |
|
{shiver}
Makes me cringe just to think about it. Maybe it is necessary to
save the mother's life on rare occasions, but I don't think I could
sleep at night if I were the doctor that had to perform it....
jim
|
| 20.2469 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member | Thu Jul 13 1995 13:34 | 7 |
|
If the baby is 3 inches from being out, the life of the mother logic
doesn't make sense to me. I'd appreciate any enlightenment in this
area.
Mike
|
| 20.2470 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Bronze Goddesses | Thu Jul 13 1995 13:55 | 4 |
|
It doesn't make sense to me either. The fetus is viable and inches
from being out and yet it's still an abortion? Doesn't make sense.
I'd like more details.
|
| 20.2471 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | We the people? | Thu Jul 13 1995 14:01 | 83 |
| Doctor charged with murder in botched abortion
(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press
NEW YORK (Jul 13, 1995 - 09:06 EDT) -- Dr. David Benjamin
should have referred Guadalupe Negron to a hospital when she asked
for an abortion in her fifth month of pregnancy, prosecutors say.
Instead, the physician performed the procedure and Negron, allegedly
left unattended, bled to death from a ruptured uterus and cervix.
In a case unprecedented in state history and rare anywhere in the
United States, Benjamin has been charged with murder, accused of
doing nothing to help the woman after she was wheeled from the
operating room drenched in blood from punctures to her uterus and
cervix.
Opening statements were to begin today. Benjamin, 58, faces 25
years in prison if convicted in the 1993 death. He is being held on
$750,000 bail.
The New York Medical Society knows of no other doctor in the state
charged with murder in the death of a patient during a medical
procedure. Such cases are usually taken up in malpractice suits or
result in disciplinary action from regulatory boards.
Benjamin's attorney, Brad Leventhal, said the case belongs in civil
court.
"The last thing this doctor wanted to do was injure a patient or cause
the death of a patient," Leventhal said. "He called for emergency
help, he tried everything that he possibly could do to save this
patient's life."
But District Attorney Richard Brown said the criminal charges were
warranted by Benjamin's "depraved indifference to human life."
Negron, 33 and pregnant for a fifth time, was afraid she would lose
her job as a nurse's aide. She did not tell her husband, and enlisted a
niece to help her.
The Honduran woman did not speak English, and like many
immigrants she was afraid of anything "official" and did not want to
go to a hospital. She found Benjamin's clinic listed in a
Spanish-language newspaper.
By the time she had gotten together the money needed for the
abortion, she was five months' pregnant. Brown said that Benjamin
was required by law to refer Negron to a hospital because her
pregnancy was so advanced. Instead, he performed the abortion in his
office without even examining her first, Brown said.
After the procedure, Benjamin immediately began another abortion
while Negron was brought to a waiting room. When the doctor saw
her an hour later, she had hemorrhaged and gone into cardiac arrest,
Brown said.
Benjamin called an ambulance, then mistakenly inserted a breathing
tube into her stomach instead of her trachea, the prosecutor said.
Negron died before reaching the hospital.
Weeks before Negron went to see Benjamin, his medical license had
been revoked by the state Health Department for "gross
incompetence and negligence" for five cases in which he had
perforated the uteruses of other patients. Benjamin was appealing
that ruling.
In 1989, Dr. Milos Klvana was convicted of murder in Los Angeles in
the stillbirth of one infant and the deaths of eight newborns.
Prosecutors said he performed the deliveries in his office even though
they were high-risk cases, and refused to send the women to
hospitals.
In 1993, Dr. Gerald Einaugler was convicted in New York of reckless
endangerment and willful violation of health laws in the death of an
elderly woman. Einaugler erroneously ordered food pumped through
her dialysis tube.
He was ordered to spend weekends in jail for a year.
|
| 20.2472 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jul 13 1995 14:21 | 10 |
| Easy for me to say being a guy and all. Child bearing is probably the
greatest blessing and responsibility to a woman. It is a
responsibility that precedes dying for ones own country in my opinion.
Its a shame alot of women don't see it this way but there you have it.
If a baby can come within three inches of birth, then in my opinion it
would be worth taken the risk of my life. Now that's just me...but
I've been here 34 years and have seen enough!
-Jack
|
| 20.2474 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Jack Martin - Wanted Dead or Alive | Thu Jul 13 1995 16:03 | 11 |
|
re: .2471
Jim, this is getting rough.... God I've gotta start NEXT/UNSEEN ing
this topic. It's just ruining my day!
re: .2473
Thank you Mr Topaz.... I needed a good laugh !
:-|
<getting better>
Dan
|
| 20.2475 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jul 13 1995 16:12 | 8 |
| I said that because, unfortunately we adults have set a prescedent in
this country that child bearing is as choicey as the kind of sandwich
one would make for lunch...or what type of perm to get, or what kind of
dress to buy. It is easy for some adults to differentiate matters of
importance but what is being emulated by teens is the reflection of
adult societies stupidity.
-Jack
|
| 20.2476 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 13 1995 16:55 | 9 |
| re: .2465
I assume from what's there and the discussion that this is actually a
third trimester procedure. It sounds nothing short of savage, and hardly
justifiable under any circumstances I can imagine.
I hope we're not going to now be subjected to some sort of a treatise from
the customary quarters on how this is "no different" from other abortions,
however.
|
| 20.2477 | Puzzling to me also | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Jul 13 1995 17:08 | 23 |
| In a prior life I taught human genetics and immunology to medical students at
the University of Washington. We dealt extensively with a set of genetic and
immunologic pathologies that arose during pregnancy, and for which these
difficult life/death decisions had to be made.
In my experience, and in the experience of my Father-In-Law (A retired
obstetrician with whom I just now discussed this matter via phone) no medical
condition exists that would justify partial-birth abortions as described in the
previous note.
Let me put it in plain terms:
Neither science nor clinical practice defines any medical condition
that requires the birth of a *DEAD* baby to save the mother. Conditions
exist that require the fetus be aborted, but none exist that require the
fetus be killed.
/mtp
P.S. I must emphasize that I have NO FORMAL training in clinical medicine, only
with the science that underlies and informs some aspects of obstetrical
pathology.
|
| 20.2478 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member | Thu Jul 13 1995 17:09 | 5 |
|
I found it ironic how this legislation was described by some of the
participants. To me, it shows that neither side is willing to
compromise.
|
| 20.2479 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Jul 13 1995 17:17 | 6 |
| >To me, it shows that neither side is willing to compromise.
You're right, Mike. Of course, some of us recognized that in the way
Dr Foster was treated.
DougO
|
| 20.2480 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jul 13 1995 17:22 | 3 |
| Oh DougO...Foster was used by Clinton for political purposes!
-Jack
|
| 20.2481 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member | Thu Jul 13 1995 17:23 | 5 |
|
The foster thing was indeed political. The reason why I don't want
Foster is because I think the office should be eliminated.
Mike
|
| 20.2482 | What reply could be possible. | SCAPAS::63620::MOORE | Outta my way. IT'S ME ! | Thu Jul 13 1995 18:36 | 3 |
| .2465
How utterly disgusting. I thought I had heard it all.
|
| 20.2483 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 13 1995 19:18 | 20 |
| Note 20.2465
> Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Democrat, said the bill was taking
> society "back to the old fashion witch hunt."
> "I tell you I am not going back. This is the most outrageous
> legislation I have ever heard!" she thundered, pounding her fist for
> effect.
I don't see how anyone could argue FOR this procedure. Yet
some say that eliminating it is "going back". Back from what?
If this procedure is progress, you can have it. Is Rep. Lee
really saying that eliminating this practice is "going back"?
to be fair, I see her position as trying to stem the tide of
change, and she believes that if the door is opened to
eliminating this evil procedure, the ball of yarn will begin
to unravel on all of the abortion industry.
It's a tough position these pro-choice people are facing, being
forced to defend such a vile thing for their principles.
|
| 20.2484 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Thu Jul 13 1995 19:32 | 6 |
| .2465
I've just sat here for a couple of minutes trying to think of something
meaningful to say about partial-birth abortions. The most I can come
up with is that I'm sickened, and I'm shamed to share a species with
anyone who would be party to such behavior.
|
| 20.2485 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | contents under pressure | Thu Jul 13 1995 19:36 | 2 |
| Seems to me that "partial-birth abortion" is a euphemism of epic
proportions.
|
| 20.2486 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Bronze Goddesses | Thu Jul 13 1995 19:37 | 3 |
|
Everyone seems so ready to believe that this note is 100% true, though.
I don't see any proof, just rhetoric.
|
| 20.2487 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | contents under pressure | Thu Jul 13 1995 19:46 | 6 |
| Well, let's see what could be untrue. If there is no such thing as a
partial-birth abortion, then the good congresswomen should have no
qualms about something non-existent and odious being outlawed. That
they are up in arms makes one question whether there really is
something to these ostensible "abortions". Unless, of course, one
assumes the entire article was made up...
|
| 20.2488 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Buddy, can youse paradigm? | Thu Jul 13 1995 19:58 | 11 |
| On the assumption that this is a fabrication, it's a clever ploy:
Further "hem in" the remaining core of legal abortion by defining and
then decrying a nonexistent variety of abortion. Hit 'em from a flank
they didn't know they had.
I, too, have a great deal of difficulty in believing this to be
anything like standard practice, much less ever occurring (save in the
sleaziest back-alleys of yore, and/or of the present day if the
hemming-in continues, to muddy my point up a bit, but whattheheck, I
dabble in this topic so rarely...)
|
| 20.2489 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Thu Jul 13 1995 20:11 | 12 |
|
Yeah, I'll bet it's a plot by those crazy religious right, Bible thumping
antichoice zealots..
Jim
|
| 20.2490 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | Indecision Is Key To Flexibility | Thu Jul 13 1995 20:13 | 5 |
|
:*)
|
| 20.2491 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease! | Thu Jul 13 1995 20:20 | 6 |
|
re: .2489
Yeah Jim... Those who question whether this is real or not should go
to the conspiracy note and continue there...
|
| 20.2492 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 13 1995 20:51 | 3 |
| If this is a fabrication, I would expect that to be the defense
used by those who argue against the bill, and not a defense of
"well these are so rare that it's not worth passing a bill..."
|
| 20.2493 | it's disgusting, but I don't think congress should be involved. | SUBPAC::SADIN | We the people? | Thu Jul 13 1995 22:04 | 220 |
|
date=7/13/95
type=closeup
number=4-08467
title=congress considers dramatic anti-abortion measure
byline=andrew j. baroch
telephone=619-0929
dateline=washington
editor=phil haynes
content=// inserts available from audio services //
[eds: the house jud. committee scheduled vote on this legis. 7/13
or 7/14]
intro: the judiciary committee of the u-s house of
representatives has scheduled a vote on the first
national legislation in the united states to prohibit a
particular method of abortion. in this report, written
by andrew baroch,_________examines the legislation
dealing with a rare and controversial late-term
procedure known as dilation and extraction, or "d and
x."
text: an estimated 400 of the nation's one-point-five million
abortions a year are d-and-x procedures, according to
the alan guttmacher (goot-mahker) institute -- a
research group sympathetic with abortion rights.
performed after 20 weeks, the method is used mostly in
cases of fetal abnormality or to save the life of the
mother. it is also sought by some pregnant teenagers.
d and x is a "brutal and barbaric" procedure --
according to douglas johnson, the legislative director
for the national right to life committee in washington,
d-c.
tape cut one -- johnson
"this method involves the living baby being delivered
feet first into the birth canal, everything except the
head. the abortion doctor then stabs the baby through
the head -- through the base of the skull -- with a
surgical scissors and then literally suctions the brain
right out of the skull before completing the delivery."
text: a d-and-x procedure somewhat resembles the delivery of a
premature baby -- according to douglas johnson.
tape cut two -- johnson
"it involves the abortion doctor grabbing the leg of the
baby and literally pulling the baby's body out feet
first into the birth canal and leaving only the head
just within the womb -- because, you see, if the head
emerged, then it would be a live birth. that baby would
be protected by the constitution and the homicide laws
in every state. so [florida republican] congressman
charles canady, who has sponsored this bill, put it very
well, i think, when he said 'the difference between a
partial birth abortion and homicide is about three
inches.'"
text: under the proposed legislation -- known as the "partial
birth abortion ban act of 1995" -- an abortion provider
doing a d-and-x procedure could face a felony conviction
and a prison term of up to two years.
abortion rights advocates dispute the notion of a
"partial birth" before a d-and-x abortion. they say that
prior to the procedure, the fetus is made brain dead by
drug injection.
cory richards, the vice president for public policy at
the alan guttmacher (goot-mahker) institute, notes that
the procedure is rare, and -- in his view -- necessary.
tape cut three -- richards
"obviously, women under certain circumstances in the
middle stages of pregnancy, sometimes require abortion
procedures. they require them either because their own
lives are gravely at risk, or because they are carrying
fetuses that are very severely deformed and, in most
instances, won't live past birth in any case."
text: mr. richards adds that the several hundred d-and-x
procedures performed annually in the united states --
out of one-and-a half-million abortions -- roughly
translates to five-one-hundredths of one percent.
vicki saporta (suh-port-uh), the executive director of
the national abortion federation -- which represents
some three-thousand abortion providers -- says the
legislation -- as she sees it -- is "dangerous because
it criminalizes doctors for performing surgery."
tape cut four -- saporta
"//begin opt//any surgical technique could be made to
appear frightening or made so that it's misrepresented
or inflammatory. i think what it boils down to is that
congress does not belong in the business of banning
medical techniques. //end opt// doctors should be
allowed to perform surgery based on their medical
knowledge, experience, expertise. and women want doctors
to be performing surgery based on those factors, not on
the right wing's political agenda in this country."
text: the conservative republican party, which gained control
of congress this year for the first time in 40 years, is
heavily influenced by anti-abortion -- and other
religious, conservative -- organizations. about half the
members of the 435-member house of representatives now
say they oppose abortion.
michael uhlmann (ool-man), a senior fellow at the ethics
and public police center, a conservative think tank in
washington, says abortion rights groups are -- as he
puts it -- understandably "nervous about the
legislation." //begin opt//
tape cut five -- uhlmann
"the reason why they are nervous about this, the reason
why i think they do not want legislation here is -- in
contrast to the normal abortion procedure -- the act of
killing has to take place in front of the eye. it is
not hidden. it is not in the dark of the womb. it is
seen for what it is. that's a very stark reminder of
what is involved in the abortion situation." //end opt//
text: while republicans control the u-s congress, the u-s
supreme court's landmark 1973 ruling on abortion still
stands.
the high court's roe vs. wade decision declared that a
woman has a constitutional right to an abortion. it
lifted restrictions on early-term procedures -- that is,
up to three months -- while giving the states authority
to deal with late-term abortions. only a few states --
like new york and pennsylvania -- have imposed bans or
limitations on these late abortions, which now number
about 13-thousand a year.
but very few americans know these late-term procedures
take place and that several hundred are d-and-x
abortions -- according to douglas johnson of the right
to life committee.
tape cut six -- johnson
"the gallup poll, and other polls, have shown that most
americans believe -- quite wrongly -- that abortion is
legal only in the first three months of pregnancy, and
yet even the alan guttmacher institute [a research
group, which is sympathetic to abortion rights groups]
has reported there are over 160-thousand abortions a
year that are done in the fourth month or later."
text: mr. johnson says the proposed legislation is -- in his
words -- an "educational exercise." as he puts it, "we
want people to be aware that abortions are being
performed on unborn human beings, 20 weeks and beyond --
when they look like babies and have a capacity to feel
pain."
but the goal of those backing the legislation is
actually far more ambitious -- according to cory
richards of the guttmacher institute.
tape cut seven -- richards
"their goal here is to not to ban a particular type of
abortion procedure but to ban all abortion procedures.
they may choose at this moment to say, 'an abortion at
23 weeks is worthy of being banned.' but the fact of the
matter is, if you ask them, 'well, would you prefer
abortion procedures that take place at 12 weeks or at
eight weeks, when most abortion procedures do take
place?', they say, 'those abortions are equally
immoral.' so i think it's disingenuous to be
concentrating on this particular type of procedure, as
though this is really what they're out to stop."
text: mr. richards calls the measure a "public relations
approach."
tape cut eight -- richards
"the question, of course, is whether it's going to work
or not. i would predict that, in fact, over the long
term it is not going to work. //begin opt// i think a
lot of anti-abortion activists would like to have us
believe that if people really knew that what they were
aborting was human life, they wouldn't do it. i would
suggest to you there is not a woman in the country
having an abortion who does not know she is aborting
human life. //end opt// the anti-abortion people have
been carrying around dolls and fetuses in jars for 20,
25 years now. it hasn't changed anything. women don't
have abortions because they don't think that what's at
stake is human life. they don't have abortions because
they like them. they have abortions because they need
them because of the circumstances of their lives."
text: political observers say that while congress is likely to
approve the legislation overwhelmingly -- perhaps with
enough of a margin to override a presidential veto -- a
court challenge is inevitable, as well as a supreme
court decision to take up the case -- perhaps as early
as next term. (signed)
neb / ajb / pch
13-jul-95 1:40 pm edt (1740 utc)
nnnn
source: voice of america
.
|
| 20.2494 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 13 1995 23:53 | 1 |
| Is there an alternative abortion method in these cases?
|
| 20.2495 | Alternative? | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Jul 14 1995 15:29 | 4 |
| > Is there an alternative abortion method in these cases?
Huh? Why is an alternative method interesting?
|
| 20.2496 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Jul 14 1995 17:03 | 9 |
| re .-1
Well, they are seeking to outlaw a particular method of
abortion, but if that method is the only one available for
certain cases, they are in effect outlawing abortion for
those cases as well.
I am all for them outlawing the practice. I'm just trying
to gain some understanding about the claims of the opponents.
|
| 20.2497 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Jul 14 1995 17:05 | 6 |
| Don't let that interesting factoid slip by- 160K abortions of 1.5m per
year are fourth month or later. That is, nearly 90% of abortions are
first trimester. And don't let that other factoid slip by- 13,000
are "late-term abortions", less than 1%.
DougO
|
| 20.2498 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease! | Fri Jul 14 1995 17:34 | 7 |
|
Just 13,000???
Just a mere drop in the bucket!!!
Why!! That wouldn't even fill up the old Boston Garden!!!!
|
| 20.2500 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jul 14 1995 17:50 | 9 |
| > don't let that other factoid slip by- 13,000
> are "late-term abortions", less than 1%.
You know I'm pro-choice, DougO, but even I would have to admit that
if we were allowing 13000 annual savage acts like the one being
discussed here from .2465, we probably should do something to change
that.
|
| 20.2501 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Jul 14 1995 18:05 | 6 |
| >if we were allowing 13000 annual savage acts like the one being
>discussed here from .2465,
That is not the case. Only ~400 of the 13000 are in that category.
DougO
|
| 20.2502 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Jul 14 1995 18:13 | 3 |
|
Only 400? Well, then what's the big deal, eh?
|
| 20.2503 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Jul 14 1995 18:16 | 7 |
| re .2501
Should we allow even one, Doug?
and re .2497
How does that answer the question about alternatives?
|
| 20.2504 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Jul 14 1995 18:22 | 10 |
| >Should we allow even one, Doug?
When the attending physician thinks its the proper thing to do, yes.
One of my email correspondents pointed out that it is extremely
unlikely they would do this except in the case where the 'grossly
deformed' fetus has such a large head that it is stuck - ie, the
mother's life is endangered. Yes, it should be allowed.
DougO
|
| 20.2505 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Jul 14 1995 18:25 | 10 |
| >re .2497
>
> How does that answer the question about alternatives?
I didn't enter that note purporting to respond to anyone's questions
about alternatives. I entered it to remind people that in the big
picture, late-term abortions are less than 1 percent of abortions,
and the vast majority are first trimester procedures.
DougO
|
| 20.2506 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Jul 14 1995 18:34 | 11 |
| <<< Note 20.2504 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> >Should we allow even one, Doug?
>
> When the attending physician thinks its the proper thing to do, yes.
Thus my question about alternatives.
FYI, in the past some attending physicians have deemed the
smothering of a live abortion (aka birth at that point) as
the proper thing to do.
|
| 20.2507 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Fri Jul 14 1995 18:35 | 7 |
| >FYI, in the past some attending physicians have deemed the
>smothering of a live abortion (aka birth at that point) as
>the proper thing to do.
Maybe it was.
...Tom
|
| 20.2508 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Jul 14 1995 18:37 | 1 |
| Sad.
|
| 20.2509 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease! | Fri Jul 14 1995 18:41 | 8 |
|
re: .2506
Joe...
That's so much better than watching the baby twitching away its life
in a bucket next to the operating table.... no???
|
| 20.2510 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jul 14 1995 18:44 | 11 |
| Well, it does raise an interesting point. I know that there are some
who are pro-life who believe that abortions are proper in certain cases
involving births which would result in severely malformed or disfigured
children (often whom would have much difficulty surviving even their first
day after birth.) I'm unsure as to why such a pregnancy would necessarily
be allowed to go till late term. Perhaps because of the traumatic nature
of the decision incumbent on the parents to decide to abort. I'm also unaware
if there might be other methods of dealing with these cases. But I fail
to see how such a savage practice can be any "better" of a solution than
anything else.
|
| 20.2511 | Three points | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Jul 14 1995 19:07 | 30 |
| re: 2504
>When the attending physician thinks its the proper thing to do, yes.
>
> One of my email correspondents pointed out that it is extremely
> unlikely they would do this except in the case where the 'grossly
> deformed' fetus has such a large head that it is stuck - ie, the
> mother's life is endangered. Yes, it should be allowed.
First, I think that your email correspondent's understanding of human anatomy
and parturition is informed by the same biological principals to which our
anti-evolution thumper friends adhere. If this correspondent, is a physician do
not let him near anyone needing medical attention. Safely delivering a fetus,
even with a planet for a noggin, is straightforward and safe. Heads just don't
get pathologically stuck.
Second, and more importantly, the justification for partial-birth abortions was
to save the life of the mother, not to save society from spending money on
the care and feeding of an incompetent or malformed infant.
Third, I told my wife about this event. She is virulently anti-abortion
and I had expected some real fireworks. Unhappily, her emotional reaction
was despair. "What's the big deal", she said. "First we kill 'em in
the uterus, next we ambush 'em on the way out, then we kill em after they are
born if they are mentally defective, or malformed, or black, or the wrong sex,
or ...,".
/mtp
|
| 20.2512 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Jul 14 1995 19:21 | 19 |
| > Safely delivering a fetus, even with a planet for a noggin, is
> straightforward and safe. Heads just don't get pathologically stuck.
I don't believe its this simple. Women have died in childbirth for
centuries due to just such problems. Furthermore, its my understanding
that the size of the head is precisely at the practical limits of the
opening in the pelvic girdle, that larger brain evolution won't happen
in humans because the 'normal' head size is already as big as can be
safely born. Starting from those understandings (feel free to dispute
on those grounds) one can easily see where a very small percentage of
abnormal pregnancies will have to be terminated in just such a manner-
by making the head smaller so it can be gotten out.
> Second, and more importantly, the justification for partial-birth
> abortions was to save the life of the mother,
You are saying that as if you disagree with me. I already said this.
DougO
|
| 20.2513 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease! | Fri Jul 14 1995 19:24 | 4 |
|
<------
So? Doctors never heard of an emergency C-section?
|
| 20.2514 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Jul 14 1995 19:36 | 12 |
|
Abortion should be Ok in cases of rape, when the mother's life is in
danger, or when the baby has a big head.
Jim
|
| 20.2515 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Jul 14 1995 19:38 | 4 |
| abortion is already ok in those and many other circumstances. It
should of course remain so.
DougO
|
| 20.2516 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Jul 14 1995 19:55 | 3 |
| re: .2514
8^)
|
| 20.2517 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jul 14 1995 20:00 | 5 |
| > Abortion should be Ok in cases of rape, when the mother's life is in
> danger, or when the baby has a big head.
Lotsa 'boxers wouldn't be with us. Or maybe their heads became abnormally
large later on.
|
| 20.2518 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Jul 14 1995 20:25 | 3 |
|
<--------- I knew someone was going to say that.
|
| 20.2519 | It really is that simple! | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Jul 14 1995 20:44 | 43 |
| >I don't believe its this simple.
You're in good company. A vocal set of boxers don't believe in
evolution, either.
>Women have died in childbirth for centuries due to just such problems.
So what? Given modern obstetrical practice, maternal mortality
rates due to humongo heads is not measurable. BTW, the medical
condition that presents the most difficulty, vis large heads, is
called hydroencephaly ("water-on-the-brain"). Truly hydroencephalic
fetuses are often brain-dead at birth. I could imagine that to spare
the mother the trauma of cutting a wider-then-normal episiotomy, a
physician might collapse an expired (or brain-dead) hydroencephalic's
head to facilitate its removal.
However, I should also point out that many severely hydroencephalic
babies can be saved by a combination of drugs (diuretics) and surgery.
I would think that more motivation would exist to *save* a late-term
hydroencephalic fetus as to kill it. Wouldn't you?
>Furthermore, its my understanding that the size of the head is precisely at the
>practical limits of the opening in the pelvic girdle, that larger brain
>evolution won't happen in humans because the 'normal' head size is already as
>big as can be safely born.
Your understanding seems uninformed by any biological or anatomical
theory of which I'm aware. All female mammals are blessed with a
disarticulated (split) pelvis. Males are not so blessed. In those
few cases where pelvic-to-crainium ratio is too small, surgical
intervention (c-sections) are safe and highly effective.
>Starting from those understandings (feel free to dispute on those grounds) one
>can easily see where a very small percentage of abnormal pregnancies will have
>to be terminated in just such a manner-by making the head smaller so it can be
>gotten out.
I refer you to one of my previous notes (#.2477). No medical condition
exists that requires that a fetus be delivered dead in order to save the
life of the mother. The fetus could just as well have been delivered
alive.
/mtp
|
| 20.2520 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Jul 17 1995 16:22 | 4 |
| I'll have to see if I can recruit someone who can match your
argument-from-authority stance, Max. Stand by.
DougO
|
| 20.2521 | <---- Cool | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Jul 18 1995 22:25 | 0 |
| 20.2522 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Jul 18 1995 23:12 | 6 |
| my recruiting effort fell on eyes that declined to soapbox. too bad.
I don't choose to contribute the energy and research it would require
to refute what I consider your unsupported assertions, so I'll simply
agree to disagree and retire this fray. Sayonara.
DougO
|
| 20.2523 | Prolly not an argument worth defending, DougO | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Jul 19 1995 01:24 | 9 |
| I don't find Max's assertion all that improbable, even if I am pro-choice.
Pro-choice does not, after all, mean either pro-abortion or anti-life. I
can't see why a c-section shouldn't be a viable alternative to partial-birth
abortion in almost any case if that were acceptable to the parents. I also
agree that the disarticulated female pelvic structure would tend to be
good cause to alay any concerns regarding an oversized cranium, though
it certainly seems feasible that such a disproportion is not out of the
question.
|
| 20.2524 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Jul 19 1995 16:59 | 6 |
| The procedure in question is most often used for reasons of
collecting live fetal brain tissue, and not as a matter of
preserving the mother's life.
It must be eerie for the attending physician to feel the
baby's body twitch as the brain tissue is sucked out.
|
| 20.2525 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Jul 19 1995 17:19 | 3 |
| sources, please. the notion simply reeks of propaganda, Joe.
DougO
|
| 20.2526 | more propaganda | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Jul 19 1995 17:58 | 3 |
|
It is amazing the evils that you will stoop to defend for your
cause.
|
| 20.2527 | | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Wed Jul 19 1995 19:01 | 5 |
|
Yeah, Doug. I can't believe you're so evil as to ask for sources.
Nyah Nyah Nyah.
\john
|
| 20.2528 | The left calls it 'vital information' | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease! | Wed Jul 19 1995 19:17 | 4 |
|
Asking for sources is fine...
Labeling such as "propaganda" is emotional to say the least...
|
| 20.2529 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Jul 19 1995 19:25 | 3 |
| re .2527
Are you in support of the particular abortion procedure too?
|
| 20.2530 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed Jul 19 1995 19:31 | 26 |
|
i've always been pro-choice. however, as a conservative
and someone with a great deal of "faith" i always said
i would counsel anyone who asked me not to have an
abortion. i never expected anyone to ask my advice, so
i guess it was easy to claim what my advice would be.
well, now a good friend has asked my advice on the matter.
there are many factors; she's unmarried, the father is
incapable of supporting her or her child, she's past
her child-bearing prime (40) and just found out through
amniocentesis that the child is likely downs syndrome
or sb. the father was told he was sterile. so much
for that theory.
my advice to her was to abort. i know that some of you
disapprove. i know that at least one of you will no
doubt be inspired to shower me with ugly accusations
and derision. you should know that this was very tough
for me.
the point in all this is it was pretty easy to assume
what i would counsel someone to do before anyone ever
asked for my advice on such matters...
-b
|
| 20.2531 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jul 19 1995 19:35 | 7 |
|
>> i would counsel anyone who asked me not to have an
>> abortion.
i would counsel anyone who asked you not to have an
abortion too.
|
| 20.2532 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed Jul 19 1995 19:40 | 5 |
|
please forgive me, lady di... i am trading lucidity for typing
economy. sorting it out is left as an exercise for the reader...
-b
|
| 20.2533 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Jul 19 1995 20:31 | 6 |
| re .2530
What's the point of posting that? We all know that difficult
cases exist. They are the exception. If you are using this
to define the debate, you are missing the mark, just as many
of the pro-choice folks do.
|
| 20.2534 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed Jul 19 1995 20:44 | 28 |
|
i made the point in .2530, but i'll repeat it for you:
the point is that i thought i'd never tell someone they
should get an abortion. i've even said in here i would
never tell anyone to get an abortion. and then, in the
one case where i have been asked, i ended up telling them
to get an abortion. i was sure i knew exactly how i
would react if i were asked; but it turned out to be a
lot tougher than i thought.
i'm not using it to define any debate. the moral of
the story is simply that i thought i knew how i felt
until i was confronted by a real situation. i feel i
gave her the right advice and i'm glad she was legally
able to take my advice (well, she hasn't yet, but i'm
pretty sure she's going to).
i'll also probably go to the clinic with her; i've
been told by several people that clinics are actually
suggesting women bring along body guards with them.
this is extremely sad. but that's a bridge i'll cross
when i come to it...
there's no big point being made here, other than the
fact that i'm glad she had the choice...
-b
|
| 20.2535 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Life is a great big hang up... | Wed Jul 19 1995 20:52 | 14 |
|
.2534
>i'll also probably go to the clinic with her...
Pro-life best keep a low profile that day, then.
>there's no big point being made here, other than the
>fact that i'm glad she had the choice...
The point seems clear to me. Hope everything works out well, Brian.
jc
|
| 20.2536 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Love In An Elevator | Wed Jul 19 1995 20:55 | 9 |
|
Brian,
Body guards ! !
Has it come to this now ?
I'm very sad....
:-(
Dan
|
| 20.2537 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:01 | 13 |
| > Pro-life best keep a low profile that day, then.
the point !Joan's probably trying to be subtle about is that
i make for a rather, um, well-armed, body guard. however,
since all of the violence that has occurred at clinics, i
will not be able to carry like i usually would... they
wouldn't let me anywhere near the place; even though i would
be carrying to protect one of their clients.
either way, i don't expect trouble. i don't need a gun.
to quote nicholson's joker: wait till they get a load of me!
-b
|
| 20.2538 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:02 | 7 |
| Brian:
What was her response when or if you suggested adopting out the child
so that a barren couple and the baby could potentially live a long and
healthy life together?
-Jack
|
| 20.2539 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Life is a great big hang up... | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:03 | 7 |
|
Brian,
I imagine you to be fiercely territorial, armed or not. :^)
jc
|
| 20.2540 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:04 | 4 |
| Do we need to bring more Downs Syndrome kids into the world, Jack?
It was mentioned that amniocentesis pointed out this possibility
in this case.
|
| 20.2541 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:07 | 5 |
| There really is a point to be taken from Brian's anecdote.
Being pro-life - or, for that matter, being pro-choice - is a NIMBY
situation. You can be oh-so-strongly convinced of your position until
it hits you or a loved one. Then things can change.
|
| 20.2542 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:08 | 17 |
|
jack,
we did discuss adoption. but the data point i didn't add in
my original note is that the woman is epileptic and has a
form of arthritis that keeps her back in almost constant
pain. for this woman to bring a child to term might not
be life-threatening, but it would be extremely painful
and difficult. she wouldn't be able to take much of the
medication which she currently uses to keep her life
(somewhat) in order.
when science figures out how to transplant a fetus from
one mother to another, perhaps more woman would consider
alternatives to abortion...
-b
|
| 20.2543 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease! | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:13 | 23 |
|
re: .2540
>Do we need to bring more Downs Syndrome kids into the world, Jack?
Sorry Jack... I have to disagree with you. I know more than a few
people who have Downs Syndrome children and are extremely well adjusted
and happy with their offspring...
Albeit after the fact, but asking them if they would have aborted
illicits a look of horror...
I see these kids everywhere.... in eateries... shops, malls... at the
beach and they bring a smile to my face... I watch them compete in the
Special Olympics and cheer them on like no other "normal" athlete...
I really can't condone the type of thinking in that first sentence of
yours...
Respectfuly,
Andy
|
| 20.2545 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:14 | 5 |
| I wonder if she'll consider changing the behavior that
got her into this situation in the first place.
None of this is the baby's fault, yet that's who will bear
the full brunt of the solution.
|
| 20.2546 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:17 | 5 |
| You're entitled to that viewpoint certainly, Andy, but you do recognize
that that isn't necessarily universal, do you not? Raising a Downs
Syndrome child is no picnic regardless of how much _you_ might smile when
you see them. The decision isn't up to "all of us".
|
| 20.2547 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease! | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:18 | 6 |
|
I realize that Jack...
Maybe if that sentence was a little less definitive, and I guess it
might've been knowing you....
|
| 20.2548 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:19 | 16 |
| ZZ Do we need to bring more Downs Syndrome kids into the world, Jack?
ZZ It was mentioned that amniocentesis pointed out this possibility
ZZ in this case.
Jack, I have to address this matter because it is worthy of a response
from you. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist from the early to mid
1900s. Sanger would have asked a very similar question so I must ask
you, where do you draw the line between yourself and Margaret Sanger?
Let's make it even easier to add some shock value. As it stands now,
well over half the black children born in Boston next year will be
illigitamate and born most likely in a lower class environment. Do we
really need these children born in the world? Pretend you were asked
this question by a civil rights leader and not by me!
-Jack
|
| 20.2549 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:45 | 13 |
| >What's the point of posting that? We all know that difficult
>cases exist. They are the exception. If you are using this
>to define the debate, you are missing the mark, just as many
>of the pro-choice folks do.
Nice try Joe. I suppose that partial-birth-abortions don't fall in this
same category?! What is the point of posting a note concerning
Partial-birth-abortion? We all know that difficult cases exist. They
are the exception. If Partial-birth-abortions are being used to define
the debate, the point is being missed, just as many of the pro-life
folks do.
...Tom
|
| 20.2551 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease! | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:52 | 9 |
|
RE: .2550
>So the whole pregnancy is a punishment because she had sex for her own
>enjoyment.
You may see it as a "punishment"...
Others might see it as taking responsibility for their actions....
|
| 20.2552 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Jul 19 1995 21:56 | 18 |
| <<< Note 20.2549 by DASHER::RALSTON "cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:)" >>>
> Nice try Joe. I suppose that partial-birth-abortions don't fall in this
> same category?! What is the point of posting a note concerning
> Partial-birth-abortion? We all know that difficult cases exist. They
> are the exception. If Partial-birth-abortions are being used to define
> the debate, the point is being missed, just as many of the pro-life
> folks do.
Partial-birth abortions were discussed because it's a current
Congressional event. If anyone is making it a defining point,
it's the pro-abortion people, for they are saying that the
banning of these is the beginning of the end (of all abortion).
Pro-life people are not making it a defining point. If you go
back and read what pro-lifers (and even many pro-choice people)
have said about it, most are expressing disgust with the
brutality of the procedure itself, and on that merit it should
be banned.
|
| 20.2553 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Jul 19 1995 22:05 | 28 |
| <<< Note 20.2550 by ASDG::GASSAWAY "Insert clever personal name here" >>>
> So the whole pregnancy is a punishment because she had sex for her own
> enjoyment.
The only punishment I see here is what's happening to the
baby. How sad this society has become that we can see a
pregnancy as a punishment!
> Over the years, I have known hundreds of people, of every age,
> religion, orientation, and color. Not one of them has been so
> pathologically hung up about the enjoyment of sex as an integral part
> of a committed relationship as the author of .2545. And guess what,
> these people go on to live healthy and productive lives, and raise children
> that follow the law, work, pay taxes, and raise kids of their own.
Well, Lisa, on the minimal information given about the
"relationship" in .2530, I don't see how you can conclude
anything about commitment in that relationship.
I also don't see how you could conclude from what I've written
that I am hung up about the enjoyment of sex. All I've ever
called for is taking responsibility for doing what one enjoys.
If you are taking exception to THAT, then we have something to
discuss. If not, you have made far too many unfair
characterizations for us to have a fruitful discussion.
Joe
|
| 20.2554 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Wed Jul 19 1995 22:19 | 8 |
| >And guess what,these people go on to live healthy and productive lives,
>and raise children that follow the law, work, pay taxes, and raise kids
>of their own.
Sorry, doesn't matter Lisa, they are all going to HELL!!!!!!! :-)
...Tom
|
| 20.2555 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Love In An Elevator | Wed Jul 19 1995 22:35 | 9 |
|
-1
We're all goin' ta hell ?
Great that means I'll know everybody already !
:-)
Dan
|
| 20.2556 | | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Wed Jul 19 1995 22:52 | 7 |
| re: .2529 (Joe)
Heck no, I'm not in support of it. I'm wichoo. I think Doug's evil for
even having the idea that it MIGHT not be true. Just who the heck does
he think he is to question "the word"?
\john
|
| 20.2557 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed Jul 19 1995 22:58 | 12 |
|
the woman i refer to in .2530 has had a relationship with the
father for 5 years. he has many health problems, which is why
he cannot support her. one of his health problems led to
sterility. or so he believed for many years. they love each
other very much, they're pretty much all the other has in
the world, and they're wonderful people. they have a sexual
relationship. oh lordy, the horror of it all. they didn't
use birth control because everyone thought he shot blanks.
sorry, i really don't see any behavioral problems here...
-b
|
| 20.2558 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Jul 19 1995 23:20 | 39 |
| .2554> Sorry, doesn't matter Lisa, they are all going to HELL!!!!!!! :-)
.2556> I think Doug's evil for
>even having the idea that it MIGHT not be true. Just who the heck does
>he think he is to question "the word"?
Crap like this does nobody any good. You think it's great to
make fun of it and to attribute to me things I've never said.
As if this puts you above the problems faced in this issue...
Trying to disguise it with a smiley is nothing but transparent,
Steve. And I didn't say that Doug was evil for supporting
the practive, John, but I did say that the practice was evil.
Now maybe you agree that it is evil and maybe you don't. Why
not step out from behind your sarcastic mask and tell us what
you really believe.
.2557>
> the world, and they're wonderful people. they have a sexual
> relationship. oh lordy, the horror of it all. they didn't
> use birth control because everyone thought he shot blanks.
> sorry, i really don't see any behavioral problems here...
And you too, Brian, can make fun of what's moral and not,
but it doesn't change the fact that their choices have
made the problem they now face. It *IS* horrible that
we can whittle away with situation after situation so that
nothing is right/wrong anymore. There *IS* a behavior
choice here that has caused this situation. But we as a
society have looked away so much that it is far too easy
to place ourselves into harm's way as this couple now
finds itself.
Oh, let's not judge. Let's ignore what common sense used
to tell us was right and wrong. It's awful that we can
allow the tragic situations to become more and more common-
place, thereby making the tragic solutions more and more
commonplace. This is the new morality. It takes sarcasm
and belittling to make it acceptable to you folks.
|
| 20.2559 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Wed Jul 19 1995 23:23 | 5 |
| >You think it's great to make fun of it!
Now you got it Joe. I wondered when you would figure it out. :)
...Tom
|
| 20.2560 | .2553 can be deleted now | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Thu Jul 20 1995 00:22 | 11 |
| I went and deleted .2550. It contained language that could be
construed as a personal attack. I was very annoyed at response .2545
and started up in write only mode. I am still annoyed at the response
but I do not feel like entering a verbal slugfest over it, and the time
and effort that I'd spend on it could be much better spent doing
important things, like what I'm being paid for.
Joe and I have different outlooks on life. Namecalling will not change
anything. I am sorry I wasted people's time.
Lisa
|
| 20.2561 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Thu Jul 20 1995 02:44 | 48 |
| re: .2530
I can't agree with you enough that it is so easy to
take a stance or have an opinion until that opinion is
tested by circumstances involving yourself or someone you
love. Of course, now really, did anyone expect me to say
anything different? Until you are tested and tried, an
opinion can never be a value, an ethic or a rule of life.
It is simply your opinion.
I have a cousin with Downs Syndrome. He is a joy. He is
nearly forty. He lives in a state home, does limited work
outside and has frequent visits with his family. I believe
our family feels he has added something special to our lives.
The burden he has placed on his family financially, legally
and emotionally is substantial, however, and should not be
taken lightly. These people that we may see as a "joy" are
often extremely stubborn, can sometimes be very violent and/or
tempermental, and have a reduced capacity for reason.
Dealing with them on a daily basis cannot often be accomplished
without the aid of trained personnel.
Asking an essentially handicapped person to take on that
responsibility is quite possibly more than they can handle.
Realistically speaking, the adoption opportunities for a
Down Syndrome child are nearly non-existant. The couple are
in a committed relationship, they essentially did use birth
control. At the age of 40, continuing care for a Downs
Syndrome child is often also a consideration. Whom do you
appoint as a guardian in the event of your death? Not
many close friends or relatives have the wherewithall to
deal with a handicapped child, nor would be willing to
accept such a challenge. I really don't see how you could
give any other advice in such a situation.
In a perfect world, there is a place for everyone, enough
love and food to go around and care for every child who
needs it. This is not a perfect world. Until it is,
we must make do with imperfect solutions. Were a women
in such a situation to come to each of you and say, "I
am pregnant and doctors believe I will be giving birth
to a severely retarded child. Will you adopt my baby?"
How many of you would say "Yes!" without hesitation?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2562 | It ain't eugenics, Jack | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 20 1995 03:22 | 60 |
| re: .2548, Our Jack Martin
Perfectly healthy kids of any economic, religious or ethnic background
have every "right to be born" if their parents in general, and their mother
in particular are willing to see that they are carried to term. I have
even, on many occasions gone on to say that perfectly healthy kids of
any sort have every "right to be born", _regardless_ of whether or not their
parents in general, and their mother in particular WANT THEM, provided
the mother can be convinced to carry them to term and put them up for
adoption. I am enquoting "right to be born" as a figure of speech in order
to avoid any claims that I support a legal "right to be born", since no such
right legally exists.
That being said, the issue next becomes one of "What about the kids who
aren't perfectly healthy?" What about the kids who can be clearly shown to
have severe abnormalities, deformities, congenital diseases or other prenatal
conditions which we pretty much know will lead not to a happy or healthy life
for them (regardless of who brings them up), but rather a life of sickness
and pain, and/or a life doomed to premature termination, many times within
the first few months before the child has had an opportunity to begin to enjoy
life to any degree or to have an understanding of what life is, other than what
it experiences in its sickened condition. (The mortality rate for Downs
Syndrome children in general is many times that for normally healthy kids.)
In these cases, it's not my feeling that society should be making decisions
as to whether to terminate the pregnancies. That decision needs to very clearly
rest squarely with the parents in general, and the mother in particular. It
is not a matter to be proclaimed by a court. And likewise, in these cases
society should not be making decisions as to whether to _allow_ the parents in
general, and the mother in particular, to decide that they need to make what
is most likely very often a very difficult choice to terminate that pregnancy.
Severely deformed and abnormal children, and Downs Syndrome children, do NOT
have thousands of barren couples champing at the bit just waiting to adopt
them. Many of the vans and buses full of Downs Syndrome kids seen at beaches
and shopping centers are kids who are not about to be adopted, but kids
who have been institutionalized because they were unwanted. Unwanted by their
parents, and unwanted by thousands of barren couples waiting to adopt. Forty
years ago, the mental institutions in this country were populated to the tune
of 60% and better by Downs Syndrome people of all ages.
It is my belief that you cannot, as a society, dictate that a family care
for and nurture a child with severe abnormalities or deformities (and many,
though certainly not all, Downs Syndrome children are in this classification.)
The net result of that observations is that you need to admit that as a
society, you need to be prepared to deal with the "rejection" of those
children and provide for them yourselves if you are presented with them.
Given this situation, how DARE you attempt to dictate to a mother, struggling
with the fact of her unborn child's deformity, that she MUST bring that child
into the world? Who died and made you your own god?
No one's claiming that "they should all be destroyed as soon as they are
known of." No one's claiming that they haven't any "right to be born".
What I'm claiming is that when it comes down to a case of a deformity or severe
abnormality that's known to exist in the fetus, no one, except the parents
who MUST deal with the matter should be participants in the decision
making process. They, not you, nor I, need to decide whether or not to bring
that child into the world. It is truly and surely no one else's business but
their own, and, if there is a god, I'm sure they're being counseled by it
in the matter already without your assistance.
|
| 20.2544 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 20 1995 04:28 | 11 |
| If she's on the same epilepsy meds that #2 daughter has been on,
there's no way in hell any doctor would probably allow her to
carry a child to term. Most of that stuff is particularly lethal
to a fetus. And, as Brian says, if she goes off it she might
have to make some major lifestyle changes - like losing her job
and drivers' license, risking constant bodily damage to herself
and the fetus during seizures, etc.
So, she "should have thought of that before hand" and "she should
live with it", eh?
|
| 20.2563 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 20 1995 05:00 | 36 |
| .2558> Trying to disguise it with a smiley is nothing but transparent,
.2558> Steve.
Who's Steve? Wordy's gone and Leech wasn't participating at the moment.
I thought that was \john.
.2553> All I've ever called for is taking responsibility for doing what
.2553> one enjoys.
Joe, do you actually believe that making a decision to abort never
requires taking of responsibility? Do you actually believe that in each and
every case of abortion, the woman walks out of the clinic with a smile
on her face and a "Free at last!" glow in her mind? Do you not think that
there are people, men and women both, that spend many long hard weeks
reaching a decision to abort and then spend many long hard years thereafter
lamenting (and often maybe even regretting) their decision?
If you don't think these things, then why in hell do we continually have
to hear about the "won't take responsibility" angle?
Yes. There may be cases in which the decison is taken lightly. Yes. There
are "repeat offenders" who prove that theory. But it isn't EVERYONE who
fits that mold.
Is it logically and ethically justifiable to attempt to limit everyone's
choice simply because there are some who abuse the opportunity?
I'll be willing to agree with you that there should be some means of dealing
with abusive cases. Isn't it conceivable that a method to do so could be
formulated without trying to force everyone in society to toe a line
which is infeasible (not simply inconvenient) for them?
Wouldn't everyone's energies be better spent on that pursuit than in
this pointless (and apparently endless) "Can so. Can not" litany?
Is this at least some common ground that we might agree on?
|
| 20.2564 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Hi-ho! Yow! I'm surfing Arpanet! | Thu Jul 20 1995 06:43 | 2 |
| Yer "annoying the pig," Jack... Cast yer poils before swine with
better natural pitch.
|
| 20.2565 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Love In An Elevator | Thu Jul 20 1995 12:33 | 8 |
|
Jack D, (not Martin)
Please tell me that you are not in favor of the procedure outlined in
.2493 ?
Please Jack......Just humor me on this one....
Dan
|
| 20.2566 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jul 20 1995 12:39 | 4 |
| > Realistically speaking, the adoption opportunities for a
> Down Syndrome child are nearly non-existant.
This isn't true at all. Plenty of Down Syndrome kids get adopted.
|
| 20.2567 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jul 20 1995 12:40 | 1 |
| Joe, if the couple in question were married, what would you suggest they do?
|
| 20.2568 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Zebwas have foot-in-mouth disease! | Thu Jul 20 1995 12:56 | 25 |
|
re: .2563
Jack,
>Yes. There may be cases in which the decison is taken lightly. Yes.There
>are "repeat offenders" who prove that theory. But it isn't EVERYONE who
>fits that mold.
>Is it logically and ethically justifiable to attempt to limit everyone's
>choice simply because there are some who abuse the opportunity?
I believe the majority of abortions in this country are performed as a
birth-control measure and nothing more. You're right, it isn't
"EVERYONE"... it's almost everyone. It isn't "some who abuse the
opportunity"... it's "most" who abuse the opportunity...
The statistics don't lie...
I'm not arguing with most of your reply, and do know you well enough to
see what you're driving at, but it's innaccuracies like that, that are
used by the pro-abortion side to further their stand....
|
| 20.2569 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Love In An Elevator | Thu Jul 20 1995 13:03 | 9 |
|
> The statistics don't lie...
I believe Mark Twain once said:
"Figures don't lie, but liars figure...."
or something to that effect....
Dan
|
| 20.2570 | | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Thu Jul 20 1995 13:24 | 7 |
| .2562
Well said Jack, it's good to know that there are at least a few
people in this world who know we are NOT here to sit in judgment
of major life decisions of others.
|
| 20.2571 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 20 1995 13:39 | 3 |
| re: .2565, Dan
I refer you to my previous posts, .2476 and .2500.
|
| 20.2572 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Thu Jul 20 1995 13:42 | 13 |
| re: .2566
I don't doubt that some do, usually the milder ones. The
severity of Downs Syndrome varies greatly.
But if you are trying to tell me ALL children with Downs
Syndrome have a good chance to get adopted, I do not believe
you.
I believe, given the medications this woman was taking,
that the child ran the risk of being severely retarded.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2573 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Thu Jul 20 1995 13:53 | 1 |
| Down or Down's Syndrome. Not Downs.
|
| 20.2574 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Love In An Elevator | Thu Jul 20 1995 15:01 | 6 |
|
re:.2571
Thank you Jack, I was concerned....
Dan
|
| 20.2575 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu Jul 20 1995 16:35 | 42 |
|
there are some people who i consider hopeless; i believe
that our joe oppelt will never be able to see that his
meanspirited approach to things is as bad as anything
he rants about. so this is not for the purpose of
debating or otherwise engaging joe... on that front, i
give up.
i will instead appeal to those who i consider more reasonable
(jack m and andy k immediately spring to mind) with the
following: my exposure to abortion is limited, granted,
but so far i'm batting 1000 in supporting the right.
i agree with you that there is something morally reprehensible
about the use of abortion purely as a post-facto form of
birthcontrol. that is why i have always said that i would
counsel against abortion, should i ever be asked for my
advice. however, i am now confronted by a situation that
i can do nothing but counsel for abortion.
herein lies the rub; if i follow my "moral" compass and
support banning abortion, cases like my good friend no
longer have the option. if i follow my "legal" compass,
i cannot support banning abortion, even if i find it
morally reprehensible.
i see no absolute position that i can take. on the other
hand, i see no reason to take an absolute position, nor
to encourage my state or federal government to do so.
in my opinion, it is insane to be so divisive over a moral
issue, however, i am now convinced that it is crucial
that we not allow the government to decide what is right
for us.
my friend, if she chooses to, will have her abortion. she
will have it safely, at a licensed clinic. i will love
her and support her 100%, and never once think poorly
of her. i will fight tooth and nail to make sure that
every other woman, and every other friend, faced with
the same horrible choices, will at least _have_ a choice.
-b
|
| 20.2576 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 20 1995 16:38 | 117 |
| <<< Note 20.2563 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>Who's Steve?
I used to work with a Steve Roslton, and I just slipped. Tom
knew who I was talking to.
----------------------
First let me address:
>Do you actually believe that in each and
>every case of abortion, the woman walks out of the clinic with a smile
>Yes. There may be cases in which the decison is taken lightly. Yes. There
>are "repeat offenders" who prove that theory. But it isn't EVERYONE who
>fits that mold.
and also from Mary-Michael's .2572 (which was not directed at
me, but makes the same mistake)
> But if you are trying to tell me ALL children with Downs
> Syndrome have a good chance to get adopted, I do not believe
> you.
Who is claiming such extremes as you are attacking? You both
even SHOUT your use of extremes! You are trying to show that
your opponent has painted himself into a corner, where in fact
it is you who holds the paintbrush! Unfair! (And perhaps you
are being most unfair to yourself, for you effectively write
yourself out of the discussion with me on those points when I
choose not to answer them.)
------------------
>reaching a decision to abort and then spend many long hard years thereafter
>lamenting (and often maybe even regretting) their decision?
Of course this happens! Does this regret (even suicide, which
sometimes happens to post-abortive parents) make their decision
right? Don't incarcerated murderers do the same thing?
>If you don't think these things, then why in hell do we continually have
>to hear about the "won't take responsibility" angle?
You just don't get it. Responsibility occurs BEFORE the abortion
is done. (Responsibility should occur before the pregnancy
happens too. I don't know why I've placed this statement in
parentheses, for that is the PRIMARY point of responsibility
as far as I am concerned.) Lamenting after forcing the child
to bear the burden of the "responsibility" is not my idea of
responsibility at all.
>Yes. There may be cases in which the decison is taken lightly. Yes. There
>are "repeat offenders" who prove that theory. But it isn't EVERYONE who
>fits that mold.
Why should we turn a blind eye to those in your first two
sentences?
>I'll be willing to agree with you that there should be some means of dealing
>with abusive cases. Isn't it conceivable that a method to do so could be
>formulated without trying to force everyone in society to toe a line
>which is infeasible (not simply inconvenient) for them?
Most pro-life proposals provide latitude for abortions in the
difficult cases. These seem like reasonable compromises to me.
> Is this at least some common ground that we might agree on?
Could you agree with what is in my previous statement?
----------------
>Joe, do you actually believe that making a decision to abort never
>requires taking of responsibility?
For ME PERSONALLY, the answer to the above is a resounding
yes. I could NEVER (deliberately uppercased) advise another
to have an abortion. My wife shares this belief. But I also
realize that others do not share my convictions, and I do not
call for society and its laws to share them either. Someone
else will have to advise these people to have an abortion.
My opinion will always be to carry, and they can choose to
accept that opinion or listent to someone else.
I have always supported a societal and legislative vision that
allows for abortion in the exception cases, for I know that calling
for policy that parallels my more extreme beliefs will mean doom for
any inroads in the reduction of abortion in general. Most (though
not all) on both sides of the discussion agree that we need to
reduce the number of abortions. (I think you do too.) Those who
don't must accept the label of pro-abortion instead of pro-choice
if they are to be truly honest. I have stated frequently in the
past my support for policy that is more lenient than my own personal
belief. You can find in the historical replies in this very topic
that I have been attacked as a hypocrite for making this stand.
I'm damned by others if I do make this stand, and my cause is
certainly damned if I don't. That's OK. I can take the heat.
I can also see how hollow the argument on the other side is when
they do this to me, for the basis of their argument (and yours in
the reply to which I just responded) is that there *ARE* problem
cases. If I recognize and accept leeway for these, I take away
from the pro-abortionists those cases behind which they try to hide
to allow the continuation of the general cases -- and the abusive
cases which you recognized above. All that's left for them, then,
is to attack me personally as a hypocrite in an attempt to hide the
fact that their true agenda has been exposed.
If one's pro-choice position is to truly allow for a choice in
the problem cases, then abortion policy that makes exceptions
for these should be acceptable. If the pro-choice person still
insists that choice should be available even for those cases
that are not problem cases, then they are really arguing for
the parents to be allowed to pass the responsibility from their
own shoulders to that of the child they created.
|
| 20.2577 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Thu Jul 20 1995 16:40 | 2 |
| re: .2575
Well said.
|
| 20.2578 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jul 20 1995 16:48 | 16 |
| Well, I am certainly not belittling this womans position or her
physical dilemna and I wish her the best.
Still I grapple with this false notion of saying one thing and doing
another....and attempting to justify ones reasons. It all comes down
to subjective morality or moral relativism.
If you recall, a woman who was very strong in the prolife movement
wasn't prepared mentally when she found she was pregnant...and gave in
to the luring of the availability of abortion. I happen to have alot
of faith in the will of humans if they know they have to make do. I
believe this woman, if she decides to have the baby, will in fact make
it through. There will be tough times but I believe trials bring
perseverance, perseverance brings character, and character builds hope.
-Jack
|
| 20.2579 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 20 1995 16:50 | 13 |
| <<< Note 20.2567 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
> Joe, if the couple in question were married, what would you suggest they do?
As I've stated in .2576, I could never counsel FOR abortion.
If that couple were my wife and I, we WOULD carry to birth.
But my point about behaviors was more than just "being married"
or not. Some have argued that there is no behavior problem in
this case. If that is true, then they are also saying that a
repeat of this situation is OK too. Obviously it's not.
Obviously a behavior change MUST be made to prevent this
situation again. Wouldn't you agree?
|
| 20.2580 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Jul 20 1995 16:50 | 12 |
| > It is amazing the evils that you will stoop to defend for your
> cause.
I asked for sources, Joe, and you haven't supplied them. As John
Harney points out, asking for sources isn't particularly evil- and your
attacking him for sarcasm is, like your first response, what I consider
to be a deliberate attempt to distract us from noticing that you aren't
revealing your source. Dare to reveal it, Joe. Dare to tell the
boxers who put such nonsensical propaganda into your head. Or your
cowardice will be only too plain.
DougO
|
| 20.2581 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Jul 20 1995 16:58 | 25 |
| > What's the point of posting that? We all know that difficult cases
> exist. They are the exception. If you are using this to define the
> debate, you are missing the mark, just as many of the pro-choice folks
> do.
This is nonsensical, too, Joe, you're batting really badly today.
Every single pregnancy is a special case. Every single person has to
evaluate the impact a pregnancy will have upon them- their existing
life, their existing family, their income level, their religion, their
hopes for their future, their own confidence in their ability to raise
a child or another child- every single case carries huge implications.
Raising a child is a twenty-year commitment.
Brian's point is extremely well taken- his previously absolutist
position is now recognized to be simply inadequate to his now-personal
understanding of the issues, in one special case. We pro-choicers have
NEVER lost sight of the fact that every pregnancy is a special case,
and that the decisions about it belong to the person who is fully
informed about those personal implications. Brian understands that
better now. Many of us understood it long ago.
You, it seems, never will.
DougO
|
| 20.2582 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:05 | 36 |
| <<< Note 20.2575 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>
> there are some people who i consider hopeless; i believe
> that our joe oppelt will never be able to see that his
> meanspirited approach to things is as bad as anything
> he rants about.
If meanspiritedness means showing you where your words fail
you, then I wear your accusations with honor.
You say in .2557 that there is no behavior problem in .2530. OK,
then you also say that it's OK for the situation to repeat itself.
Don't you see that society's fuzzy morality also allows for this
too?
Your anger at me, for whatever reason, leads you to see everything
I write as meanspirited. Perhaps you might want to consider that
your anger might actually be at yourself once you are shown what
your philosophies really mean.
> herein lies the rub; if i follow my "moral" compass and
> support banning abortion, cases like my good friend no
> longer have the option. if i follow my "legal" compass,
> i cannot support banning abortion, even if i find it
> morally reprehensible.
But most serious abortion-reduction legislation bills
allow for cases like those of your friend. It doesn't
have to be an either-or solution at all.
> i am now convinced that it is crucial
> that we not allow the government to decide what is right
> for us.
But we should allow for the government to recognize what is
wrong.
|
| 20.2585 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:15 | 14 |
|
joe,
you are free to reach your own conclusions why i avoid
you; so far your conclusions have nothing to do with the
reality of the situation, but that will not stop you.
the fact that you're preening yourself over this ("I wear
your accusation with honor") is indicitave of the real
reasons. regardless, this does not change the fact that
my feelings are genuine and i simply want nothing to
do with you. please, allow me to avoid you in peace.
-b
|
| 20.2586 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:16 | 22 |
| <<< Note 20.2580 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> I asked for sources, Joe, and you haven't supplied them. As John
> Harney points out, asking for sources isn't particularly evil-
I did not say you were evil for asking for sources. If you
read my response to John, you will see that I am not even
calling you evil at all.
You talk about distractions. I don't have verifiable sources.
I heard it on talk radio. But you've made the issue of "sources"
most important (a clear distraction from the true EVIL that
this procedure is -- whether the motivation is purely for abortion
or it is for the harvesting of research tissue.)
What is important to you here, Doug? Do you want to hide the
brutality of this savage procedure? Do you want to attack me
personally because I keep bringing focus to this horrible thing?
Do you want to deflect attention from the fact that you have
only spoken here in support of this vicious practice? You dare
speak of cowardice and distraction when you have done nothing
but that so far.
|
| 20.2587 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:16 | 40 |
| > I wonder if she'll consider changing the behavior that
> got her into this situation in the first place.
Yeah, durn that woman for having sex for five years with a man
thought to be sterile.
> I also don't see how you could conclude from what I've written
> that I am hung up about the enjoyment of sex. All I've ever
> called for is taking responsibility for doing what one enjoys.
...
> And you too, Brian, can make fun of what's moral and not,
> but it doesn't change the fact that their choices have
> made the problem they now face. It *IS* horrible that
> we can whittle away with situation after situation so that
> nothing is right/wrong anymore. There *IS* a behavior
> choice here that has caused this situation.
More nonsense. These people simply don't share *your* peculiar sense
of moral behavior. They know right from wrong. They act responsibly.
In fact, I consider Brian's advice to be further indicating the path of
responsibility; avoiding adding yet another burden to the society in
the form of a DS child, and avoiding further endangering their own
health. It would be the heights of irresponsible behavior to carry on
with such a pregnancy- going off epileptic meds might result in the
woman experiencing seizures which could cause other problems, including
miscarriage; carrying to term would certainly worsen her severe
arthritis. Any of these risks could permanently affect her ability to
support herself. Even giving up a driver's license might cost a job;
and in a society where most people live paycheck to paycheck, any one
of these risks is irresponsible. An abortion is by far the more
responsible course.
Not that someone in thrall to a 2000-year old institutionalied religious
tradition can see it that way, but it is fun to point out how queer is
your notion of 'responsible', Joe.
DougO
ps - Actually, I'll bet they do change behavior, now that they realize
their previous understanding of his sterility was incorrect. <snip>.
|
| 20.2588 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:24 | 23 |
| <<< Note 20.2581 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> evaluate the impact a pregnancy will have upon them- their existing
> life, their existing family, their income level, their religion, their
> hopes for their future, their own confidence in their ability to raise
> a child or another child- every single case carries huge implications.
And all of these implications are more important than the life
of an already-created child.
> Raising a child is a twenty-year commitment.
Better to deny the child those twenty years, right? Just sweep
it under the rug because you are unsure about your hope for the
future and your income level; because you are unsure you can
raise it well enough. Sanger would be proud.
> Brian understands that
> better now. Many of us understood it long ago.
>
> You, it seems, never will.
You are correct.
|
| 20.2589 | I hate getting sucked into no-win arguements!!!! | CGOOA::PITULEY | Ain't technology wonderful? | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:26 | 14 |
| What it all comes down to (for those that don't have their minds
clouded by religeous issues masquerading as morals) is common sense and
a judgement made by the persons most affected by the given situation.
Whether a given person's lifestyle matches any other person's morals
and/or religious convictions is completely beside the point. No one
has the right to tell any other person what they can or cannot do with
their body and life. And, no, the fetus is not a life form...it cannot
live on its own in the environment. It requires the mother's body to
live. As such, it is part of the mother's body.
Brian Pituley
|
| 20.2590 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:28 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.2575 by MPGS::MARKEY "The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary" >>>
Brian, I have to admit, that was a very well written note. The WHOLE
thing. Thanks for posting it.
Glen
|
| 20.2591 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:30 | 4 |
| | <<< Note 20.2580 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
DougO, very well written note. Thanks for posting it.
|
| 20.2592 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:31 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.2587 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> > I wonder if she'll consider changing the behavior that
> > got her into this situation in the first place.
>
> Yeah, durn that woman for having sex for five years with a man
> thought to be sterile.
>
> [diatribe deleted]
>
> ps - Actually, I'll bet they do change behavior, now that they realize
> their previous understanding of his sterility was incorrect. <snip>.
Did I call for anything else?
All the rest of the note is ignored as personal attack.
|
| 20.2593 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:32 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.2582 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| Your anger at me, for whatever reason, leads you to see everything I write as
| meanspirited.
I think you have had many others write the same thing about your notes.
Many in this very topic.
|
| 20.2594 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:34 | 1 |
| Why, thank you Glen.
|
| 20.2595 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:39 | 3 |
|
Your welcome.
|
| 20.2596 | | POWDML::CKELLY | The Proverbial Bad Penny | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:39 | 1 |
| you're
|
| 20.2598 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:39 | 34 |
|
there's another issue which the case i've brought up raises:
currently, the man gets public assistance in the state of
maine because he cannot work. he lives in a trailer in close
to squalid conditions. he lacks the mobility to keep the
place clean, and lacks the money to hire someone to help
him.
the woman lives at home with her parents in massachusetts.
she has a job in a flower shop which pays ok, but not well
enough for her to have her own place or to support her
mate. with her own health problems, she can marginally take
care of the man's physical needs. she visits him on weekends
and helps him clean his trailer.
they would get married, except that he would lose his
public assistance, and she couldn't support him. the
alternative is for her to quit her job and move into
the trailer with him, but she feels it is wrong for
someone who is able to work, not to.
when she found out she was pregnant, she arranged to marry
the man. this meant moving him from maine into her parent's
house (her parents are both elderly and require her care).
their wedding was originally planned for two weekends from
now. unfortunately, this whole issue of the baby having
serious health problems of its own has caused such great
stress that the wedding is to be postponed. i feel very
bad for everyone involved.
this situation really has me re-evaluating my opinions
on a lot of issues.
-b
|
| 20.2599 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:40 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.2596 by POWDML::CKELLY "The Proverbial Bad Penny" >>>
| you're
No, I had it right 'tine..... trust me.....
|
| 20.2600 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:40 | 1 |
| aborted snarf!!!
|
| 20.2602 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150kts is TOO slow! | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:47 | 7 |
| re: .2601
> Since we all agree that reducing abortions is a good thing, would those
Please don't put words into my mouth.
Bob
|
| 20.2603 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:49 | 9 |
|
ZZZ -< I hate getting sucked into no-win arguements!!!! >-
Hey Brian:
Go back to your beer!
|
| 20.2604 | corrected: broad brush removed... | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:52 | 32 |
| re: .2576 (Joe Oppelt)
> If one's pro-choice position is to truly allow for a choice in
> the problem cases, then abortion policy that makes exceptions
> for these should be acceptable. If the pro-choice person still
> insists that choice should be available even for those cases
> that are not problem cases, then they are really arguing for
> the parents to be allowed to pass the responsibility from their
> own shoulders to that of the child they created.
I just thought that this was worth isolating and posting for those who
may not have read the note in question. The point made is a valid one,
IMO, and perhaps we need to redefine what "choice" really is.
Under the above criteria, for legislative purposes, I could be
considered pro-choice. I have never called for a legal ban on ALL
abortions under all circumstances. My legal stance does allow for choice
in the extreme cases, cases in which the state really has no right to
intervene.
Since most of us agree that reducing abortions is a good thing, would those
on the "pro-choice" side agree to a bill that limits abortion as an
after-the-fact form of birth control? A bill that would allow for
abortion under categories such as 'life endangering pregnancy',
'severely deformed fetus' and 'rape and incest'? If not, why?
I think the answers will differenciate between those who are "pro-choice"
and those who are "pro-abortion".
-steve
|
| 20.2605 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150kts is TOO slow! | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:53 | 6 |
| re: .2604
Actually, if you had said, "Since we all agree reducing the need for abortions
is a good thing", I probably would have agreed with you.
Bob
|
| 20.2606 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:54 | 11 |
| re: .2589
I don't even know where to start with this one.
I'll spare everyone the attempt since it would only be rehashed
rehash, anyway.
NNTTM. 8^)
-steve
|
| 20.2607 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:57 | 8 |
| steve,
why is the otherwise laudable goal of reducing the number of
abortions that occur, inextricably wrapped up with a legislative
solution? why does reluctance to legislate a solution make
one "pro-abortion"?
-b
|
| 20.2608 | | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Thu Jul 20 1995 18:00 | 23 |
| Brian,
Your friend is lucky she can confide in you. I used to work part-
time in a group home for retarded adults; all but one of the clients
were DS.
As someone mentioned previously, most of the parents were in their
late '60s etc. The parents all seem to agonize over what would happen
to their children when they were gone. One woman told me she hadn't
really had any peace since Patty was born until they found this group
home. Her biggest fear was that Cobb County would cut the funding
for this type home (it was being considered); then Patty would have
to be institutionalized once her mother passed.
Patty was my age, but basically a child. 90% of the time she was
loveable, but when she lost her temper she could knock the snot out
of me; this always made me wonder how Patty's mother had handled her
the last couple of years before she entered the home.
It doesn't sound as though your friend will dance a jig over her
decision, but IMO she's making the "kindest" choice.
|
| 20.2609 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Jul 20 1995 19:38 | 35 |
| Steve,
Legislating access to abortion has never reduced abortions. It has
however maimed, rendered infertile and killed born, breathing women who
found ways to terminate their pregnancies that were not safe or
sanitary. This goes on in the world today.
Increasing support structures in this country to make it more feasible
to deal with an unplanned pregnancy will help reduce the number of
abortions, but this means people will have to completely drop the
stigma of the single parent, refer to birth mothers in more loving
terms, and work to more open adoptions and foster care where the
biological parents can also have some interaction with their kids.
Better birth control, as well as parents teaching their sons that they
have serious responsibilities regarding where they ejaculate will also
help reduce the desire/need for abortions.
Teaching kids they have a future and having a positive attitude toward
the world may also help reduce the number of crisis pregnancies. It
has been shown that young women who feel they have a future delay both
intercourse and are more responsible with contraception when they do
become sexually active. People who feel there is no future are more
likely to have irresponsible sex, particularly kids. I can't help but
wonder if millenialists aren't encouraging this behavior unwittingly
with their doom and gloom scenarios.
Markey, my heart goes out to your friend. Dilantin damage to a fetus is
not a joke and often causes fatal defects when taken in the first
trimester. Even without the Downs issue, she really didn't have a
choice. I am glad she has a friend who will stand by her, cry with
her, and help her friend and herself rebuild their lives emotionally.
May she and her partner find solace in each other.
meg
|
| 20.2610 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Jul 20 1995 19:41 | 17 |
| re: .2707
-b, it has to do with how a society looks at, and chooses to protect
life. If we value the unborn, we should at least do our best to try to
protect them. If we do not value them (as a society), then go on as we
have been since Roe v. Wade. I look at this issue as being analogous
to legislating "solutions" to murder, theft, etc. Murder is not a
"choice", nor is theft. I can't for the life of me understand how
killing the unborn- our own offspring- can be rationalized as a
legitemate "choice", barring extreme circumstances.
We cannot afford to make the value of life relative to the
individual, you only sink society into a quagmire of legalistic and
moral confusion/relativism.
-steve
|
| 20.2611 | See? It works both ways!! | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Jul 20 1995 19:46 | 6 |
|
re: .2609
Propaganda!!
|
| 20.2612 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Thu Jul 20 1995 21:17 | 6 |
| >A bill that would allow for abortion under categories such as 'life
>endangering pregnancy', 'severely deformed fetus' and 'rape and incest'?
How is this choice??
...Tom
|
| 20.2613 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 20 1995 22:31 | 2 |
| Because the primary call for the need for a choice is for such
cases.
|
| 20.2614 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Thu Jul 20 1995 22:45 | 7 |
| >Because the primary call for the need for a choice is for such cases.
I disagree. The primary call for the need for a choice is so each
individual is allowed to make the choice. Regulated choice is an
oxymoron.
...Tom
|
| 20.2615 | 'Choice' here applies to more than just abortion | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 20 1995 23:03 | 10 |
| And I disagree with you. Some choices are simply bad. Bad
for those making the choices. Bad for the victims of the
choice. Bad for society -- both the result is bad, and the
mindset that allows it.
With what exactly are disagreeing? You quoted my statement
that the primary call for choice is for certain cases. Do you
disagree with that statement? More likely, you disagree
with the sentiment that the statement supports (ie, choice
should be limited to those certain cases.)
|
| 20.2616 | happy to oblige | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Jul 20 1995 23:44 | 33 |
| So Joe, your still rather ambiguously "identified" source is "talk
radio", eh? My claim that it was propaganda stands vindicated, seems
to me. And that was 'evil' that I 'stooped' to, was it, to name your
propaganda for what it was?
wrt .2588, nice to see you don't challenge the notion that every
pregnancy is a special case to those involved; and thanks for admitting
that you'll never understand why the choice in all such cases belongs
in the hands of those involved, rather than to government enforcers as
proxies for those modern-day religionists who can't stand to watch
their traditions abandoned as society moves on. We knew you didn't
understand.
re .2592,
>> ps - Actually, I'll bet they do change behavior, now that they realize
>> their previous understanding of his sterility was incorrect. <snip>.
>
> Did I call for anything else?
Oh, you're admitting all that pissing and moaning about moral choices and
not knowing right from wrong was irrelevant? You threw that in merely
to cloud the issue, and now you're disclaiming it? I dunno, Joe- your
.2558 was pure Oppelt, I don't think you can wriggle out of it that
easily. You find fault with the choices this couple made, you lambaste
them for what you describe as irresponsibility, and you lament that "we
as a society" don't see this as you do. No, you *did* call for
something else; something we could describe as that old-tyme '50's-
style morality, when women were housewives instead of partners and
sex was a dirty word, and anyone noticing either was obviously 'wrong'
while you were 'right'; and you deserved to be lampooned for it.
DougO
|
| 20.2617 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Jul 20 1995 23:48 | 5 |
| re .2609, nicely said, Meg.
re .2611, nice try, Andy, but it didn't come from talk radio.
DougO
|
| 20.2618 | re: .2598 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Jul 21 1995 00:06 | 19 |
| MPGS::MARKEY wrote:
> ...
> this situation really has me re-evaluating my opinions
> on a lot of issues.
Whatever in the world for? Nothing in this situation goes to any fundamental
ethical question. Rather, this is just more proof that sh*t happens. In such
cases, compassion is appropriate. An outpouring of assistance is a reasonable,
and hoped for response. But I find nothing in this sad tale that motivates the
kind of introspective examination of foundational ethics that you imply.
IMHO, those holding to an anti-abortion view AND who counsel a woman to have
an abortion for convenience (i.e., to avoid sh*t) adhere to the same situational
ethics as do the pro-abortion folks. The only difference between the two is
the degree. period.
regards,
/mtp
|
| 20.2619 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Jul 21 1995 00:10 | 13 |
| > IMHO, those holding to an anti-abortion view AND who counsel a woman
> to have an abortion for convenience (i.e., to avoid sh*t) adhere to the
> same situational ethics as do the pro-abortion folks. The only
> difference between the two is the degree. period.
"IMHO" ??
yeah, thats a mighty humble opinion, all right. 'situational ethics',
that sounds so ... disreputable, huh, like you've got an absolutist's
corner on morals. An opinion, surely, but humble you ain't. Thanks
for playing.
DougO
|
| 20.2620 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Hi-ho! Yow! I'm surfing Arpanet! | Fri Jul 21 1995 00:58 | 2 |
| Way ta go, slash & burn 'im DougO! Bingo.
|
| 20.2621 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jul 21 1995 01:26 | 44 |
| > Who is claiming such extremes as you are attacking? You both
> even SHOUT your use of extremes!
I was unsure. That was why I asked. Sorry If I hurt your ears.
> effectively write
> yourself out of the discussion with me on those points when I
> choose not to answer them.)
A truly masterful rejoinder, Joe. I stand in awe of you. Now, do you care to
respond with substance to the matter, or leave the lasting impression that
it's an issue with which you haven't a comfortable response?
> If one's pro-choice position is to truly allow for a choice in
> the problem cases, then abortion policy that makes exceptions
> for these should be acceptable.
Tell me - Do you, to any degree, perceive the potential social, legal
and civil problems with a law which allows abortions "only under well defined
circumstances"? Who gets to define them, Joe? Who gets to ascertain whether
or not any particular appeal for the procedure is granted? Who gets to
ensure that that is handled equitably throughout the country?
> If the pro-choice person still
> insists that choice should be available even for those cases
> that are not problem cases
Most pro-choice people aren't presuming to make the decision as to which
are problem cases. Most pro-choice people are willing to let the individuals
directly involved in the individual cases make these determinations. What's
been stated in here recently is that certain savage procedures should be
disallowed as there are other methods of reaching the same ends, if the
ends are properly understood. And what's continually stated in here is
that neither you, nor your church, nor your legislators are in a position
to define what's proper in terms of law, as none of you have a handle on the
circumstances involved in each individual case.
Tell me, Joe - Why not propose (as other pro-lifers have done) that
sterilization of repetitive abortive mothers be legislated? Why not
propose criminal penalties on those same folks? Why not propose some
sort of rehabilitative penance upon them? Why, instead, try to get some
law on the books which attempts to "Define" what you'd like to see?
|
| 20.2622 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Jul 21 1995 12:45 | 11 |
|
re: .2617
>re .2611, nice try, Andy, but it didn't come from talk radio.
yeah? So? That's really definitive!! Left alone, your rejoinder gives
the impression that since meg's reply didn't come from "talk radio"
then it certainly couldn't be considered "propaganda"!!
Nice try right back at ya...
|
| 20.2623 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jul 21 1995 13:09 | 4 |
| This may have been discussed in the 2600+ replies. Why are rape and incest
grouped together as legitimate reasons for abortion (by those who think that
abortion should be allowed in some but not all cases)? Incestuous rape is
rape. How is incest between consenting adults considered similar to rape?
|
| 20.2624 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Jul 21 1995 13:31 | 13 |
| re: .2623
I've just been using the standard extremes as a reference for the
exceptions- those cases that are always used in arguments to keep
abortion on demand legal. Admittedly, incest has not been used in this
topic much, if any, so I mention it only out of habit. Pregnancies
caused by such relations have a reasonable chance of causing bad
abnormalities in the offspring, which does relate to some of the
extreme cases argued by those who wish to keep abortion on demand
legal (the deformities argument).
-steve
|
| 20.2625 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Fri Jul 21 1995 13:56 | 11 |
| >You quoted my statement that the primary call for choice is for certain
>cases.
It appears to me that you are saying that there should be choice, but
only within a boundary, that boundary presumbably set by you or some
group. Freedom of choice is just that freedom to choose. You propose
taking that freedom away except in cases decided by others than the
individual needing to make the choice. That is not freedom of choice
IMO. So as I said, I disagree.
...Tom
|
| 20.2626 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jul 21 1995 14:03 | 8 |
| > Pregnancies
> caused by such relations have a reasonable chance of causing bad
> abnormalities in the offspring, which does relate to some of the
> extreme cases argued by those who wish to keep abortion on demand
> legal (the deformities argument).
But surely, most children of incest aren't deformed. Look at West Virginia.
Lotsa normal people there.
|
| 20.2627 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | The Lecher... ;-> | Fri Jul 21 1995 14:25 | 6 |
|
Jeeezz Gerald, lighten up on the Wes' 'ginians will ya !
:-)
Dan
|
| 20.2628 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Fri Jul 21 1995 14:29 | 17 |
| >Whatever in the world for? Nothing in this situation goes to any fundamental
>ethical question. Rather, this is just more proof that sh*t happens. In such
>cases, compassion is appropriate. An outpouring of assistance is a reasonable,
>and hoped for response. But I find nothing in this sad tale that motivates the
>kind of introspective examination of foundational ethics that you imply.
it was not the ethics that i am re-evaluating, but my stand
on certain public policy issues. i am comfortable with my
ethics. they were taught to me by fine people (my parents).
on the other hand, as with other members of the animal
kingdom, i can at least exhibit a little learning. i tend
to have rather bipolar opinions on certain things, which
is quite confounding when i'm faced with something that's
not cut and dry. in other words, i'd rather be be introspective
and correct than smug and wrong.
-b
|
| 20.2629 | had to say it | POWDML::CKELLY | The Proverbial Bad Penny | Fri Jul 21 1995 14:30 | 1 |
| but what about when you are correct, yet smug?
|
| 20.2630 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Jul 21 1995 14:52 | 10 |
| re: .2625
The choice will still be there, Tom (just like you can choose to murder
someone or steal a car), it will just be an illegal one.
Choice is not the end all of a free society. Many choices must be
limited or regulated by law.
-steve
|
| 20.2631 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Fri Jul 21 1995 14:56 | 5 |
| > but what about when you are correct, yet smug?
i'm almost always smug and wrong in combination... :-)
-b
|
| 20.2632 | If not ethics, what then? | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Jul 21 1995 15:35 | 23 |
| MPGS::MARKEY wrote in .2628
> it was not the ethics that i am re-evaluating, but my stand
> on certain public policy issues. i am comfortable with my
> ethics.
If not ethics, what informs the positions you take on these public policy
issues, like abortion? Clearly the decision to recommend abortion, in the
motivating note, required the recommender to violate one or more of his
principles, although with great relectance and substantial hand-wringing.
> ...they were taught to me by fine people (my parents).
My intention was (is) not to attack your ethics. I apologize if this was
the meaning that was conveyed. Rather, I am really only interested in
what you found in this situation that motivated your reevaluation of your
"stand".
Cheers,
/mtp
|
| 20.2633 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Fri Jul 21 1995 15:41 | 7 |
| >Choice is not the end all of a free society. Many choices must be
>limited or regulated by law.
Objective law or political policy law?? So, then it is OK to restrict
guns as well? After all choices must be limited!
...Tom
|
| 20.2634 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Fri Jul 21 1995 16:05 | 38 |
| >If not ethics, what informs the positions you take on these public policy
>issues, like abortion? Clearly the decision to recommend abortion, in the
>motivating note, required the recommender to violate one or more of his
>principles, although with great relectance and substantial hand-wringing.
first of all, is there any confusion that i am also the person
who wrote the "motivating note"? your last sentence implies
that you thought that was someone else... it was me...
as for ethics, that is certainly a part of what drives my
"opinion forming", but not the only part. for example,
when i said i was "re-evaluating a lot of issues", i
was not just referring to my stand on abortion. this case
has also made me think about the nature of "public
assistance", among other things. ethics plays a part there
too, but so does economics, the role of government, the
role of taxes, etc.
i would be the first to admit that i am part of the "angry
mob" that has dominated politics of late. we are fueled by
the cases of people who refuse to use birth control; who
use abortion as birth control. we are fueled by the people
who refuse to work; who live off the taxpayers. we are
fueled by the ugly bureaucrats who administer the system.
i want things to change; a lot of people want things to
change. but "fixes" are strange things. any fix to the
system must be well-considered. a well-considered fix is
one that does not ruin a person's life because they made
a mistake. a well-considered fix is one which helps
someone who truly cannot help themselves.
i want sensible change, and i'm willing to think about
sensible change. what constitutes sensible change is
not always immediately obvious to me. my usual tendency
is to gravitate to the far right, but i'm often quite
uncomfortable with what i see when i'm there...
-b
|
| 20.2635 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Big Vs | Fri Jul 21 1995 16:27 | 8 |
|
> Many choices must be limited or regulated by law.
That opens one heck of a can of worms, Steve. Who's to say your
choices won't be next?
|
| 20.2636 | | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Jul 21 1995 16:36 | 57 |
| SX4GTO::OLSON writes in .2619
> yeah, thats a mighty humble opinion, all right.
Well, upon reflection I believe that the 'IMHO' to which you take such
umbrage, was gratuitous. Maybe we all probably use the 'IMHO' too much.
Nevertheless, your attack on 'IMHO' was similarly gratuitous since whether my
opinion is humble or arrogant, has nothing whatsoever to do with the
content of what I wrote.
> 'situational ethics',
> that sounds so ... disreputable, huh, like you've got an absolutist's
> corner on morals.
I'm not sure you understand the distinction between situational
ethics and moral relativism. At the risk of seeming less than
appropriately humble, here is the distinction I use -- And which
informs much of what I have to say on the subject of abortion.
I'll keep it short.
I make an operative distinction between ethics and morals. The latter,
it seems to me should be viewed as a system of values that legislate
behavior. I view the former as a system of foundational principals
from which such values are typically derived.
Just as an example: Most cultures allow some form of property
ownership. In my view, and in this example, property ownership is an
ethical foundation of the culture. The laws and canons that regulate
property ownership and that proscribe the sanctions against theft
express the *value* that the society attaches to property. In this view
of ethics and morality, slavery can not be judged unethical in any
society that permits property ownership. However, slavery is most
certainly immoral in most cultures with which I am familiar (Tho' it
has not always been so).
For me, abortion is less a moral question than it is an ethical one.
Many anti-abortion advocates view the justification of abortion as
another example of moral relativism. Well, so what? Morality, in my
view, is ever changing -- every time we pass a law, or fight a
civil-war, or the supreme court exercises itself, or the pope sees the
light, someone's system of morals is adjusted.
Hence, I do not find the "immorality" of abortion to be a
compelling argument. Sanctions applied against "immoral" behavior
have been used to justify all kinds of horrors. Thus, to use the
same moral structures that motivated the crusades and the spanish
inquisition to prohibit abortion make little sense to me. At the very
least, I find such arguments less than compelling.
Ethics don't change. Morals are constantly changing.
Cheers,
/mtp
|
| 20.2637 | Good work... | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Fri Jul 21 1995 16:44 | 7 |
| re: Joe
I never said you said Doug was evil. I was simply offering my "opinion."
But as Doug pointed out, it was a nice dodge to avoid naming sources!
\john
|
| 20.2638 | Confused was I | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Jul 21 1995 16:45 | 7 |
| > first of all, is there any confusion that i am also the person
> who wrote the "motivating note"? your last sentence implies
> that you thought that was someone else... it was me...
Yep! I was confused. Sorry.
/mtp
|
| 20.2639 | ethics: a system of moral values | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 21 1995 16:46 | 4 |
|
That's useful. You give us your personal definition of ethics and morals
and claim that the former is timeless. Did you even bother to look in
a dictionary?
|
| 20.2640 | | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Jul 21 1995 16:54 | 15 |
| That's useful. You give us your personal definition of ethics and morals
and claim that the former is timeless. Did you even bother to look in
a dictionary?
Yes, I looked in several. I did not find the definitions in any of them to
be very helpful in describing how *I* come to take the positions I do. This
is precisely why I was very careful to state that my view of ethics and
morality is an *operational* one that I use.
I am more than willing to quibble over definitions. However, I would ask you
to consider that arguments against abortion that are based on consistent
principles are, to that extent, more compelling than those that are based
on what society, culture, judge, or boxer feels at the moment.
/mtp
|
| 20.2641 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Fri Jul 21 1995 17:02 | 23 |
| 20.2642 | operational definition may exist | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 21 1995 17:10 | 16 |
|
If you're looking for a good operational term, what you seem
to be describing (and it is a potent and valid argument)
are called "norms". Defined as:
"A principle of right action binding upon the members of a group
and serving to guide, control or regulate proper and acceptable
behavior."
Although I don't believe that normative values in a given
society are any less prone to change over time than ethics
or morals.
Colin
|
| 20.2643 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Jul 21 1995 18:12 | 29 |
| re: .2635
Actually, it is the use of the term "choice" that opens the can of
worms. It is much too broad to be useful in any discussion, at least
without setting certain parameters, though this is what I see happening
(my note seemed to have the desired effect of showing this, it did 8^)).
Tom's example a few back brought up gun-control, which is a deflection
since common law (Constitution) thoroughly protects the right to keep
and bear arms (though this is admittedly ignored when politically
convenient).
My examples of murder and theft are also "choices", though I'm sure you
agree that such "choices" should indeed be regulated by law. Same with
other "choices" that infringe on another.
Abortion is the ultimate infringement on another. As such, it should
not be acceptable to use abortion as a form of 'birth control', but
only when medically necessary or in other extreme cases.
"Choice" is simply too generic a thing to argue for. Laws infringe
upon our "choice" in many areas, necessarily so. Without limits set on
behavior, we'd dissolve into chaos. The question to ask is "do we care
enough about human life enough to protect it, or do we let convenience
override life?" (all extreme cases being excluded from any law, of course)
-steve
|
| 20.2645 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Jul 21 1995 19:18 | 67 |
| <<< Note 20.2621 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>A truly masterful rejoinder, Joe. I stand in awe of you. Now, do you care to
>respond with substance to the matter, or leave the lasting impression that
>it's an issue with which you haven't a comfortable response?
But written as extreme as they stand, I do not see them as
substantial questions, therefore there cannot be a substantial
response.
I think that you can deduce my response to your questions
had they not been written as such extremes. The rest of that
reply clearly answers with my position. And yes, I do not see
the answers as comfortable. That's the nature of the topic.
Abortion is not a comfortable thing, though we as a society
seem bent on trying to make it that way.
>Tell me - Do you, to any degree, perceive the potential social, legal
>and civil problems with a law which allows abortions "only under well defined
>circumstances"?
No. We have lots of parallels -- self-defense for one. The
parole process is another.
>Who gets to define them, Joe? Who gets to ascertain whether
>or not any particular appeal for the procedure is granted? Who gets to
>ensure that that is handled equitably throughout the country?
Who gets to define ANY laws? Define appeals? Ensure equity?
Why not for this too?
And why not have the definition of the circumstances be loose
enough to allow the benefit of the doubt for close calls? Why
can't the determination of the circumstances simply be made by
the mother's doctor, or a judge? Abortion can be available by
prescription, so to speak. Sure, that leaves the process open
to abuse by unethical judges, doctors, and patients, but that's
still better than no guidelines at all as we have now.
>Most pro-choice people aren't presuming to make the decision as to which
>are problem cases. Most pro-choice people are willing to let the individuals
>directly involved in the individual cases make these determinations.
Determinations such as those listed in .2581? Determinations
such as "birth control"? Wrong sex? The baby will be gay (if
current genetic claims homd true)?
>And what's continually stated in here is
>that neither you, nor your church, nor your legislators are in a position
>to define what's proper in terms of law, as none of you have a handle on the
>circumstances involved in each individual case.
But ad all those "nor"s together, and you get society as a
whole, and why is it not appropriate for society to define
what's proper in terms of law? If abortion-restricting law
is ever enacted, it WILL account for individual circumstances.
>Tell me, Joe - Why not propose (as other pro-lifers have done) that
>sterilization of repetitive abortive mothers be legislated? Why not
>propose criminal penalties on those same folks? Why not propose some
>sort of rehabilitative penance upon them? Why, instead, try to get some
>law on the books which attempts to "Define" what you'd like to see?
Because I don't believe in the proposals you suggested, but
I do agree with the latter. If enough of us so agree, it
will happen. If not, I'm wasting my time (though not my
principles) in the wrong camp.
|
| 20.2646 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Jul 21 1995 19:23 | 7 |
| re .2635
> That opens one heck of a can of worms, Steve. Who's to say your
> choices won't be next?
Some of mine already are. That's part of living as a part
of a society.
|
| 20.2644 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Jul 21 1995 19:27 | 84 |
| <<< Note 20.2616 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> My claim that it was propaganda stands vindicated,
So it's propaganda. So what? Is propaganda necessarily
wrong? And even if it *IS* wrong this time, does it change
the fact that the partial-birth abortions are savage and evil?
> And that was 'evil' that I 'stooped' to, was it, to name your
> propaganda for what it was?
If you have been paying attention, the only thing I have called
evil is the procedure itself. I clarified that in the last
reply. Anything else being called evil is of your own doing.
> wrt .2588, nice to see you don't challenge the notion that every
> pregnancy is a special case to those involved;
You are correct. I don't challenge it. But I at the same time
I don't accept the notion that the "specialness" of each pregnancy
makes it a legitimate target for snuffing out the life therein.
> and thanks for admitting
> that you'll never understand why the choice in all such cases belongs
> in the hands of those involved, rather than to government enforcers as
> proxies for those modern-day religionists who can't stand to watch
> their traditions abandoned as society moves on.
And thanks for putting words into my mouth. I now spit them
out for I reject them.
What I don't understand is the mindset that allows a parent
to discard their created progeny simply for the reasons you
listed in .2581.
> > Did I call for anything else?
>
> Oh, you're admitting all that pissing and moaning about moral choices and
> not knowing right from wrong was irrelevant? You threw that in merely
> to cloud the issue, and now you're disclaiming it?
In response to the couple in .2530 I only wrote .2545. Yes,
Doug, I called for nothing else. The other "pissing and
moaning" (.2558) was in response to three distinct belittlements
of the idea that morality can be an answer to the problem of
abortion. Of course, you're clearly on the record that
abortion is not a problem, and that even partial-birth abortions
are not bad, so I can see why you would join those three in their
belittlement.
> You find fault with the choices this couple made, you lambaste
> them for what you describe as irresponsibility, and you lament that "we
> as a society" don't see this as you do.
Should I then assume that you do not find fault with their choices?
If not, then you must also agree that a repeat of the situation
is acceptable. If believing that a repeat of the situation is
not acceptable, then yes, I find fault with their choices.
Did I lambaste them? Where? All I did was call for a change
in the future.
And yes, I truly *do* lament that society doesn't see this as
a problem. I don't deny it. I am proud to admit it. What
we have now is a tragedy.
> No, you *did* call for
> something else; something we could describe as that old-tyme '50's-
> style morality, when women were housewives instead of partners and
> sex was a dirty word, and anyone noticing either was obviously 'wrong'
> while you were 'right'; and you deserved to be lampooned for it.
"Something *we* could describe..." Yes I suppose some collection
of people like-minded with you COULD describe it that way. And
that description is worthy of lampooning.
Of course, the alternative to a morally-guided society is what
we have now -- irresponsible sexual behavior spreading all sorts
of vile diseases, and requiring divorce, broken homes, and the
butchery of abortion to resolve some of the problems it spawns.
And these, Doug, are the evils you stoop to defend for your
cause. See .2526.
|
| 20.2647 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Big Vs | Fri Jul 21 1995 19:29 | 3 |
|
If I didn't know better, I'd think that sounds remarkably like sour grapes.
|
| 20.2648 | why is it different? | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 21 1995 19:36 | 11 |
|
>Tom's example a few back brought up gun-control, which is a deflection
>since common law (Constitution) thoroughly protects the right to keep
>and bear arms (though this is admittedly ignored when politically
>convenient).
Explain for a dumb Brit. Didn't SCOTUS also decide under Roe V Wade
in 1971 that a Womans's right to an abortion was also constitutionally
protected under the 14th amendment? That's over 20 years ago now,
and it has been reaffirmed since.
|
| 20.2649 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Jul 21 1995 20:30 | 63 |
| re: .2648
If there was an Amendment that stated "the right of women to have
an abortion, shall not be infringed", I would agree with Roe v. Wade
(at least legally). Problem is, this decision interprets abortion
under a "right to privacy", making *abortion* a constitutional right.
This seems quite a stretch to me, especially since the "right to
privacy" is not mentioned verbatim at all in the Constitution.
What I find interesting is that while this "right" is given free-reign
in society today, the right to keep and bear arms (mentioned verbatim
in the BoR that it "shall not be infringed") is being infringed upon.
I'll make it easy for you, I'll post the Second Amendment, as well as
the Fourth and Ninth Amendments (from which the "right to
privacy" is derived, which in turn spawed a consitutional right of
abortion). See for yourself why one is obvious and the other is a
judicial additive.
AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
[comment: very clear and concise about this right, and the fact that
the government has no right to infringe upon this right]
AMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[comment: the key part used was "the right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"]
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
SCOTUS forced states to legalize abortion with Roe v. Wade, under a
guise of constitutionalism, by use of the 14th Amendment (the use of
which I question in this, as well as other cases in which decisions are
forced on the Soveriegn states, but that's fodder for another discussion).
I find it ironic that some rights are broadly interpreted- yet aren't
even directly mentioned in the Constitution; yet those that
are specifically mentioned get trodded upon. Something is seriously wrong
with this scenario.
-steve
|
| 20.2650 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Jul 21 1995 20:30 | 3 |
| re .2647
Well then it's a good thing you know better!
|
| 20.2651 | Yours is better | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Jul 21 1995 20:46 | 80 |
| > If you're looking for a good operational term, what you seem
> to be describing (and it is a potent and valid argument)
> are called "norms". Defined as:
> "A principle of right action binding upon the members of a group
> and serving to guide, control or regulate proper and acceptable
> behavior."
> Although I don't believe that normative values in a given
> society are any less prone to change over time than ethics
> or morals.
I believe you've done a good job of capturing what I was attempting to
express. I also agree that normative behaviors change. Hence they may
be closer to what I was viewing as "morals". But what is cool about the
definition of normative that you've provided, is the implication that what we
decide as normative expresses, in some way, a consensus, i.e., the group agrees
to be bound by some [arbitrary] set of norms. I come back to this idea in the
concluding paragraph below.
I will admit that I don't know what to call those principles to which all living
organisms adhere, but among the over-arching principles common to all living
organisms is the following:
*** Living organisms seek to reproduce their kind ***
If you accept that, at least one corollary principle is more or less obvious:
*** Living organisms evolve and adopt behaviors that maximize ***
*** reproductive success ***
I would argue that to consciously adopt self-destructive behaviors, i.e.,
behaviors that are inimical to the survival of the species is unethical
behavior. Such behaviors violate these over-arching principles.
Abortion is not necessarily unethical in all cases. Many boxers have noted
that circumstances exist where abortion can be biologically fruitful. Moreover,
precedence exists in other species in which infanticide far more severe than
abortion is practiced. While these behaviors may be *morally* repugnant, I do
not view them as necessarily unethical.
So, what is normative where abortion is concerned? I suspect that 99% of us
would agree that partial-birth abortions, as described earlier, is not
normative. On the other end of the issue, a slight, tho' statistically
significant, majority of males and a slight, tho' statistically significant,
minority of females believe that first trimester abortions are OK (i.e.,
normative). However, it seems to me that, as we move from first-trimester
abortions to the infanticide of partial-birth abortions, consensus grows that
abortion is non-normative.
Unfortunately, this consensus remains largely unexpressed except in precatory
laws, such as established in Louisiana and Pennsylvania (among others). To this
end, I believe that it is instructive to observe that the *right* to an abortion
was *not* established by a process subject to democratic review. Rather, this
right was discovered by 5 men who found this right, where their 4 male collegues
could not. So whether the right to an abortion correctly expresses our
society's normative behavior has not be decided.
My own suspicion is that, left to the democratic process, i.e., the rough and
tumble of ideas competing for mind share, abortion as the absolute right some
would claim it is, would be resoundly rejected.
/mtp
|
| 20.2652 | not in this book... | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 21 1995 21:04 | 23 |
|
.2648
According to the book that I'm reading, R v. W was a decision made
under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. (Depriving Roe of
liberty without due process of law). Nowhere does it mention issues of
privacy. (Unless there's been a change since 1987.)
It seems to me that as you can in no way predetermine and codify all
that constitutes liberty and right to due process, then the notion that
the constitution can specify them all is incorrect. You lucked
out with the right to bear arms, but the right to due process and
liberty may not always be interpreted the way you want them.
Which is, at the end of the day, why you have a SCOTUS to interpret the
constitution and the laws that the representatives of the people
enact. Nothing seems wrong with this scenario. I wish my country had
a similar one.
Colin
(Source is "The Court & The Constitution" Archibald Cox, 1987.)
|
| 20.2653 | | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Jul 21 1995 21:47 | 19 |
| > According to the book that I'm reading, R v. W was a decision made
> under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. (Depriving Roe of
> liberty without due process of law). Nowhere does it mention issues of
> privacy. (Unless there's been a change since 1987.)
You might want to pick up the complete text of Roe at your local bookstore.
Both majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions are printed.
Roe cited Griswold (Griswold v Connecticut, 1962) and extended the
"penumbra of privacy" discovered in the 4th and 5th amendments by Justice
Douglas to cover abortion. Legal scholars generally agree that Roe
discovered the general right-to-privacy where before only a set of
limited rights existed.
What is the name of the book you are reading?
/mtp
|
| 20.2654 | more law to read? ack. | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Jul 24 1995 11:41 | 8 |
|
The source is at the end of my note, Cox in "The Court & The
Constitution". Cox is arguing that SCOTUS was incorrect in
R v W. There's no mention of the privacy issue at all.
Perhaps he didn't want to tackle it.
Coln
|
| 20.2655 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jul 24 1995 13:41 | 22 |
| I seemed to have left out the Fifth Amendment, which apparently was
used in Roe v. Wade, as well.
AMENDMENT V
No person shell be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be t wice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
The court was most creative in Roe v. Wade...yes, they were.
-steve
|
| 20.2656 | same result | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Mon Jul 24 1995 14:49 | 7 |
| I know I am about 100 replies behind but in regards to partial birth
abortions....
What is the difference, you kill the baby and take it out or you
take the baby out and kill it ?
Steve J.
|
| 20.2657 | Incoming! | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Mon Jul 24 1995 14:57 | 3 |
|
|
| 20.2658 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Jul 24 1995 16:54 | 87 |
| >> My claim that it was propaganda stands vindicated,
>
> So it's propaganda. So what?
>> And that was 'evil' that I 'stooped' to, was it, to name your
>> propaganda for what it was?
>
> If you have been paying attention, the only thing I have called
> evil is the procedure itself. I clarified that in the last
> reply. Anything else being called evil is of your own doing.
There you go again, trying to rewrite history. The record clearly
shows that in .2525 I said this:
>> sources, please. the notion simply reeks of propaganda, Joe.
And in .2626 you responded thusly:
> It is amazing the evils that you will stoop to defend for your
> cause.
The evils "you" will stoop to- and now you're saying you only called
the "procedure" evil? You must be saying I perform abortions. But
even you aren't that far divorced from reality- and so, Joe, we must
conclude that you've been tripped up by your less-than-stellar debating
skills, saying things you never meant; and lacking the grace to
withdraw them plainly, or to admit you misspoke, you only put your foot
in it further. Now, caught out, you admit the statement I labeled as
propaganda actually was, and you backpeddle from your defensive claim
that I was "stooping" to evil. Too bad you don't have the grace to
apologize for what you actually said.
> Should I then assume that you do not find fault with their choices?
Correct.
> If not, then you must also agree that a repeat of the situation
> is acceptable.
Incorrect. They were operating under the mistaken medical opinion/advice
that the man was sterile. Now that they know differently, I expect them
to take better care to avoid unwanted and dangerous pregnancies.
> If believing that a repeat of the situation is not acceptable, then
> yes, I find fault with their choices.
That isn't what it sounded like last time you lambasted them- it
sounded like you wanted them to avoid "immoral" behavior (as you
called it.) You said the society doesn't know right from wrong
anymore. Clearly, it does. We just don't agree with you that this
couple was doing anything wrong, or anything they shouldn't have been
doing, given the information they had.
> Of course, the alternative to a morally-guided society is what
> we have now -- irresponsible sexual behavior spreading all sorts
> of vile diseases, and requiring divorce, broken homes, and the
> butchery of abortion to resolve some of the problems it spawns.
This is so, so classic. Joe and the other chicken littles simply don't
understand enough about the human condition to recognize that it has
e're been thus. This same lament could be said about any era of human
society. Romans lamented in print about abortion 2000 years ago and
more, Joe- evidence that then as now, some people didn't approve of the
choices of others. The thumpers among us *always* call for a return to
a past that never was, an "alternative" that can never be. The problem
isn't that humans aren't moral enough; the problem is that the thumpers
don't recognize that human society is far more complex and individual
lives are far more important than any 'well-ordered' scheme of morality
that they might devise could tolerate. Or, to put it more succinctly;
people aren't the problem, unbending dreams of moral order are the
problem. The tyrants of history often had a vision of a morality they
would impose on the evil and wicked peoples they conquered. Your
particular flavor was used in many of those crusades, in fact; but the
flavor isn't all that important. The arrogance of assuming that one
size morality fits all is the key to understanding the moral orderists.
Thanks for the great example, Joe.
> And these, Doug, are the evils you stoop to defend for your
> cause. See .2526.
Yours, on the other hand, are the type that Adolph Hitler used; the
type to justify a call for moral order to be imposed from above on
those who would live differently. Thanks, I'll take the side of
individual freedoms over that of the 'moral orderists' any day.
DougO
|
| 20.2659 | here's what -steve's parse-o-meter says... | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jul 24 1995 17:23 | 26 |
| > It is amazing the evils you will stoop to defend for your cause.
FWIW, here's how I parse Joe's statement.
>It is amazing (self explanatory)
>the evils you will stoop to defend
"evils" is in reference to what is being defended, not "you"; I don't see
this as calling the individual evil, only the procedure that individual
was defending
>for your cause.
The evil that is being defended is done so for the purpose of a "cause".
If there is a problem with this comment, then I would think that it
would be due to opinion that the procedure in question is evil (maybe
DougO doesn't think it is evil), that it is being defended, or that it is
being defended for a specific reason related to DougO's "cause".
-steve
|
| 20.2660 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Mon Jul 24 1995 18:22 | 27 |
| re: .2655
steve,
i'm not sure why the court felt the need to justify its
decision based on the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. in
fact, i see roe v. wade and the right to privacy as
examples of "inalienable rights".
if i understand correctly, you support the notion of
self-defense, and protecting one's property with firearms.
i think you would agree that the second amendment has
little to do with this; when most legal experts argue
a right of self-defense, they frequently do so based
on the notion of "inalienable" rights, namely those
rights which are so "self-evident" they need not be
enumerated in the constitution.
as i have heard many "constitutional fundamentalists"
argue, the constitution limits the power of government,
not of individuals. perhaps the court felt that the
1st, 4th and 5th amendment limits the govt's legislative
role in abortion. it hardly needs them to justify the
right to control the use of one's own body, which
seems pretty fundamental to me.
-b
|
| 20.2661 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jul 24 1995 20:19 | 41 |
| I agree with much of what you posted, -b, but your last paragraph
doesn't parse very well in light of how Roe v. Wade was used against
the states (the states were forced to decriminalize abortion).
It can be argued that SCOTUS, all by itself, has forced a new brand of
morality on the states, not allowing the citizens of each state decide
what laws of conscience it can enforce within its borders.
True, the enumerated rights listed in the BoR are not all-inclusive
(thus the Ninth Amendment), they are only the ones that the FF deemed
it necessary to enumerate so that "Congress shall make no law" to
infringe upon them (not that this has stopped Congress from doing just
that, mind you). This does not mean that everything that any lawyer
can come up with in court is an inalienable right, protected by the
Constitution. The hard part is deciding where to draw the line.
Roe v. Wade did not do a good job drawing the line, IMO. Rather than
giving life the benefit of the doubt, it gave people the "inalienable
right" to destroy any offspring that they do not want- for whatever
reason. In order to rationalize abortion as an unenumerated
constitutional right, you have to dehumanize the unborn, and this is
just what happened. The life of the unborn was not even the major
issue- the major issue boiled down to legalisms- which we all know have
nothing to do with simple "right" and "wrong" (oh, but there's no such
thing say the relativists).
The inherant problems with this ruling are seen regularly inside the
court rooms of America. A man is charged for homicide when he shoots a
pregnant women- she lives, but the fetus didn't. Yet if she wanted to
abort the child, that's okay to do. Do you see the problem?
Relativism at its finest.
I don't view abortion as a constitutional right, any more than I view
murder as a constitutional right. The taking of an innocent life
simply cannot be parsed as a constitutional right. [fwiw, murder isn't
mentioned specifically in the Constitution either, you would laugh at
someone how tried to legalize it, though, under the guise of an
unenumerated inalienable right]
-steve
|
| 20.2662 | Specious Argument | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Mon Jul 24 1995 20:49 | 73 |
| MPGS::MARKEY writes in .2660:
>i'm not sure why the court felt the need to justify its
>decision based on the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. in
>fact, i see roe v. wade and the right to privacy as
>examples of "inalienable rights".
The concept of "inalienable" rights explicitly informed
the Bill of Rights but *not* the constitution (cf, the
Federalist Papers). Moreover, where privacy is concerned, the framers
did not believe that it was among those inalienable rights.
The 4th amendment, for example, implies that no such right
exists. The government can, without your permission, obtain
a warrant on its own say-so to search your property and confiscate your
possessions. If the framers were concerned about *your* right
to privacy, they would have established a due-process clause in
the 4th amendment.
By defining privacy as an "inalienable" right you're subscribing
to the same reasoning that caused the supreme court to uphold
slavery in Scott V Missouri. That is, your reasoning is based
on the concept that the constitution means "whatever you want it
to mean, or think it ought to mean".
Should you wish to be more illuminated on this subject, read Justice
Ginsburg's writings on Roe. She's pro-abortion, but her legal
reasoning is grounded in written-law, not Justice Blackmun's "Well,
there outta be one, anyway" kind of thinking.
>when most legal experts argue
>a right of self-defense, they frequently do so based
>on the notion of "inalienable" rights, namely those
>rights which are so "self-evident" they need not be
>enumerated in the constitution.
Sorry. I am not aware of any legal scholar who maintains
this position. No "right" to self-defense exists. Self-defense,
as a mitigating factor in criminal law, is defined by statute
and varies from state to state. Said another way, I am aware
of no federal or constitutional definition of "self-defense".
>it hardly needs them to justify the
>right to control the use of one's own body, which
>seems pretty fundamental to me.
First, the fetus is not part of the women's body. Period!
Putting that aside, for the moment, yours is a specious argument. Laws
are structured by society principally for two reasons: First, they
serve as precatory statements speaking to those behaviors that a society
would condemn. Second, laws are established to arbitrate between
competing interests. These interests come into conflict when we
exercise our freedoms.
With respect to the latter reason, laws are established to protect
society's members from its excesses and the excesses of others. To
this end, reasonable argument can be made that the laws of this nation
ought to protect the unborn from the whims of its mother in the same way
that these same laws protect the fetus post-partum.
I believe it to be the height of arrogance to argue that women, unlike
any other [arbitrary] class, should have an absolute right, especially
to the extent that has been argued by many in this note, and by
feminists in general.
If not the government, then who do you propose should step in to protect
the rights of, say, a female fetus at 7 months about to undergo a
partial-birth abortion? Just when, in your view of the right to
self-determination, does this right accrue to the female fetus? At
birth? At 7 months? After the first trimester?
/mtp
|
| 20.2663 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 25 1995 03:50 | 118 |
| <<< Note 20.2658 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> There you go again, trying to rewrite history. The record clearly
> shows ...
Steve Leech explained it correctly. I also explained it again
at the bottom of .2644.
It there is any history rewriting here, you hold the pen, Doug.
> You must be saying I perform abortions.
You are the only one saying this. It is your choice to wear that
mantle.
> conclude that you've been tripped up by your less-than-stellar debating
> skills,
Interesting to hear this coming from you, who just a few of
your replies ago tried to take me to task for diversions and
smoke screens.
Is this what's so important to you?
Is this your way of dealing with the question about whether
you think partial birth abortions are a brutal procedure?
And if you claim to have never seen the question before,
then I ask it to you directly now.
> Now, caught out, you admit the statement I labeled as
> propaganda actually was
More diversions, and out of context. I asked two questions related
to my statement saying "so what if it is propoganda". Here, let me
repeat them for you:
.2644> Is propaganda necessarily
> wrong? And even if it *IS* wrong this time, does it change
> the fact that the partial-birth abortions are savage and evil?
What is important to you here? Can you answer the questions?
> Too bad you don't have the grace to
> apologize for what you actually said.
Apologize for what?
> > If believing that a repeat of the situation is not acceptable, then
> > yes, I find fault with their choices.
>
> That isn't what it sounded like last time you lambasted them
And I asked you before, where did I lambaste them?
> it
> sounded like you wanted them to avoid "immoral" behavior (as you
> called it.)
Your filters are showing.
> You said the society doesn't know right from wrong
> anymore. Clearly, it does. We just don't agree with you
Who is this "we"? I've let that slip several times before,
but I really have to ask you about that. Is it some "we"
here in the notesfile? Or is it "we" as if you think you
are somehow representative of society's viewpoint with your
fading feminist ideology?
If it is the latter, let me tell you that you are about
the only person here who has not been able to agree that
partial-birth abortions are savage. Remember, THAT is
what we (you and I) are discussing here. As much as you
try to change the focus to my debating style, or my own
extremism, or my use of propoganda, or whatever other straw
you choose to grasp, we (you and I) are discussing the
evils of partial-birth abortions -- that evil which you
choose to support here, alone and shamelessly. You
don't even have the decency to admit that it is a horrible
procedure.
> This is so, so classic. Joe and the other chicken littles simply don't
> understand enough about the human condition to recognize that it has
> e're been thus. This same lament could be said about any era of human
> society.
Has the human condition always been able to find no fault
in such a sinister event as a partial-birth abortion? Has
it always been so callous as to be able to legitimize through
mental alchemy the ability to turn such a leadened practice
into gold?
Maybe YOUR human condition has. Mine hasn't. You can't
toss aside the brutal reality of this with a flip insult
and attribute this to chicken littles. Look at the evil
you are defending here! Take a hard look at yourself in
the mirror and make sure that this is the thing on which
you really want to make your stand -- by which your argument
is to be defined.
> Romans lamented in print about abortion 2000 years ago and
> more, Joe- evidence that then as now, some people didn't approve of the
> choices of others.
... which shows that there was human decency in the human condition
back then. That you want to eliminate the lament today says far
too much.
> The tyrants of history often had a vision of a morality they
> would impose on the evil and wicked peoples they conquered.
More than just tyrants, though. And many times that morality
was for the better. Of course, your view of "better" differs
greatly from mine -- as our difference over partial-birth
abortions demonstrates. In fact, it's rather telling, what
side we both choose to stand where we differ. You justify
your position with insults and extremes. It takes that kind
of thing to be able to live with oneself, I suppose.
|
| 20.2664 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Perdition | Tue Jul 25 1995 03:52 | 6 |
|
Partial-birth abortions. Why does that make me think of cop-killer
bullets?
|
| 20.2665 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 25 1995 04:00 | 1 |
| Perhaps because you don't know how those abortions are done...
|
| 20.2666 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jul 25 1995 05:14 | 29 |
| I go off on vacation, and when I come back, what do I find?
A eugenic call to kill babies because they might have
Down Syndrome justified only by "does the world need
more."
Does the world need more heartless people?
Or blind people or deaf people (some of whom may be DEC employees
reading the box).
Ask them if they shouldn't have been born!
And what else did I see?
A justification for smothering a "deformed" baby to death.
I have a friend to whom this almost happened. The nurse who was told
to do this cared for the baby instead. Today he walks with difficulty
but without mechanical assistance, drives a car, teaches, and writes
columns for the Providence Journal.
Yet today it might be more likely that a nurse would not
be quite so committed to healing, and would have killed
instead.
Aaaiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Weep for our society.
/john
|
| 20.2667 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Hi-ho! Yow! I'm surfing Arpanet! | Tue Jul 25 1995 05:27 | 5 |
| You forgot to claim snarferoonie rights on .2666, Covertski. A most
lamentable lapse. I weep for the Republic, I do.
Back to the Crocodile Tear department.
|
| 20.2668 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Jul 25 1995 16:47 | 71 |
| >> Now, caught out, you admit the statement I labeled as
>> propaganda actually was
>
> More diversions, and out of context.
Out of the context you'd prefer. My context was to identify propaganda
as what it was, and not allow you to obscure the source or get away
with it as though it were factual.
>> You said the society doesn't know right from wrong
>> anymore. Clearly, it does. We just don't agree with you
>
> Who is this "we"? I've let that slip several times before,
> but I really have to ask you about that. Is it some "we"
> here in the notesfile? Or is it "we" as if you think you
> are somehow representative of society's viewpoint with your
> fading feminist ideology?
We meaning the society that thinks abortion should remain legal,
currently around 75% of the US population. Society. We. We who
don't agree with you that the couple Brian described did anything
wrong.
> If it is the latter, let me tell you that you are about
> the only person here who has not been able to agree that
> partial-birth abortions are savage. Remember, THAT is what
> we (you and I) are discussing here.
You switched context here- the propaganda thread was the one about the
misnamed late-term abortion issue- the societal right/wrong thread was
in regard to the watershed Brian achieved when he recognized that his
best advice to his friends was to get an abortion. Thats why we
discussed whether a "repeat of the circumstances" would be ok,
remember. Do try to keep up.
> Maybe YOUR human condition has. Mine hasn't.
You belong to some other species, perhaps? That would explain a lot.
Joe, the phrase is certainly not original to me, and has a generally
accepted meaning that contextually applies to all humans of all eras.
What is it that we share? What makes us human? What is common? And
the part you simply haven't grasped is that some moralists have always
been around to lament about their fellows lack of adherence to the same
so-called moral vision; have always been ready to condemn others who
looked at the world differently. And when in power, they've often used
this moral vision as a tool of selection and justified persecuting
those who didn't share it. Its part of the human condition, and you
can't simply opt out of that sad fact by claiming it doesn't apply to
YOU. I can tell you don't RECOGNIZE it; but that is usually the case
with such moral crusaders, and that you don't want to recognize it is
only to be expected. Doesn't change the fact.
> ... which shows that there was human decency in the human condition
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> back then. That you want to eliminate the lament today says far too
> much.
Ah, you do recognize the phrase, I see.
I don't want to eliminate your lament, Joe. You whiners will be around
as long as the First Amendment is, and I'll even defend your right to
whine. No, my concern is simply to make sure you and your ilk don't
get to set policy. Moralists tend to run roughshod over those who
disagree with them, and our Constitution is a better standard for our
society to live by.
And since that means leaving physicians free to use what rare
procedures they feel are indicated, then yes, I'll continue to defend
them against the likes of you.
DougO
|
| 20.2669 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Tue Jul 25 1995 18:02 | 48 |
| <<< Note 20.2662 by DECWET::MPETERSON "Max Overhead" >>>
-< Specious Argument >-
> First, the fetus is not part of the women's body. Period!
It's not? The pit isn't part of the peach, I suppose. The fetus has no
life independent of the womb - at least before viability. Putting that
aside for the moment (to borrow a phrase)...
> With respect to the latter reason, laws are established to protect
> society's members from its excesses and the excesses of others. To
^^
Whats excesses? The law's? Society's? Ones self's? Just curious...
> this end, reasonable argument can be made that the laws of this nation
> ought to protect the unborn from the whims of its mother in the same way
> that these same laws protect the fetus post-partum.
But laws can't do that, can they? Because there are no constitutionally
guaranteed rights in any way, shape, or form, except to those who have been
born. Because it is at that instant "life" becomes "citizen." There's a
good reason for making that the defining moment. Because it's the *only*
moment that is pure and in which laws can incontestibly protect one
citizen's rights without *violating* (not just compromising, as many laws
rightly do) another's.
> I believe it to be the height of arrogance to argue that women, unlike
> any other [arbitrary] class, should have an absolute right, especially
> to the extent that has been argued by many in this note, and by
> feminists in general.
I believe it to be the height of rhetorical dishonesty to argue against a
position that nobody has taken in hopes of undermining their real position.
No one is claiming rights for women except those that every other class
already enjoys.
> If not the government, then who do you propose should step in to protect
> the rights of, say, a female fetus at 7 months about to undergo a
> partial-birth abortion? Just when, in your view of the right to
> self-determination, does this right accrue to the female fetus? At
> birth? At 7 months? After the first trimester?
Stick with your first guess. PBA is a red herring, as has been explained in
this string, I believe. I'm surprised you resorted to this nonsense to make
your case, given your cock-suredness about the legal and philosophical
basis for your position.
Tom
|
| 20.2670 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 25 1995 18:29 | 47 |
| <<< Note 20.2668 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> My context was to identify propaganda
> as what it was,
And to sidestep the spotlight of your support for this
brutal practice.
> and not allow you to obscure the source or get away
> with it as though it were factual.
You have done nothing of the sort. All you've done is get
me to concede that it may be propaganda. I have asked you
twice, and you have failed to answer both times, whether it
is necessarily wrong simply because it is propaganda.
And you have again sidestepped the question about whether
such propaganda diminishes the brutality of the procedure.
> We meaning the society that thinks abortion should remain legal,
> currently around 75% of the US population. Society. We. We who
> don't agree with you that the couple Brian described did anything
> wrong.
I'll bet that your "we" does NOT stand with you in support of
partial-birth abortions.
Your 75% is a skewed number. Yes, a majority are concerned about
problem cases and want to see abortion remain legal for such
things, but likewise a majority are opposed to abortion for
matters of birth control and reasons such as those you listed
in .2581. Your "we" behind whose skirts you try to hide are
not with you Doug. You can claim allegiance with them, but
in reality you stand practically alone.
> You belong to some other species, perhaps?
I wonder what it takes to allow members of this species find
merit in partial-birth abortions, and to not have the guts to
at least admit that it is a hideous procedure...
> No, my concern is simply to make sure you and your ilk don't
> get to set policy.
Ah, then prepare to whine yourself, Doug, for the pendulum
is swinging against you! It makes me wonder what kind of
payback you'll be rooting for on this issue...
|
| 20.2671 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 25 1995 18:33 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.2669 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>
>> First, the fetus is not part of the women's body. Period!
>
>It's not? The pit isn't part of the peach, I suppose.
The pit and the peach share the same genetic material.
The baby and the mother do not.
>The fetus has no
>life independent of the womb - at least before viability.
Not true. It certainly *is* ALIVE. Most pro-choicers will
accept this. The point of contention is whether the fetus
is a human being at the time of abortion.
|
| 20.2672 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Tue Jul 25 1995 18:41 | 14 |
| .2671
Comparing the peach/pit to the woman/fetus is an apples-to-oranges
comparison. A better comparison is tree/peach to woman/fetus - in
fact, this is absolutely the correct comparison, because the peach and
the fetus are both the result of sexual fertilization and have the
biological purpose of ensuring the survival of the parent's genes.
However, this begs the question. The assertion that the fetus has no
life independent of the womb is valid, as you ought to know, Joe.
Before it is "viable," removal of the fetus from the woman's womb - by
*any* method - will cause its death. Similarly, removal of the peach
from the tree before it is "viable" will cause the peach's death (by
which is meant the death of the embryo within the pit).
|
| 20.2673 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 25 1995 18:44 | 2 |
| Agree on all points, Dick. And I didn't make the comparison.
I was just replying to someone else who did.
|
| 20.2674 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Tue Jul 25 1995 18:49 | 3 |
| But you argued the point re peach and fetus, Joe. I wished merely to
correct the general misapprehension with regard to the validity of the
comparison - and you happened to get in the way.
|
| 20.2675 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:03 | 9 |
|
re: .2672
>A better comparison is tree/peach
Dick,
So, is the peach then considered a "parasite"??
|
| 20.2676 | | SMURF::BINDER | | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:17 | 2 |
| Well, Andy, there's no organization mobilized to protect peaches from
abortion.
|
| 20.2677 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:18 | 6 |
| > Well, Andy, there's no organization mobilized to protect peaches from
> abortion.
depends on who peaches is...
-b
|
| 20.2678 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:19 | 3 |
| Peaches of Peaches and Herb?
And what about PETF (People for the Ethical Treatment of Fruit)?
|
| 20.2679 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Careful! That sponge has corners! | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:22 | 4 |
|
Vegetarians are cruel. At least animals can run. Can you imagine
being lettuce, just waiting there to be killed?
|
| 20.2680 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:23 | 4 |
|
lettuce entertain you...
-b
|
| 20.2681 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:24 | 3 |
|
lettuce has been known to bolt.
|
| 20.2682 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:26 | 3 |
| The worst are the vegetable gardeners. When you buy a vegetable in a store,
the whole thing's dead. Gardeners rip a few leaves off a lettuce or pick a
tomato, and eat it while it's still screaming in agony.
|
| 20.2684 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:36 | 36 |
| >> My context was to identify propaganda
>> as what it was,
>
> And to sidestep the spotlight of your support for this
> brutal practice.
nonsense. You entered some talk-radio gabble as though it deserved
answer. My challenge to it was vindicated when you admitted it was
propaganda. And I forthrightly remain in support of leaving the
attending physician free to determine the best course of treatment in
the extremely rare cases of late term abortions. Shine your feeble
spotlight directly at it, Joe- I feel no heat for my stand.
> I have asked you twice, and you have failed to answer both times,
> whether it is necessarily wrong simply because it is propaganda.
Is it wrong in what sense? Is the information incorrect (you can count
on it - fetal tissue research needs won't be served by 400 procedures a
year). Is the entering of propaganda in soapbox 'wrong'? Well, if you
were to pretend it were factual, as you seemed to be doing with your
outraged defense of it when challenged, that would be wrong, in an
ethical sense- you have little cause to believe it true, and less cause
to defend it as if it were true. So, yes, I'd say its wrong. Your
mileage undoubtedly varies- talk-radio is almost as legitimate as the
bible there in Colorado Springs, right? no doubt as accurate as your
newspaper.
>> You belong to some other species, perhaps?
>
> I wonder what it takes to allow members of this species find
You're mixing the threads of the late-term abortion propaganda
discussion versus the societal right/wrongs of Brian's experience
again. How many more times will you do that?
DougO
|
| 20.2685 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:37 | 4 |
| OK, they're not dead. They're only sleeping.
In either "Erewhon" or "Erewhon Revisited" there's a group that only eats
vegetables that have died a natural death.
|
| 20.2687 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jul 25 1995 20:16 | 22 |
| re: .2643, Steve
> My examples of murder and theft are also "choices", though I'm sure you
> agree that such "choices" should indeed be regulated by law. Same with
> other "choices" that infringe on another.
> Abortion is the ultimate infringement on another.
Am I to understand that as "the ultimate infringement", abortion is more
improper than murder?
re: .2645, Joe
> But ad all those "nor"s together, and you get society as a
> whole
No, sir, you do not. All of those "nors" do not by any stretch of the
imagination make up society as a whole. I and many others like me do
not exist as members of those sets. I do not share your beliefs, I belong
to no church, and I am not a legislator. And, I do not presume to be able
to judge the circumstances for individual cases. The fact that you presume
to erroneously represent "society as a whole" is part and parcel of this
entire problem.
|
| 20.2688 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Tue Jul 25 1995 20:25 | 12 |
| re: .2687
>Am I to understand that as "the ultimate infringement", abortion is
>more improper than murder?
Murder would go in the same category, IMO. I was not attempting to
compare the two in my note, however.
-steve
|
| 20.2689 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 25 1995 20:26 | 36 |
| <<< Note 20.2684 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> And I forthrightly remain in support of leaving the
> attending physician free to determine the best course of treatment in
> the extremely rare cases of late term abortions.
Ah, but is this the best course? .2477 and .2519 shows that it
probably is not. There *ARE* other alternatives, but you cling
to this one.
> Shine your feeble
> spotlight directly at it, Joe- I feel no heat for my stand.
He says with pride. Look at your bed partner, Doug. It's
amazing the evils you will stoop to defend for your cause.
Imagine, Doug, that partially-born baby fully exposed
except for the head. Were its head to be allowed to come
out, it would suddenly be considered a human being with
full constitutional protection. For want of a few inches
denied by the physician, this body is fair game for the
brutaility to befall it. Scissors puncture the tissues
just below the skull. Forceps are used to spread open the
wound. A tube is inserted, and the brain material is
sucked out as the body twitches. If the physician errs
and the body is allowed to slip out, this same body
becomes a human being. All this under the guise of "the
best course of treatment", you say. It takes a cold heart
not to feel the heat of this sinister event.
> fetal tissue research needs won't be served by 400 procedures a
> year).
And are you now you admitting that the brain tissue of these
abortions really *is* being harvested to partially satisfy
the needs of fetal tissue research?
|
| 20.2690 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 25 1995 20:39 | 23 |
| <<< Note 20.2687 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>No, sir, you do not. All of those "nors" do not by any stretch of the
>imagination make up society as a whole. I and many others like me do
>not exist as members of those sets. I do not share your beliefs, I belong
>to no church, and I am not a legislator. And, I do not presume to be able
>to judge the circumstances for individual cases. The fact that you presume
>to erroneously represent "society as a whole" is part and parcel of this
>entire problem.
I do not presume to represent society as a whole. Your list
of "nors" included different entities -- from the individual
to the government. (I took the word "you" to represent "the
individual".) All those individual voices *do* represent
society as a whole. And more than merely represent, they
*are* society.
Your voice and my voice are as valid and important as any other
voice.
No individual should presume to judge the individual cases.
That is why a process should be formed, just as there is a
process for other issues such as I mentioned earlier.
|
| 20.2691 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Jul 25 1995 21:02 | 33 |
| > Ah, but is this the best course?
Leaving the decision in the hands of someone trained for years and
certified by regulatory authorities to practise? Certainly smarter
than leaving it to the likes of you.
>> Shine your feeble
>> spotlight directly at it, Joe- I feel no heat for my stand.
>
> He says with pride. Look at your bed partner, Doug. It's
> amazing the evils you will stoop to defend for your cause.
Feeble. Physicians are charged with providing appropriate treatment.
They do. What's so evil about that?
> ...All this under the guise of "the best course of treatment", you
> say. It takes a cold heart not to feel the heat of this sinister
> event.
I know you're not a licensed medical professional, so I don't consider
you qualified to judge. Nor am I. If you'd care to challenge the
standards used by the AMA in granting this power to physicians, be my
guest. Meanwhile, you remain an unqualified busybody attempting to
intrude between a woman and her physician.
> And are you now you admitting that the brain tissue of these
> abortions really *is* being harvested to partially satisfy
> the needs of fetal tissue research?
Admitting? Its not something I'm claiming to know, so "admitting"
it wouldn't be honest. Go do some research, Joe (bring your sources.)
DougO
|
| 20.2692 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 25 1995 21:06 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.2691 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> Leaving the decision in the hands of someone trained for years and
> certified by regulatory authorities to practise?
Others equally trained for years say it is not necessary and
even dangerous. There are many medical procedures that are
outlawed but which physicians who were "trained for years"
would be doing absent legal prohibition.
|
| 20.2693 | The "Why" of the statistics, perhaps | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jul 25 1995 22:18 | 39 |
| re: .2670, Joe
> Your 75% is a skewed number. Yes, a majority are concerned about
> problem cases and want to see abortion remain legal for such
> things, but likewise a majority are opposed to abortion for
> matters of birth control and reasons such as those you listed
> in .2581.
I've always got a problem with the mishandling of these "statistics".
You know, the "majority opposed to abortion for matters of birth
control" aren't all of that mind because of a "pro-life" inclination.
You could count me among those who oppose abortion for birth control
matters. However my reasoning hasn't anything to do with the protection
of the unborn. Hell, I can't even be hypocritical enough to claim to
pretend to have all that much concern for all of the born, let alone unborn
fetuses who can't function ex-utero.
My concern over using abortion as a means of birth control, and the reason
I'm opposed to it moreso later term than earlier term is because it's generally
stupid. It's stupid to start the human body off on the pursuit of a biological
process knowing that your intent is to disrupt the process and prevent it from
reaching its natural conclusion. And it's stupid to decide after the fact,
once the process is started, to terminate it unnaturally. It's stupid because
it's abusive to your body. In the same way that smoking is abusive, and getting
hammered six nights a week is abusive, and having your body punctured for
decorative purposes is abusive, and having tatoos engraved upon your skin
is abusive, and gluttony is abusive, and, etc., etc., etc. Some of these
things are quite obviously a lot more abusive (and a lot more stupid) than
others. And all of these things need to be decided upon by the abusee.
But, we don't have laws against most of those things, We leave it up to people
to decide for themselves whether they choose to abuse themselves by doing
stupid things. I don't want to see laws instituted against any of those
stupid abusive activities, including abortion.
And the unborn, still, in my view, are immaterial. Always were. Always shall be.
Now, and forever. Amen.
|
| 20.2694 | | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Jul 25 1995 23:39 | 49 |
| In .2691 SX4GTO::OLSON writes:
=============================
Leaving the decision in the hands of someone trained for years and
certified by regulatory authorities to practise?
Since modern obstetrical practice does not prescribe partial birth
abortions as described in the motivating note, why are you still so
willing to allow an obstetrician to conduct such a procedure and not be
liable for criminal malpractice?
Suppose the offending fetus is the obstetrician's child and, to avoid
responsibility, he cons the mother into a PBA at 8.5 months using
a lot of frightening medical jargon. Do you contend that, because
this physician has had years of training and is licensed by the state,
that he is somehow immune from laws that would otherwise prohibit
this procedure?
Mr. Olson also writes:
======================
...Physicians are charged with providing appropriate treatment....What's so evil
about that?
Nothing whatsoever! But what we're talking about is an INAPPROPRIATE
treatment. Find me an obstetrician who will sanction a PBA in the
last trimester and I'll show you a physician who graduated from
Fred's school of medicine and screen door repair, or is serving time.
To this end, you should note that the rules governing medical practice
is informed by lots of non-medical issues. Moreover, most medical
licensing boards in most states contain non-physician members. Nothing
sancrosanct, nor especially mysterious, exists about medical knowledge
and I find it comforting that we have non-physicians participating in
the promulgation of medical practice policies. Someone has to watch
these foxes.
>I know you're not a licensed medical professional, so I don't consider
>you qualified to judge. Nor am I. If you'd care to challenge the
>standards used by the AMA in granting this power to physicians, be my
>guest.
He doesn't have to challenge them because the AMA is on his side, not
yours! You are the one whose assumptions fly in the face of accepted
medical practice. Late terms therapeutice PBAs as described earlier,
are not accepted medical practice.
/mtp
|
| 20.2695 | In response to SHRCTR::DAVIS in .2669 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Jul 25 1995 23:48 | 111 |
| >>this end, reasonable argument can be made that the laws of this nation ought
>>to protect the unborn from the whims of its mother in the same way that these
>>same laws protect the fetus post-partum.
tom>But laws can't do that, can they?
Sure they can, and they do! But that aside, recall that I have
characterized laws, in their essential character, as precatory. One of the
great and enduring value of law is that, quite apart from its enforcement,
the law expresses and codifies a society's moral and philosophical impulses
into statutory law. The fact that these laws are constantly changing means
that Boxers will be forever engaged.
As I've stated before, the constantly changing moral and philosophical
landscape leads me to look for a set of *norms* that do not change, or do
so very slowly and not arbitrarily. Since I am an athiest, I do not find
these principals in religion. I have, however, found them in science and
biology. It does seem that my religious friends and I are fellow
travelers, tho'.
tom>Because there are no constitutionally guaranteed rights in any way, shape,
tom>or form, except to those who have been born.
With due respect, I believe your view of the constitution and the law is
naive. At the risk of being overly pedantic, note that laws (whether
case-law, statutory, or constitutional) do not guarantee rights. They
limit them. In the case of the Bill of Rights, they proscribe the extent
to which the government may restrict your right to free speech, to own a
gun, or to discriminate against your neighbor.
Get it?
This means you have a right, under the constitution, to discriminate
against all people who, in your opinion, smell bad. However, the
constitution limits your right to discriminate on other criteria. For
example, you may not discriminate on the basis of any of the criteria
called out in the 14th amendment.
tom>Because it is at that instant "life" becomes "citizen." There's a good
tom>reason for making that the defining moment. Because it's the *only* moment
tom>that is pure and in which laws can incontestibly protect one citizen's
tom>rights without *violating* (not just compromising, as many laws rightly do)
tom>another's.
I can't respond to this as I am not sure what you mean by pure and
"incontestable". Perhaps you could clarify how I should interpret these
two terms?
tom>I believe it to be the height of rhetorical dishonesty to argue against a
tom>position that nobody has taken in hopes of undermining their real
tom>position.
Nah, it's done all the time, and is certainly not dishonest. In logic and
mathematics its called inductive reasoning and is used to disprove
theorems. One states the theorem then, if an exception can be found, the
theory is disproved (Note that arguments of this kind can not *prove* a
theorem). In litigation, tactics of this kind are widely used to discredit
witnesses.
tom>No one is claiming rights for women except those that every other class
tom>already enjoys.
What rights might those be?
>PBA is a red herring, as has been explained in this string, I believe.
While rare, I do not agree that PBA is a red-herring. Rather, I believe
that PBA motivates a sense of cognitive dissonance among pro-abortion
advocates. To this end, I am simply using PBA to show that a dilemma arises
to which pro-abortion advocates do not have an answer, at least one that is
acceptable to most readers of this thread specifically and the vast
majority of society in general.
>I'm surprised you resorted to this nonsense to make your case, given your
>cock-suredness about the legal and philosophical basis for your position.
Not much to respond to here. Clearly you seem agitated by the confidence
with which I assert these arguments. Again, I apologize for seeming
cock-sure or arrogant. However, I am very confident of the legal,
philosophical, and especially the scientific/medical basis for my
arguments. Having said this, I welcome being held to task. If the basis
for any of these arguments can be shown to be wrong (or worse, deliberately
disengenuous), I'll freely change my position as required.
*** Philosophy Alert ***
By your words, I take it that IYO, constitutional protections may only be
applied to the fetus post-partum. Prior to birth, even a few minutes prior
to birth, the mother's right to terminate the life of her child is, or
ought to be, constitutionally protected.
A compassionate society recognizes that dilemmas arise in which choices,
legitimately exercised, result in tragedy, no matter what choice is taken.
Liberals, for the most part, want to ignore these dilemmas with the
argument that they are so rare as to be uninformative (Witness the fact
that not a single Liberal has responded to the dilemma I posed in the
Mickey Mantle note).
As I've implied before, I believe issues, like PBA, call into account
fundamental assumptions about how we regard each other, and how we
structure our society. Recognizing that sh*t happens, about the best we
can do is to try *not* to be arbitrary in the way we apply society's
protections. To that end, I have yet to find a pro-abortion argument that
does not lead to an inconsistent and arbitrary application of society's
protections. PBA is one example of the tragic and unnecessary consequences
of liberal abortion policies.
Regards,
/mtp
|
| 20.2696 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jul 25 1995 23:50 | 7 |
| > Late terms therapeutice PBAs as described earlier,
> are not accepted medical practice.
Ah. Well then the practices _ARE_ proscribed by the obstetric profession,
no, Max? So, these procedures are already illegal? Then, how come we've
got this congressional look-see instead of incarceration of the butchers
forthwith?
|
| 20.2697 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Jul 26 1995 00:02 | 15 |
| >> Late terms therapeutice PBAs as described earlier,
>> are not accepted medical practice.
>
> Ah. Well then the practices _ARE_ proscribed by the obstetric
> profession, no, Max?
Assumes facts not in evidence. Max likes to make lots of
legal-sounding noise about what is and what isn't "accepted medical
practice" and "familiar to him", etc, but he provides precious few
references. I earlier referred to this as his "argument-from-authority"
stance. I don't have the resources to refute him, though, so I merely
point out that what he claims is so ain't necessarily so, and I don't
happen to believe him.
DougO
|
| 20.2698 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Jul 26 1995 00:03 | 6 |
| Jack --
"not accepted medical practice" is not the same as illegal.
Shock therapy to cure homosexuality used to be "accepted medical
practice", but it no longer is today. Still, it's not illegal.
|
| 20.2699 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Jul 26 1995 00:10 | 47 |
| > Leaving the decision in the hands of someone trained for years and
> certified by regulatory authorities to practise?
>
> Since modern obstetrical practice does not prescribe partial birth
> abortions as described in the motivating note, why are you still so
> willing to allow an obstetrician to conduct such a procedure and not be
> liable for criminal malpractice?
Who defines "modern obstetrical practice" references please. And,
criminal malpractice is not solely determined by standard practices,
it usually requires negligence or carelessness, in my understanding.
> ...Physicians are charged with providing appropriate
> treatment....What's so evil about that?
>
> Nothing whatsoever! But what we're talking about is an INAPPROPRIATE
> treatment. Find me an obstetrician who will sanction a PBA in the
> last trimester and I'll show you a physician who graduated from
> Fred's school of medicine and screen door repair, or is serving time.
You can add slander to your credential list. I'm not impressed.
Who says its inappropriate? Well, you, obviously, but you oppose all
abortions, not just late-term abortions, so your opinion is tainted by
bias. Lets have an objective reference that claims the procedure is
always inappropriate.
> To this end, you should note that the rules governing medical practice
> is informed by lots of non-medical issues. Moreover, most medical
> licensing boards in most states contain non-physician members. Nothing
> sancrosanct, nor especially mysterious, exists about medical knowledge
> and I find it comforting that we have non-physicians participating in
> the promulgation of medical practice policies. Someone has to watch
> these foxes.
Noted. But one should also note that these physicians have far more
knowledge about the issues of appropriate treatment than Joe or I do,
which was the basis for my claim.
> He doesn't have to challenge them because the AMA is on his side, not
> yours! You are the one whose assumptions fly in the face of accepted
> medical practice. Late terms therapeutice PBAs as described earlier,
> are not accepted medical practice.
So you say.
DougO
|
| 20.2700 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Jul 26 1995 01:00 | 16 |
| re: DougO, Joe, Max
So which is it?
A) PBA's are consistently illegal?
B) PBA's are consistently unethical?
C) PBA's are consistently ill-advised?
D) None of the above?
E) All of the above?
F) Other?
|
| 20.2701 | Here's my cut | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Jul 26 1995 16:59 | 57 |
| MOLAR::DELBALSO writes in .2700
===============================
A) PBA's are consistently illegal?
I do not believe that PBAs are illegal, per se. I am not aware
of any state that sanctions the "method" by which fetuses are aborted,
tho' it wouldn't surprise me to learn that some methods were prohibited.
The state in which I live, for example, has no laws against PBAs.
As Mr. Olson vigorously reminds us, states are loathe to get into
the business of telling physicians "how to practice".
B) PBA's are consistently unethical?
Well, this is the argument, isn't it. I believe that PBAs are
always and consistently unethical, except under the following two
circumstances:
1) The mother's life is endangered by the birth of a live fetus.
As I've said before, such conditions are not known to exist in
current medical practice.
2) The fetus is brain-dead or would otherwise not survive post-partum.
Many such conditions exist, the most common for PBA being hydro-
encephaly. However, At Mr. Olson's request, I am trying to obtain the
AMA's formal position on PBAs. At this time, I have only the opinion of
two physicians and my own understanding.
In the meantime, I invite boxers, including Mr. Olson, to call their
local medical society. Medical societies are usually organized
by county and are chapters of the AMA. All are listed in the phone
book, and many of them provide "hot-lines" for questions. The
representative of the society can probably refer you to someone
who might be willing to speak to this issue.
C) PBA's are consistently ill-advised?
Since the beginning of this thread I have discussed this matter with two
obgyn specialists, one retired (my father-in-law) and my wife's
physician. Their answers have been consistent. Both are unaware of any
medical condition in which the birth of a live baby would otherwise pose
a threat to the mother. As I've indicated before, conditions exist in
which the fetal noggin is pathologically large. But these conditions
are usually obvious early in the first trimester.
Medically speaking, the application of PBA to a 3rd trimester, otherwise
healthy fetus is not acceptable medical practice. Whether the practice
is legally, morally or ethically advised is arguable. However, I
suspect that an overwhelming majority of Boxers are horrified at the
thought of a late-term PBA performed on an otherwise healthy fetus.
D) None of the above?
E) All of the above?
F) Other?
|
| 20.2702 | re: .2699 by SX4GTO::OLSON | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Jul 26 1995 17:32 | 46 |
|
> Who defines "modern obstetrical practice" references please.
Any number of highly regarded Obstetrics and Gynecology texts
exist. I invite you to go to your local library (or better, a medical
school library, if one is near you) and browse the references.
NB: Therapeutic abortion techniques are covered in ObGyn surgical
texts and not usually in the medical or clinical texts. So, if
you don't find it, make sure you're reading a surgically-oriented
text.
> criminal malpractice is not solely determined by standard practices,
> it usually requires negligence or carelessness, in my understanding.
Your understanding is naive. What you're referring to is civil
malpractice. Criminal malpractice *can* be prosecuted when a physician,
under color of authority, persuades a patient to commit an illegal
act for medical reasons. The state of Michigan has been trying
for quite some time to prosecute Kevorkian under all kind of
statutes, criminal malpractice, for one.
With respect to abortion generally, I can imagine my daughter (a
prosecuting attorney here in Seattle) bringing charges against
a physician for criminal malpractice given the circumstances
hypothesized in one of my earlier notes (.2694).
>... you oppose all abortions, not just late-term abortions
Huh! Where did you get this idea? If I've led you to this conclusion,
I have not done so deliberately.
> ...[and therefore] your opinion is tainted by bias
Of course. But so what? Is this not the nature of polemics?
The fact that I'm biased should motivate you to verify my
assertions under the assumption that I might be arguing
disengenuously. Asking for proof is not at all unreasonable,
but I don't understand why bias is automatic grounds for dismissal.
It should be grounds for skepticism, surely, but not the sort of
off-hand dismissals that characterize much of the debate taking
place in the box.
/mtp
|
| 20.2703 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Wed Jul 26 1995 21:02 | 147 |
| RE: Note 20.2695 DECWET::MPETERSON "Max Overhead"
>>>this end, reasonable argument can be made that the laws of this nation ought
>>>to protect the unborn from the whims of its mother in the same way that these
>>>same laws protect the fetus post-partum.
>>tom>But laws can't do that, can they?
> Sure they can, and they do! But that aside, recall that I have
Than why are you so earnestly arguing what the law "ought" to do?
> characterized laws, in their essential character, as precatory. One of the
> great and enduring value of law is that, quite apart from its enforcement,
> the law expresses and codifies a society's moral and philosophical impulses
> into statutory law. The fact that these laws are constantly changing means
> that Boxers will be forever engaged.
This is one for the archives! A conservative giving eloquent defense of
what fellow conservatives would, in the harshest of terms, accuse liberals of
doing: that is codifying the latest "moral and philosophical impulse"
(what's PC) into law. Of course, libs aren't the only ones with this
"impulse," just as we're not the only ones inclined toward PCism. But since
the right came up with the term, they've been able to limit its application
to liberal agendas. In fact, "right to life" is about as PC as you can get
on the far right. That doesn't excuse either offender.
> As I've stated before, the constantly changing moral and philosophical
> landscape leads me to look for a set of *norms* that do not change, or do
> so very slowly and not arbitrarily. Since I am an atheist, I do not find
So you decide that one of the latest societal impulses is now a "norm."
Because you say so? And I'm curious why you keep mentioning that you're an
atheist, as if that somehow makes your position more defensible. IMHO
atheism and fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin: both conceive of
a very narrow, dark, and uninteresting world; and both cling tenaciously
to their respective dogmas despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
;'>
> With due respect, I believe your view of the constitution and the law is
> naive. At the risk of being overly pedantic, note that laws (whether
> case-law, statutory, or constitutional) do not guarantee rights. They
> limit them. In the case of the Bill of Rights, they proscribe the extent
> to which the government may restrict your right to free speech, to own a
> gun, or to discriminate against your neighbor.
>
> Get it?
Duhhhh. Ummmm....no. But I do appreciate the respect, Max. Let me try to
respond in kind...
Nonsense.
The expressed purpose of the bill of rights is to *guarantee* the rights of
citizens by limiting the powers of government. The fact that lawmakers have
taken the absence of explicit articulation of certain rights as an opening
to create laws that restrict them does not mean that that is the purpose of
the BOR.
tom>Because it is at that instant "life" becomes "citizen." There's a good
tom>reason for making that the defining moment. Because it's the *only* moment
tom>that is pure and in which laws can incontestably protect one citizen's
tom>rights without *violating* (not just compromising, as many laws rightly do)
tom>another's.
Max>I can't respond to this as I am not sure what you mean by pure and
Max>"incontestable". Perhaps you could clarify how I should interpret these
Max>two terms?
I think you know what I mean, but you hope that I'll blunder into some
error in logic that you can seize to discredit my argument. I doesn't
matter if the clarification is wrong but the original premise is right,
you'll apply your brand of "inductive reasoning" to make your case.
Ok. I'm game.
Suppose you force an abortion upon a woman against her will? Are you
violating the fetus? The woman? Both? As long as the answer is "both" you
are swimming in muddy waters. The only time you violate one without the
other, is post partum. Conversely the only time you preserve a "right" of
the fetus (again, one not recognized in the constitution) without
destroying rights otherwise enjoyed by the woman.
tom>I believe it to be the height of rhetorical dishonesty to argue against a
tom>position that nobody has taken in hopes of undermining their real
tom>position.
Max>Nah, it's done all the time, and is certainly not dishonest. In logic and
Max>mathematics its called inductive reasoning and is used to disprove
Max>theorems. One states the theorem then, if an exception can be found, the
Max>theory is disproved (Note that arguments of this kind can not *prove* a
Max>theorem). In litigation, tactics of this kind are widely used to discredit
Max>witnesses.
Ok, lets call it deflection instead, if it makes it more palatable to you.
And you're at it again. Attempting to disprove a theorem by raising false
exceptions is a deflection at best...and arguably worse.
tom>No one is claiming rights for women except those that every other class
tom>already enjoys.
Max>What rights might those be?
This is a trap, right? I'll take the 9th. There are a host of rights not
explicitly covered by the constitution that are nonetheless protected, and
which we take for granted. Among them is our "right" to undergo any
medical procedure that we deem important to our health and well-being,
and that a doctor consents to do. It is an admittedly fuzzy take on simple
rights of self determination, but its lack of definition doesn't make it
any less important. It might even make it more important.
Society as a whole may frown on gender hopping, but can you conceive of
handing over to the state the authority to prohibit a sex-change operation?
Max>Not much to respond to here. Clearly you seem agitated by the confidence
Max>with which I assert these arguments. Again, I apologize for seeming
Max>cock-sure or arrogant. However, I am very confident of the legal,
Max>philosophical, and especially the scientific/medical basis for my
Max>arguments. Having said this, I welcome being held to task. If the basis
I suppose, if I were a woman, you would say I was being shrill. :-)
Actually, you don't have that powerful an effect on me. There's confident,
and there's cocky. One's a state of mind; one's a style. You are certainly
confident, which is all well and good. But IMHO the noting style of your
original entry is cocky, which is not only bound to be a little provocative
to those with opposing views, but is so by design. Not provocative in the
sense of stimulating thought and discussion but just the reverse, to disarm
your opponent by intruding rage on reason. It's a popular tactic
-particularly among talk radio types and some notable noters (on the left
and right). Your subsequent response was much more straightforward (in
style). Of course you can be confident, cocky, or both and still be very
wrong.
> By your words, I take it that IYO, constitutional protections may only be
> applied to the fetus post-partum. Prior to birth, even a few minutes prior
> to birth, the mother's right to terminate the life of her child is, or
> ought to be, constitutionally protected.
I'm afraid so. As hideous as the prospect can be, there is no other course.
We cannot chase one life into the bowels of another. There is a point at which
our jurisdiction ends, and we have to trust the mother and her doctor to
do what we would like them to do. Is that non-arbitrary enough for you?
Grimly yours,
Tom
|
| 20.2704 | Response to SHRCTR::DAVIS re: 2703 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Jul 27 1995 18:17 | 193 |
| Response to SHRCTR::DAVIS writes in .2703
>Than why are you so earnestly arguing what the law "ought" to do?
Because I'm dissatisfied with the current state of the law and would work
to change it.
>This is one for the archives! A conservative giving eloquent defense of what
>fellow conservatives would, in the harshest of terms, accuse liberals of
>doing: that is codifying the latest "moral and philosophical impulse" (what's
>PC) into law. Of course, libs aren't the only ones with this "impulse," just
>as we're not the only ones inclined toward PCism. But since the right came up
>with the term, they've been able to limit its application to liberal agendas.
I am quite sympathetic to your point and, for the most part, agree with you.
IMO, many of today's conservatives espouse a philosophy that differs from
Liberalism only in their favored agendas. For example, Conservatives in
congress want to get rid of NPR, yet are reluctant to do away with tobacco
and other farm subsidies. To my way of thinking, we should get rid of both!
Neither Dole nor Gramm agree with me, however. Sigh.
>In fact, "right to life" is about as PC as you can get on the far right. That
>doesn't excuse either offender.
I am not sure of the point you're making here. So, at the risk of being
unresponsive, I would only point out that my intention is to concentrate
strictly on two foundational issues raised by the kind of permissive abortion
policies that do not disapprove of Partial-Birth Abortions:
(1) Does a fetus have a "right-to-life"?
(2) If the answer to #1 is yes, then to what extent must (may?) the
state protect the fetus's right-to-life.
I am not interested in the broader application of the "right-to-life",
except where such application demonstrates inconsistency. For example,
it might be interesting to read what our pro- and anti-abortion collegues
might propose as a consistent application of the "right-to-life" and
"pro-choice" to the issues raised by assisted suicide and capital punishment.
But, that's for a later thread, perhaps.
>So you decide that one of the latest societal impulses is now a "norm."
Actually, I made no such decision. Virtually all cultures since recorded
history have instituted sanctions against abortion. The codes of Summeria
(2000 BC), Hammurabi (1500 BC), Assyria (1300 BC), and the Hittites (600
BC) established explicit laws outlawing abortion. Note carefully that
these are cross-cultural norms and were expressed in law well before the
"discovery" of Christianity and Islam - Two modern religions that also
disapprove of abortion. This argues strongly that abortion, as a
cultural/societal approved activity is very recent and still very
arguable.
>Because you say so? And I'm curious why you keep mentioning that you're an
>atheist, as if that somehow makes your position more defensible.
I've only mentioned it once in the hope that it would invite someone to ask,
"if not from some religious canon, then what foundational principal could
possibly inform and buttress an anti-abortion stance?"
Alas, it was not to be. The issue was evidently uninteresting, or was
too obliquely posed.
>IMHO atheism and fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin: both conceive
>of a very narrow, dark, and uninteresting world; and both cling tenaciously to
>their respective dogmas despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ;'>
Hmmm! Being an atheist doesn't mean one doesn't have beliefs. I believe
that science is the true path to enlightenment, not myth nor an
unquestioned belief in some deity. Science or more correctly, an
understanding of how knowledge is acquired, can be tremendously informative
with respect to "non-scientific" issues like ethics and morality.
>The expressed purpose of the bill of rights is to *guarantee* the rights of
>citizens by limiting the powers of government.
We may be closer to agreement with respect to this statement than you might
think (want?). My view, and the view shared by my daughter's
constitutional law professor, and expressed in the writings of the founding
fathers (the Federalist Papers), is that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is
NOT to define or instantiate a citizen's rights. Rather, as you correctly
argue, its purpose is to limit the power of government to infringe on a few,
purposefully enumerated set of rights.
Let me try to apply this view to Roe (I may have to take a couple of runs
at this to get it right). Roe (and its predecessor, Griswold) is arguably
bad law because judge-made law is a mechanism by which the state
can dictate the creation and limitations of a right -- In this case, a right
to privacy. Allowing government the freedom to "discover" and "limit" rights
is very, very dangerous and runs counter to the model used in the BOR. As I
said earlier, the BOR *assumes* that rights not explicitly defined by the
constitution and BOR, do not have to be enumerated because they already
exist.
The founding fathers insisted that elected representatives (local, state, and
federal) be the ones to "discover" and "limit" new rights. A superb book
exists on this topic, whose author I can not recall, but its title is "The
Consent Of The Governed". In this book, he outlines the dangers to a free
society when we permit the judicial and executive branches to decide what the
limits on our rights must be.
ASIDE: The fact that Roe is bad law does not necessarily mean abortion is
wrong. One of the more eloquent defenders of abortion rights, Justice
Ginsburg, is anti-Roe and would overturn it for exactly this reason.
Conservatives should be anti-Roe, not because it permits abortion, but
because it sets a precedent that would permit judges to create and limit
rights you and I take for granted.
>I think you know what I mean, but you hope that I'll blunder into some
>error in logic that you can seize to discredit my argument. I doesn't
>matter if the clarification is wrong but the original premise is right,
>you'll apply your brand of "inductive reasoning" to make your case.
I could impute a number of different meanings to what you meant by
a "pure" law and/or an "incontestable" one. I was just trying to
save myself some typing and to keep myself on track. Nothing more.
Max>What rights might those be?
>This is a trap, right?
I am truly not trying to be devious, only specific. Your response below is
fine and I have some thoughts on it.
>I'll take the 9th. There are a host of rights not explicitly covered by the
>constitution that are nonetheless protected, and which we take for granted.
>Among them is our "right" to undergo any medical procedure that we deem
>important to our health and well-being, and that a doctor consents to do.
Your use of "protected", in the above paragraph, does not conform with its
meaning as found in legal, civic, or historical writings. More correctly,
defined, a "protected" right is one that is enumerated by the BOR, the
Constitution, or one of its amendments. Thus, your right to own and bear
arms is explicitly "protected" by the 2nd amendmente. Your right to due
process is explicitly protected by the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments.
In otherwords, if not enumerated in the constitution, a right is not
protected and society is free to establish laws that regulate the exercise of
these rights. Your right to govern the rate of speed with which you travel
on public roads is NOT protected. Your right to have your children go to
the school of your choice is NOT protected.
In your example, your right to undergo any medical procedure of your
choosing so long as you can get a physician to go along is NOT protected.
You may wish it to be so, but our model of government just doesn't work
that way.
>It is an admittedly fuzzy take on simple rights of self determination, but
>its lack of definition doesn't make it any less important. It might even make
>it more important.
I do not argue that the right of self-determination exists. I sincerely
believe that it does. However, no matter how carefully you search and no
matter how many times you read the Constitution, the BOR, and its
amendments, you will not find it to be protected. Funny you should mention
this one, as the right to self-determination is a particularly
well-regulated one. For example, you may not take marijuana to relieve the
pain and nausea of cancer therapy. Congress may *force* you to fight wars
with which you disagree and/or find morally repugnant, etc., etc.
>Society as a whole may frown on gender hopping, but can you conceive of
>handing over to the state the authority to prohibit a sex-change operation?
Sure, tho' if it came to a vote (as should all such regulations dealing
with unprotected rights) I would vote against it. In otherwords, the state
already has the authority to prohibit sex-change operations. Most states
just don't bother because people see this as an issue affecting a single
individual and harming no one else.
>I suppose, if I were a woman, you would say I was being shrill. :-)
What? You're not a box babe? [:-)
>Actually, you don't have that powerful an effect on me.
Evidently.
mtp>By your words, I take it that IYO, constitutional protections may only
mtp>be applied to the fetus post-partum. Prior to birth, even a few minutes
mtp>prior to birth, the mother's right to terminate the life of her child is,
mtp>or ought to be, constitutionally protected.
tom>I'm afraid so. As hideous as the prospect can be, there is no other
tom>course. We cannot chase one life into the bowels of another. There is a
tom>point at which our jurisdiction ends, and we have to trust the mother and
tom>her doctor to do what we would like them to do. Is that non-arbitrary
tom>enough for you?
Why do we have to trust the mother? The Doctor? When, during the course
of exercising their rights, they impinge on the rights of others, notably
the fetus, why shouldn't we step in and regulate that activity?
/mtp
|
| 20.2705 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 27 1995 18:48 | 25 |
| .2704> (1) Does a fetus have a "right-to-life"?
.2704>
.2704> (2) If the answer to #1 is yes, then to what extent must (may?) the
.2704> state protect the fetus's right-to-life.
.2704> When, during the course
.2704> of exercising their rights, they impinge on the rights of others,
.2704> notably the fetus, why shouldn't we step in and regulate that activity?
You shouldn't step in if there isn't general agreement that the answer to your
question (1) above is "yes". Currently, in this country, by way of existing
law, and in the minds of millions of its citizens, the answer to your question
(1) is not "yes". Wishing to the contrary will not change that. Only changing
the way people think, or changing the law regardless of what they think,
will change that.
People are free to believe that the unborn have a right to life. And people
are free to believe in a supreme being and creator. And people are free
to believe in immortal souls and eternal damnation or paradise. And people
are free to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy,
as well, if they like. However, people are also free to believe the
contrary of any or all of these concepts.
Where we get into trouble is when we legislate how people should act, based
on things that they don't believe, but which happen to be believed by others.
|
| 20.2706 | Response to .2705 MOLAR::DELBALSO | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Jul 27 1995 20:38 | 19 |
| >Where we get into trouble is when we legislate how people should act, based
>on things that they don't believe, but which happen to be believed by others.
I'm uncertain what you mean by the word "trouble" in this context
and may be reading too much into your intent. With that in mind, I
would point out that all laws are controversial to a greater or lesser
extent. But that's no reason not to pass them. I should think that we
want to ensure that the greater the controversy, the more open and
vigorous the debate as to the wisdom of such laws.
Do you see the irony, here? Laws defining when and under what
conditions abortions are permitted have been largely made by
judicial fiat or executive order, not vigorous legislative debate.
IMO, that's where the trouble starts - When laws are dictated, not
legislated!
But, I am only guessing at what you meant. Did I miss something?
/mtp
|
| 20.2707 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Jul 27 1995 20:53 | 2 |
| <--- I've argued the judicial fiat bit before, but only caught flack
for it. Maybe you can do a better job of it. 8^)
|
| 20.2708 | Sorry - make that 'access to abortion', not 'right to abortion' | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 27 1995 21:03 | 26 |
| We would all be better off with less government and fewer laws.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what we have now, as a result of
Roe v. Wade, is the absence of laws. The rulings/opinions from SCOTUS
have specifically prevented states from enacting laws which restrict
the right to abortion. To the best of my knowledge, no "law has been
passed" to permit them. As you say, the legislatures have been constrained
from tossing this hot potato a whole lot.
The absence of laws which would restrict the freedoms of the citizenry
is a good thing. That's what the constitution is all about. Provided
we haven't a general, universal (or, as far as I know, even majority)
agreement that a right to life exists for the unborn, then the way things
are seems to be appropriate from both a legal and a logical sense.
If you believe that you can change the minds of millions of citizens
as to the right to life of the unborn, then by all means have at it.
When you succeed, I'm sure that such laws will be enabled, as the courts
will be of like mind. Until then, things are just fine, thanks.
There is abundant discussion, debate, and controvery on this matter,
the multitude of replies in this topic in each incantation of this
conference being only one indicator among thousands of others. This
[where the debate exists] is where the debate belongs until the
public becomes of one mind on the matter, not in the hands of elected
political hacks.
|
| 20.2709 | Response to MOLAR::DELBALSO (Note .2708) | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Jul 27 1995 22:16 | 73 |
| >We would all be better off with less government and fewer laws.
With respect to the U.S., the two are the same and is usually
expressed in civics textbooks with the phrase, "The U.S. is a
government of laws, not men".
>Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what we have now, as a result of
>Roe v. Wade, is the absence of laws.
You're not entirely wrong. However, most of the existing body of law
is case law, not statute. The few statute laws that do exist tend to
severely restrict access to abortion services. Before someone else does, let
me be the first to point out that in my state, Washington, the statutes are
designed to liberalize access to abortion and is a glaring exception to the
rule.
>The absence of laws which would restrict the freedoms of the citizenry
>is a good thing.
What do you mean here? Is it the "absence of laws" that is good,
or is it "laws which would restrict the freedoms of the citizenry"
that is good, IYO?
If you believe the former, then I don't see how this applies to abortion
and PBA (It might, I just don't see it). On the other hand, if you believe
the latter, then I would remind you that, by definition, laws restrict
activity, they do not command it. In otherwords, laws proscribe what we
can not do, not the other way around. At the end of the day, all law, good
or bad, restricts someone's freedom. Because laws *limit* someone's freedom,
we should insist that they be derived legislatively, allowing those whose
freedoms would be denied, the opportunity to contest their passage.
>If you believe that you can change the minds of millions of citizens
>as to the right to life of the unborn, then by all means have at it.
>When you succeed, I'm sure that such laws will be enabled, as the courts
>will be of like mind. Until then, things are just fine, thanks.
I argue that you are naive to believe that the courts will be of "like mind".
One of the fundamental principals of our system is that the courts oversee
the legislatures, their existence is not to rubber stamp what gets passed.
>... This [where the debate exists] is where the debate belongs until the
>public becomes of one mind on the matter, not in the hands of elected
>political hacks.
What? If not elected representatives [aka political hacks], then who
should make the laws? More specifically, who determines when the issue is
decided? Roper's? Times/Newsweek? Gallup? Clinton? Justice Thomas?
Who?
I guess I'm really at a loss to understand your line of argument. You seem
to be saying that the debate should be held in some venue other than a body
of elected officials beholding to a constituency. You seem quite content
to allow unelected judges, appointed for their political beliefs, discover
new rights, take existing ones awy, and otherwise impose their moral and
ethical judgements upon you.
Have I misinterpreted your points? Did you really mean to say this?
Socrates termed governance, for which you seem to be arguing, to be
"enlighted tyrannies" and argued that people who were governed by benevolent
dictators benefited so long as they conformed to the whims of their master.
What in the world would you do if the supreme court discovered that the
constitution protected a citizen's right to own human slaves (Scott v.
Missouri)?
/mtp
|
| 20.2710 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 27 1995 23:40 | 62 |
| >>The absence of laws which would restrict the freedoms of the citizenry
>>is a good thing.
> What do you mean here? Is it the "absence of laws" that is good,
> or is it "laws which would restrict the freedoms of the citizenry"
> that is good, IYO?
Very cute, Max, but feigned ignorance doesn't become you, though it does make
you appear more like Phil Hartman's "Caveman Lawyer". :^) The sentence was a
simple one. Laws both restrict and command activity. A law preventing
legal abortion would be an example of the former. Income tax laws are an
example of the latter. There are a multitude of other examples which I'm
sure you can recognize. Now, if your intent is to nitpick on what's a law,
and what's a statute, and what's a <fill_in_other_legal_term>, you'll
need to excuse me while I clip my toenails or something. Try to stick with
the meat of the discussion for a change instead of going for the subterfuge.
> I argue that you are naive to believe that the courts will be of "like mind".
Stuff and nonsense. Courts in general tend to display ambivalence and dissent
in areas which are controversial. In areas where the "good of society" is quite
clearly evident, courts quite clearly rule for the benefit of society. When,
and if, you are successful in convincing American society in general, or at
least a very clear majority, that the right to life exists for the unborn,
the courts will quite quickly move in accordance with the wishes of that
society. (Actually, if you care to posit the contrary view, you'll need to
describe for us the scenario under which the courts will continue to mandate
free access to abortion when society has no interest in it anyway. E.G., where
are the cases where the courts have mandated that murder shouldn't be
prosecuted? Or Rape?)
> What? If not elected representatives [aka political hacks], then who
> should make the laws? More specifically, who determines when the issue is
> decided? Roper's? Times/Newsweek? Gallup? Clinton? Justice Thomas?
I'm content to leave the debate to society until society can reach a concensus
as to what's needed in terms of legislation (which is what we now have, and,
guess what? The sun still comes up each morning.) You and many on the pro-life
side appear to want to force the issue into the hands of the hacks to decide.
You'll pardon me if I remain appreciative of the nature of our government in
allowing the SCOTUS to protect the rights of those who would have access to
abortion, rather than allowing that access to be squandered by what is NOT
clearly a majority of the mindset of the country, in the form of their
bought-and-paid-for legislators, won't you?
> You seem quite content
> to allow unelected judges, appointed for their political beliefs, discover
> new rights, take existing ones awy, and otherwise impose their moral and
> ethical judgements upon you.
No judge is imposing any moral or ethical judgement on any citizen as a result
of the current state of affairs. Quite to the contrary, they are allowing each
and every citizen to decide for themselves what they should do. (Perhaps you
missed it - we covered this quite a bit earlier in defining what "pro-choice"
means. :^) You see, you can't justify this matter without falling back on the
(currently) non-existant "Right to life of the unborn". Without the ability
to prove such a right exists (and society and law currently say it does not)
you arguments are extremely hollow, and it surprises me that you continue to
cling to them as such.
And, please, don't bring up that tired old worn-out (and never particularly
potent to begin with) slave owner analogy. That dog won't hunt around here
anymore. Ditto the Nazi thing.
|
| 20.2711 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 27 1995 23:43 | 11 |
| >>We would all be better off with less government and fewer laws.
> With respect to the U.S., the two are the same and is usually
> expressed in civics textbooks with the phrase, "The U.S. is a
> government of laws, not men".
Just as an aside, the last time I saw the federal budget, it sure seemed as
though it was costing us an awful lot every year just to have a bunch of laws.
:^)
- F. Gump
|
| 20.2712 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | It ain't easy, bein' sleezy! | Fri Jul 28 1995 02:39 | 5 |
|
Jack, you are not only lucky, you're brilliant !
Dan
|
| 20.2713 | | POBOX::BATTIS | GR8D8B8 | Wed Aug 09 1995 16:27 | 2 |
|
<---- great big hoovering noises.
|
| 20.2714 | Abortions In Canada - 1993 | TROOA::COLLINS | Careful! That sponge has corners! | Wed Aug 09 1995 16:43 | 227 |
|
From: US3RMC::"daily@statcan.ca" 12-JUL-1995 22:19:55.83
Subj: The Daily - July 12, 1995 (fwd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therapeutic abortions
1993
In 1993, the number of therapeutic abortions and the abortion rate per 100 live
births both increased, continuing the upward trend that has prevailed since
1989. Increases were reported in all provinces and territories except the
Northwest Territories.
Most therapeutic abortions continued to be performed in hospitals, although
the rise in the number and the rate between 1989 and 1992 was primarily because
of abortions performed in clinics. The increase during 1992-93 came primarily
from abortions in hospitals. As well, since 1982, the number of Canadian women
obtaining abortions in the United States has fallen sharply.
Young single women continued to account for most therapeutic hospital
abortions. Over the past decade, the proportion of abortions performed on women
who had at least one prior delivery and on those who had a prior induced
abortion has grown. A rising share of abortions are being performed on women
less than 13 weeks pregnant, which may account for a substantial decrease in the
percentage of abortion-related complications.
Abortions and rates increase
The number of therapeutic abortions performed on Canadian women totalled
104,403 in 1993. This was a 2.3% increase over 102,085 in 1992, identical to the
increase from 1990 to 1991, but less than one-third the 7.4% increase from 1991
to 1992.
The national rate (based on therapeutic abortions performed in hospitals and
clinics in Canada and legal abortions obtained by Canadian women in the United
States) was 26.9 abortions per 100 live births in 1993, up from 25.6 per 100 in
1992 and 23.6 per 100 in 1991.
Both the numbers and rates have increased annually from the 1985 low. The
total number of abortions that year was 69,216 (18.4 abortions per 100 live
births). From 1985 to 1993, the average annual increase was 6.3% for abortions
and 5.7% for the rate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table: Therapeutic abortions among Canadian women, by source of report
______________________________________________________________________________
Total Abortions reported from:
abortions
______________________________
hospitals clinics(1)
______________________________________________________________________________
1985 69,216 62,712 3,706
1988 72,693 66,137 4,617
1989 79,315 70,705 7,059
1990 92,901 71,092 20,236
1991 95,059 70,277 23,343
1992(2) 102,085 70,408 31,151
1993 104,403 72,434 31,508
______________________________________________________________________________
Abortions Abortion
reported rate per 100
from: live births
_____________
the United
States
______________________________________________________________________________
1985 2,798 18.4
1988 1,939 19.3
1989 1,551 20.2
1990 1,573 22.9
1991 1,439 23.6
1992(2) 526 25.6
1993 461 26.9
______________________________________________________________________________
(1) Before 1990, the data relate to Quebec. In 1990, in addition to Quebec,
five provinces (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba and British
Columbia) reported data on abortions performed in clinics. For 1991 to
1993, Alberta also reported similar data.
(2) Revised figures.
Clinic abortions-a major factor in the increase
The higher annual numbers and rates starting with 1989 are primarily
attributable to increases in the number of clinic abortions. After a January
1988 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the 1969 abortion law,
new clinics opened. By the end of 1991, clinics were operating in 7 of the 10
provinces, the exceptions being Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and
Saskatchewan. Quebec has reported data on clinic abortions since 1978. The
annual number of clinic abortions in Canada more than tripled from 7,059 in 1989
to 31,508 in 1993.
As a percentage of total abortions, those performed in clinics increased to
30.2% in 1993, from 24.6% in 1991 and 8.9% in 1989. During this period, the
annual number of hospital abortions remained relatively stable, whereas the
number of abortions on Canadian women reported from the United States decreased
to 461 in 1993, from 1,551 in 1989 and 2,798 in 1985.
The number of therapeutic abortions performed in Canadian hospitals increased
2.9% to 72,434 in 1993, from 70,408 in 1992. The 1993 rate of hospital abortions
was 18.7 per 100 live births, compared with 17.7 per 100 for 1992, 17.5 per 100
in 1990 and 1991, and 16.7 per 100 in 1985.
Higher provincial rates
Based on hospital abortions, all 10 provinces recorded higher abortion rates
in 1993 than in 1992. Rates increased by less than the national average (+5.7%)
in New Brunswick (+1.4%), Manitoba (+1.9%), Ontario (+2.5%), British Columbia
(+2.6%) and Nova Scotia (+5.1%). Increases were above the national average in
Alberta (+7.5%), Saskatchewan (+8.8%), Newfoundland (+15.6%) and Prince Edward
Island (+28.6%). The abortion rate increased in the Yukon (+4.4%) and decreased
in Northwest Territories (-15.5%).
Among the provinces in 1993, as in the past, the highest abortion rate per
100 live births was in British Columbia (23.5), followed by Ontario (20.6),
Quebec (18.3), Nova Scotia (16.4), Manitoba and Alberta (15.8 each); rates in
the other four provinces were less than 15. Because a small number of abortions
are reported for the Yukon (165), the Northwest Territories (278) and Prince
Edward Island (16), year-to-year changes in the data are unstable, and
provincial comparisons of numbers and rates should be made cautiously.
Women having hospital abortions tend to be young and single
The women who had therapeutic abortions in hospitals in Canada (except
British Columbia) in 1993 tended to be young. However, over the 1983-to-1993
period, the proportion of therapeutic abortions performed in hospitals decreased
among women under 20 (from 25.5% to 19.7%) and among those aged 20 to 29 (from
53.5% to 52.3%). Over the same period, the proportion increased for those aged
30 to 39 (from 19% to 25.2%). Women aged 40 and over accounted for a relatively
stable share of abortions (2.7%). This may be partly attributed to the shift in
female population from younger to older age groups. Or it might indicate that
younger women are becoming more likely to have abortions in clinics, from which
complete data on age are not available.
Among women who had hospital abortions in 1993, 63.7% were single, 22.4% were
married and 11% were separated, divorced, widowed or living common law. Between
1983 and 1993, the proportion of married women declined from 27.7% to 22.4%; a
slightly larger share of women obtaining abortions were living common law (4%
versus 2%). In 1993, marital status was unspecified in 2.9% of cases.
In 1993, at the time of the abortion, 50.4% of women reported no prior
deliveries, down from 60% in 1983. By contrast, 45.3% reported at least one
prior delivery, up from 37.5% in 1983. Similarly, about 28% of the women had had
at least one induced abortion before the abortion in 1993, up from 17.6% in
1983. For 4.3% of cases in 1993 and 2.5% in 1983, the number of prior deliveries
was not reported. For prior induced abortions, the proportion of unspecified
cases increased to 5.5% of abortions in 1993, from 2.8% in 1983.
A growing proportion of abortions are performed in the early stages of
pregnancy. The share of abortions performed on women pregnant less than 13 weeks
rose to 91.7% in 1993 from 87.6% in 1983. This may be one reason for the
decrease in abortion-related complications, from 2.1% of total abortion cases
in 1983 to 1.3% in 1993.
Complete data on the demographic and medical characteristics of the woman
were available for 75.2% (54,444 cases) of hospital abortions, or 52.1% of all
the abortions performed on Canadian women in 1993. British Columbia did not
report data on gestation period, previous deliveries, previous abortions, and
abortion complications for individual therapeutic abortions done in 1993.
To obtain tabulations of the 1993 data on abortions, contact the Information
Requests Unit (613-951-1643), Health Statistics Division.
For further information on the release, contact Surinder Wadhera
(613-951-3415), Health Statistics Division.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table: Therapeutic abortions performed in hospitals and rates, by province or
territory of residence
______________________________________________________________________________
1981 1992 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
number
Canada(1) 65,053 70,408 72,434
Newfoundland 470 465 477
Prince Edward Island 27 13 16
Nova Scotia 1,689 1,851 1,899
New Brunswick 444 671 657
Quebec 9,042 15,986 16,914
Ontario 30,463 30,227 30,518
Manitoba 1,610 2,564 2,635
Saskatchewan 1,627 1,434 1,621
Alberta 6,757 6,165 6,379
British Columbia 12,619 10,558 10,813
Yukon 123 150 165
Northwest Territories 179 320 278
______________________________________________________________________________
1981 1992 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
rate per 100 live births
Canada(1) 17.5 17.7 18.7
Newfoundland 4.6 6.7 7.4
Prince Edward Island 1.4 0.7 0.9
Nova Scotia 14.0 15.6 16.4
New Brunswick 4.2 7.2 7.3
Quebec 9.5 16.6 18.3
Ontario 24.9 20.1 20.6
Manitoba 10.0 15.5 15.8
Saskatchewan 9.5 9.6 11.4
Alberta 15.8 14.7 15.8
British Columbia 30.4 22.9 23.5
Yukon 22.9 28.4 32.5
Northwest Territories 13.7 20.6 17.8
______________________________________________________________________________
(1) Includes cases where area of residence was not reported.
Statistics Canada Tel: (613) 951-7277
Marketing Division Fax: (613) 951-1584
Sales and Service Toll-Free: 1-800-267-6677
120 Parkdale Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario E-Mail: order@statcan.ca
Canada K1A 0T6
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail1.digital.com by us3rmc.pa.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id
AA20111; Wed, 12 Jul 95 14:27:32 -070
% Received: from talon3.statcan.ca by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for
V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA27962; Wed, 12 Jul 1995 07:00:27 -070
% Received: from (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by talon3.statcan.ca (8.6.11/8.6.9)
% Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 09:54:25 -0400
% Message-Id: <9507121341.AA06812@statcan.ca>
% Errors-To: godfrey@stcgate.statcan.ca
% Reply-To: daily@statcan.ca
% Originator: daily
% Sender: daily@statcan.ca
% Precedence: bulk
% From: godfrey@stcinet.statcan.ca (Jackie Godfrey)
% Subject: The Daily - July 12, 1995 (fwd)
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: Statistics Canada's Mailing List for The Daily
|
| 20.2715 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 09 1995 17:54 | 3 |
| "Therapeutic" -- what a _lie_
/john
|
| 20.2716 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the heat is on | Wed Aug 09 1995 18:04 | 1 |
| What the hell IS a "therapeutic abortion?"
|
| 20.2717 | Not very healing at all for either of the two victims | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 09 1995 18:09 | 5 |
| Apparently in Canada any induced abortion is called "therapeutic".
What carp.
/john
|
| 20.2718 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Aug 11 1995 02:48 | 10 |
|
"Jane Roe", who's real name escapes me, has become a Christian and resigned
her job with an abortion clinic. Ms Roe was the "Roe" in the infamous
Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision.
Jim
|
| 20.2719 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Firsthand Bla Bla Bla | Fri Aug 11 1995 02:50 | 1 |
| And?
|
| 20.2720 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Boingfests | Fri Aug 11 1995 02:54 | 4 |
|
I think her name was Norma McCovey, or something similar.
|
| 20.2721 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Aug 11 1995 03:30 | 105 |
| 'Jane Roe' has change of heart, but still supports some abortion rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Fort Worth Star-Telegram
DALLAS (Aug 10, 1995 - 22:42 EDT) -- Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of the
1973 landmark Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion, said on Thursday
that she has quit her abortion clinic job and has joined forces with
Operation Rescue.
But she said she still supports a woman's right to an abortion in the first
trimester.
In a move that stunned many, the best known symbol of the abortion rights
movement said she has become a born-again Christian after her baptism
Tuesday by the anti-abortion group's president Flip Benham in a suburban
backyard pool.
"I am watching out for Norma now; I'm not watching out for other women,"
McCorvey said, explaining that she is tired of the notoriety. She will
perform clerical duties for Operation Rescue but will not become a movement
spokeswoman, she said. "I don't have that burden anymore."
McCorvey, 48, said her conversion occurred over several months. "It was a
gradual change. It wasn't something where I just woke up one day and said I
am not going to be 'Jane Roe' any more."
Her videotaped baptism was aired on ABC-TV's "Prime Time" news program
Thursday night, followed by numerous local interviews and an appearance by
McCorvey on ABC's "Nightline". The coverage represented a coup for Benham's
movement.
But it wasn't a total victory.
McCorvey, while now considering herself "pro-life," said she still supports
a women's right to an abortion through the 11th week of pregnancy.
"It's not a contradiction," she said in an interview. "I feel like a woman
has a right to choose. It's her decision in the first trimester. After the
first trimester it gets sticky."
Asked whether she thought abortion should be outlawed, she said, "I think it
should be illegal after (a woman's) second abortion."
Benham said he understands McCorvey's stand, but thinks it will change,
explaining: "I owned a saloon for the first six months after I accepted
Christ. It's not an immediate thing."
McCorvey said she is rededicating her life to Jesus Christ but will continue
to live with her lesbian lover of 23 years. Benham has described homosexual
relationships as a sinful, "un-Christian lifestyle."
Sarah Weddington, McCorvey's attorney in the landmark Roe case, downplayed
the impact of her former client's change of heart.
"My first reaction was, 'My God, we don't need this,' " Weddington said,
then added: "I think the opposition will try to use it to hurt the (abortion
rights) movement, but I don't think it will. I think it's one little hill
we'll have to get over."
After Benham relocated Operation Rescue's national office next door to A
Choice for Women, an abortion clinic that employed McCorvey as marketing
director, he prayed publicly for McCorvey and struck up a friendship with
her.
"Lord, thank you for changing Norma McCorvey's heart," Benham prayed out
loud three months ago. "Norma will never tell anyone, but we see it."
Soon, McCorvey was on a first-name basis with Operation Rescue staff
members, even helping a daughter of Benham's secretary, Rhonda Wright, with
her homework.
Benham quickly learned that McCorvey felt "used" by the abortion rights
movement, he told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram then.
"She doesn't want to be known just for Roe vs. Wade but for herself," Benham
said in May. "She thought it was her worst nightmare... Norma is a lot
closer to the Kingdom of God that one would suspect. She is honestly
searching."
McCorvey said that she began attending Hillcrest Bible Church in North
Dallas with Wright and felt so moved at a July 23 service that she walked up
to the altar to be saved.
McCorvey's conversion did not surprise everybody.
"It's been coming for several months," said Mark Crutcher, director of Life
Dynamics, a Denton group that assists medical malpractice attorneys who sue
on behalf of women injured during abortions. "When we first knew Norma was
having doubts about her position, at that moment it became a matter of time,
because you can't do what they do if you have doubts."
And a former supporter, Dallas lawyer Linda Coffee, said she, too, could
understand the change.
"She is a person who has a great need for attention and obviously Flip
Benham has filled that need in her life," said Coffee, co-counsel on the Roe
case.
Some abortion rights leaders downplayed McCorvey's involvement in the
abortion rights movement on Thursday, leading Crutcher to say: "Until today,
you cannot find one example of anybody on that side saying, 'Well, Norma
McCorvey is just a bit player."
|
| 20.2722 | Wade would hang your grandma for a parking violation. | SCAS01::GUINEO::MOORE | Outta my way. IT'S ME ! | Fri Aug 11 1995 04:32 | 6 |
| Henry Wade is already dead.
Jane Roe is now alive.
You Yanks can argue the point. This happened here in Dallas, not
Soapbox land. I resign from any other arguments on this one.
|
| 20.2723 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Aug 11 1995 10:30 | 14 |
|
| "I am watching out for Norma now; I'm not watching out for other women,"
| McCorvey said, explaining that she is tired of the notoriety.
This is very sad for someone who just became a born-again Christian. I
had thought they were supposed to be looking out for others, not putting
themselves first. Hmmm.... have the rules changed?
Glen
|
| 20.2724 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Aug 11 1995 11:43 | 5 |
|
You don't get it, Glen..
|
| 20.2725 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Aug 11 1995 13:03 | 5 |
|
Jim,
This means the guy is sinning and will go to Hell...
|
| 20.2726 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Firsthand Bla Bla Bla | Fri Aug 11 1995 13:05 | 3 |
| So, if one is living in sin one will go to hell?
Boy, guess we all need a saviour.
|
| 20.2727 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Aug 11 1995 13:08 | 6 |
|
re: .2726
>So, if one is living in sin one will go to hell?
According to Silva, just Christians, or those who profess to be same...
|
| 20.2728 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Aug 11 1995 13:13 | 8 |
|
> Boy, guess we all need a saviour.
Amen!
|
| 20.2729 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Fri Aug 11 1995 13:56 | 8 |
| I heard her on tv this morning and thought she sounded
pathetic. Seems the abortions right people weren't constantly
fawning all over her and she didn't get enough attention.
Guess she'll get more now. Seems more like a media event
than a baptism to me.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2730 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Fri Aug 11 1995 13:58 | 6 |
| Glen:
I find your lack of tolerance for an infant Christian
appropriate...coming from you of course!!
-Jack
|
| 20.2731 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Fri Aug 11 1995 14:04 | 25 |
| YY "My first reaction was, 'My God, we don't need this,' " Weddington
YY said,
Happy Glenn?! :-)
The above reaction doesn't surprise me. Quite frankly, I agree with
Weddington in the sense that this will really be of little consequence.
The reason is this. McCoveys statements regarding the elitist
attitudes of the feminist leadership is something I have been telling
you people...for years I might add. Jane Roe was a handy pawn at the
time and fit the bill. She was a troubled individual, a drug
user...the whole bit. How dare big government tell this poor deprived
iondividual how to control her body. And thus we have Roe v. Wade.
After that, Jane Roe was of little consequence as far as what she had
to offer the pro choice camp. Just show up for the rally and keep your
mouth shut. The most disingenuous bunch I've ever seen.
Which simply confirms my point. The pro choice leadership cares about
retribution and power...and if this means sweet talking you into
getting an abortion, they will gladly use you as a pawn to further the
agenda. The question is are you going to be stupid enough to fall for
it!
-Jack
|
| 20.2732 | The whole Roe case was a pack of lies before the Court | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Aug 11 1995 14:07 | 6 |
| BTW, McCovey never had an abortion.
Nor had she, as she testified before the courts, gotten pregnant as the
result of a rape.
/john
|
| 20.2733 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Fri Aug 11 1995 15:22 | 12 |
| ZZ I heard her on tv this morning and thought she sounded
ZZ pathetic.
Of course she did Mary Michael. Why wouldn't she. Actually, I am a
little surprised at your reaction here...if there was anybody in here
that was pro choice, I thought it would be you. Knee jerk reactions
are usually reserved to the likes of Topes and Blender.
It shows that choice isn't always free of bias...no matter what side of
the aisle one is on!
-Jack
|
| 20.2734 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Aug 11 1995 17:39 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.2724 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>
| You don't get it, Glen..
How would you know? Maybe you should ask what facts I'm using before
you make the claim. The guy who was supposed to have baptized her in the pool
said in an interview, which was shown on the Today show this morning (during
the news section) where he told her that she is partly responsible for all
abortions that have taken place. She has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of
the abortions that have taken place. The person that said, "I want an
abortion" is the one who is responsible for the abortion that happened. Not
some woman from the 70's.......
Glen
|
| 20.2735 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Aug 11 1995 17:45 | 9 |
|
Ok..what facts are you using, particularly since .2723 (on which I commented)
has absolutely nothing to do with your response to my .2724?
Jim
|
| 20.2736 | | POWDML::CKELLY | The Proverbial Bad Penny | Fri Aug 11 1995 17:47 | 7 |
| while i'm not one to argue against personal responsibility, perhaps
the intent of the comment was that had roe vs. wade never come about,
abortion would not have been legalized. while that would not have
stopped all abortions, i'm sure there is a good sized number that
would not have occured had legalization not been attained.
|
| 20.2737 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Aug 11 1995 18:15 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.2735 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>
| Ok..what facts are you using, particularly since .2723 (on which I commented)
| has absolutely nothing to do with your response to my .2724?
Wow... he asked. How nice. How about her own words? That she did not
want to be exploited by OR like she said she was with those who would want an
abortion? That she is just looking out for herself.
Glen
|
| 20.2738 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Aug 11 1995 18:17 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.2736 by POWDML::CKELLY "The Proverbial Bad Penny" >>>
| while i'm not one to argue against personal responsibility, perhaps the intent
| of the comment was that had roe vs. wade never come about, abortion would not
| have been legalized. while that would not have stopped all abortions, i'm sure
| there is a good sized number that would not have occured had legalization not
| been attained.
'tine.... let me ask you one question. Do you feel she is responsible
for even one abortion that happened? OR, do you believe it was the person who
HAD the abortion that was responsible?
Glen
|
| 20.2739 | | POWDML::CKELLY | The Proverbial Bad Penny | Fri Aug 11 1995 18:38 | 1 |
| i believe what was written in .2736
|
| 20.2740 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Aug 11 1995 18:50 | 17 |
|
> Wow... he asked. How nice. How about her own words? That she did not
>want to be exploited by OR like she said she was with those who would want an
>abortion? That she is just looking out for herself.
Correct. Having just become a Christian it is going to be tough enough for
her to adjust to her new life in Christ. Even without the notoriety, it can
be tough, but now she'll have the press chasing her around and watching her..
I believe she also said this in response to a question about her impact
politically..that it wasn't about politics, it's about salvation. She was
the only one who could make that decision and that decision was based on
watching out for herself.
Jim
|
| 20.2741 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Fri Aug 11 1995 18:51 | 15 |
| re: .2733
Of course I am pro choice, but I don't believe this really
had anything to do with the abortion debate. She wanted to
be the center of attention (don't we all sometimes, but hey,
life isn't like that). When she couldn't be, she switched sides
so that people would notice. The leader of Operation Rescue,
sensing an opportunity to grab some free publicity, was more
than happy to come to her aid.
One person wasn't responsible for abortion rights. If it hadn't
been Roe vs. Wade there would have been another. It was really
only a matter of time.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2742 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Aug 11 1995 19:00 | 6 |
| > <<< Note 20.2740 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>
>> but now she'll have the press chasing her around and watching her..
So this conversion of hers, or whatever it was, couldn't have
been kept quiet, had she wanted it to be?
|
| 20.2743 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Aug 11 1995 19:06 | 11 |
|
Good question, Di. To be honest I'm curious about how it all became public.
But it would have eventually and would likely get the same result.
Jim
|
| 20.2745 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Aug 11 1995 19:43 | 12 |
| >When she couldn't be, she switched sides so that people would notice.
>The leader of Operation Rescue, sensing an opportunity to grab some
>free publicity, was more than happy to come to her aid.
You made this up, of course.
The facts are that the local Operation Rescue chapter chair/pres/whatever
had met her at the clinic where she worked some years ago, and had spent
several years developing a friendship with her in order to get her to
change her point of view.
/john
|
| 20.2746 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Aug 11 1995 19:46 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.2739 by POWDML::CKELLY "The Proverbial Bad Penny" >>>
| i believe what was written in .2736
In english now..... :-)
|
| 20.2747 | Maybe after she err.... adjusts.... | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Aug 11 1995 19:47 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.2740 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>
| Correct. Having just become a Christian it is going to be tough enough for
| her to adjust to her new life in Christ.
I guess that's why she didn't get rid of her girlfriend of 22 years...
Glen
|
| 20.2748 | imho | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Aug 11 1995 19:48 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.2743 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>
| Good question, Di. To be honest I'm curious about how it all became public.
| But it would have eventually and would likely get the same result.
My GUESS is OR..... considering the pro-choice movement isn't likely to
do something against themselves.
Glen
|
| 20.2749 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Aug 11 1995 19:49 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.2745 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| The facts are that the local Operation Rescue chapter chair/pres/whatever
| had met her at the clinic where she worked some years ago, and had spent
| several years developing a friendship with her in order to get her to
| change her point of view.
You forgot to add through lies and guilt.
|
| 20.2750 | Natl., not local. | SCAS01::EDITEX::MOORE | Outta my way. IT'S ME ! | Fri Aug 11 1995 20:02 | 4 |
| .2745
Actually Flip Benham is the Natl. director of Operation Rescue....
|
| 20.2751 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Fri Aug 11 1995 20:28 | 9 |
| If a genetic test for homosexuality is developed, would Newt Gingrich
et al support abortion for homosexual fetuses?
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.2752 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Aug 11 1995 20:32 | 17 |
|
>| Correct. Having just become a Christian it is going to be tough enough for
>| her to adjust to her new life in Christ.
> I guess that's why she didn't get rid of her girlfriend of 22 years...
One thing at a time, Glen, one thing at a time.
Jim
|
| 20.2753 | | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Fri Aug 11 1995 20:51 | 10 |
| EDP,
That's rather a flip comment about Newt. His half-sister is an
admitted lesbian and she herself has said that although she doesn't
agree with her brother politically, she's loves him as her sibling.
So I seriously doubt Newt would go on record as all homosexuals
should be put to death.....
|
| 20.2754 | | CALDEC::RAH | Gene Police! You! Outa the Pool! | Sat Aug 12 1995 04:59 | 3 |
|
how rather typical for rabid lefties to hurl all manner of slime
at the troubled woman..
|
| 20.2755 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Aug 12 1995 13:48 | 14 |
| From listening to her speak for herself on Nightline, it looks like she is
much more opposed to abortion than the press articles indicate.
But the media are refusing to listen to her, and refusing to report what
she's actually saying, except when she actually says it herself on live TV.
"I believe in a woman's right to have an abortion
during the first trimester but only in certain very
necessary cases, such as when the child will be seriously
deformed, like having no brain."
So do most pro-life people, for varying values of "seriously deformed".
/john
|
| 20.2756 | typical.. | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Mon Aug 14 1995 13:58 | 7 |
|
re: .2749
>You forgot to add through lies and guilt.
You forgot to add "IMO"... but then again, you seem to be zeroing on
the "gauche" market these days...
|
| 20.2757 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 14 1995 14:08 | 7 |
| >><<< Note 20.2756 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>
>> -< typical.. >-
>> You forgot to add "IMO"...
you need a new mantra, andy. (imo, of course)
|
| 20.2758 | Himmmmmmmm.... himmmmmmm... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Mon Aug 14 1995 14:42 | 11 |
|
Ommmmmmmmmmm.....
>you need a new mantra, andy.
Just calling them as I see them Di...
He makes "statements" like that and shouldn't expect to be called on
it?
Or are you just fishing for a compliment? (imo)
|
| 20.2759 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 14 1995 14:48 | 15 |
|
>> He makes "statements" like that and shouldn't expect to be called on
>> it?
maybe life would be simpler if you would just automatically
tack on the "imo" in your mind when reading notes. it generally
does go without saying, especially with this being soapbox and
all. i doubt that most people "forget" it, as you seem to always
assume.
>> Or are you just fishing for a compliment? (imo)
a compliment? er, i don't getcha, as usual, but anyways - no.
|
| 20.2760 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Mon Aug 14 1995 15:04 | 15 |
|
re: .2759
>maybe life would be simpler
Naaaaahh.. What fun would that be??
SOABOX would die a quick death because no one would add quips, puns,
comments, rat-holes, "mantras".. etc...
Then where would the moderators be??
> i doubt that most people "forget" it,
You're right... "most" don't. Some do...
|
| 20.2761 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 14 1995 15:14 | 14 |
|
>> SOABOX would die a quick death because no one would add quips, puns,
>> comments, rat-holes, "mantras".. etc...
>> Then where would the moderators be??
the degree to which you can extrapolate never ceases to amaze me.
what do the moderators have to do with this? sheesh.
>> You're right... "most" don't. Some do...
no kidding. it's pretty standard for you to tell just about
anyone, though, that they forgot the "imo". it happens _a lot_.
ah well... c'est la guerre.
|
| 20.2762 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Aug 14 1995 15:46 | 3 |
| ZZZ c'est la guerre.
Sure...with Pepperoni please!
|
| 20.2763 | More extrapolation? | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Mon Aug 14 1995 16:03 | 12 |
|
re: .2761
Ah yes.... now I see Di... thank you...
Your reply jogged my memory of a perfect example...
of someone saying something about running things over in the middle of
the road and then having to ask in a subsequent reply if anyone really
thought she was serious...
Things like that, and "IMO"s should always be self-evident...
|
| 20.2764 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 14 1995 16:18 | 7 |
|
>> Things like that, and "IMO"s should always be self-evident...
I wouldn't put a smiley face on every reply where I was
joking just so the braindead would pick up on it, just as
I wouldn't say "imo" whenever expressing an opinion. Neither
would _always_ be self-evident.
|
| 20.2765 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Mon Aug 14 1995 16:26 | 3 |
|
We now return you to our regularly scheduled debate...
|
| 20.2766 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Aug 14 1995 16:58 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.2756 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>
| You forgot to add "IMO"... but then again, you seem to be zeroing on
| the "gauche" market these days...
If someone says this woman is responsible for anothers actions, they
are wrong. If this person says this woman is partly responsible for all the
abortions that have taken place, he is wrong. People are responsible for their
own actions. One can be influenced by another, but the final decision and all
the responsibility is their own.
Glen
|
| 20.2767 | See Di?? | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Mon Aug 14 1995 17:01 | 4 |
|
You said "lies and guilt"...
Thank you for explaining my point to miss Di...
|
| 20.2768 | there's nothing to see | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 14 1995 17:08 | 5 |
|
>> -< See Di?? >-
no.
|
| 20.2769 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Mon Aug 14 1995 17:10 | 3 |
|
We now return you to our regularly scheduled debate...
|
| 20.2770 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Aug 15 1995 15:29 | 16 |
| Re .2753:
Can you say non sequitur? Newt's sister's feelings about her brother
have little bearing on his beliefs.
> That's rather a flip comment about Newt.
Heaven forbid anybody should be cynical about a politician.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.2771 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Aug 15 1995 20:17 | 5 |
| <<< Note 20.2766 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
> People are responsible for their own actions.
Unless, of course, it is genetic and they are born that way...
|
| 20.2772 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Aug 16 1995 11:10 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.2771 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| > People are responsible for their own actions.
| Unless, of course, it is genetic and they are born that way...
HUH?
|
| 20.2773 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the heat is on | Wed Aug 16 1995 11:43 | 4 |
| It's a barely hidden slam at homosexuals. He believes that even if
homosexuality is determined by a gene, it's still a choice to be who
you are, so you are responsible for not subverting your chromosomes to
appease his sense of propriety.
|
| 20.2774 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Aug 16 1995 20:17 | 13 |
| <<< Note 20.2773 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "the heat is on" >>>
> It's a barely hidden slam at homosexuals.
Close. Make that the homosexual agenda.
> He believes that even if
> homosexuality is determined by a gene, it's still a choice to be who
> you are,
Wrong. It is a choice to do what you do. That was the original
question as far as I recall... You, doc, seem to have been hooked
by the agenda too, it seems.
|
| 20.2775 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | | Wed Aug 16 1995 21:16 | 8 |
| It always amuses me to hear hets claim that gays are gay entirely by
choice, especially in light of what they have to put up with from het
society.
That would necessarily imply that hets are hets only because they
choose to be, but they don't seem to believe that either.
Seems like just another case of, "The whole world ought to be like me."
|
| 20.2776 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Aug 16 1995 21:44 | 14 |
|
It's not as simplistic as you think. There are many women who are
continually battered...yet simply refuse to leave them...for years I
might add. It is a phenomenon without a doubt.
I believe that genetics is not the only reason somebody is gay. I
believe there are gay people out there who are just that due to
conditioning and environment. There have been people I know of who
were gay and then believed they were acting out the will of their
sinful nature and simply chose to abstain or was able to start dating
hets...so it can be done!
-Jack
|
| 20.2777 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Aug 16 1995 22:29 | 7 |
| <<< Note 20.2775 by RUSURE::GOODWIN >>>
> It always amuses me to hear hets claim that gays are gay entirely by
> choice,
That's not what's being said. They DO WHAT THEY DO entirely
by choice. Do you disagree?
|
| 20.2778 | | SNOFS2::ROBERTSON | where there's smoke there's toast | Wed Aug 16 1995 22:38 | 9 |
| >
> That's not what's being said. They DO WHAT THEY DO entirely
> by choice. Do you disagree?
It's the same with the topic of abortion. :^)
oh! this IS the abortion topic.
|
| 20.2779 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Aug 16 1995 23:12 | 17 |
| | <<< Note 20.2774 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| > It's a barely hidden slam at homosexuals.
| Close. Make that the homosexual agenda.
So something you do that's a slam is somehow part of the homosexual
agenda? Now I have heard everything!
| Wrong. It is a choice to do what you do.
And your choice is to oppress people for being who they are when they
aren't harming anyone. But I guess that is ok...
Glen
|
| 20.2780 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Aug 16 1995 23:16 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.2776 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| I believe there are gay people out there who are just that due to conditioning
| and environment. There have been people I know of who were gay and then
| believed they were acting out the will of their sinful nature and simply chose
| to abstain or was able to start dating hets...so it can be done!
Jack.... anyone can abstain.... anyone who feels enough guilt, or is
conviced that something is wrong can abstain. It does not mean they have
changed from being gay. I did the above. It did not make me straight, it made
someone who hides who they really are.
Glen
|
| 20.2781 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Aug 16 1995 23:51 | 21 |
| <<< Note 20.2779 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
>| > It's a barely hidden slam at homosexuals.
>
>| Close. Make that the homosexual agenda.
>
>
> So something you do that's a slam is somehow part of the homosexual
>agenda?
This does not compute. Please restate. My statement says that
I'm slamming the gay agenda. Is that what you are saying too?
> Now I have heard everything!
No you haven't. You can make up lots more things!
> And your choice is to oppress people for being who they are when they
> aren't harming anyone. But I guess that is ok...
No it's not. And who said anything about oppressing people?
|
| 20.2782 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | | Thu Aug 17 1995 11:19 | 4 |
| > That's not what's being said. They DO WHAT THEY DO entirely
> by choice. Do you disagree?
I'll reply to this on the right base note if I can find it. :-)
|
| 20.2783 | Or is it the "Lone Arranger"?? | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 17 1995 12:52 | 3 |
|
Joe... the "Lone Oppresor"!!
|
| 20.2784 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Aug 17 1995 13:31 | 32 |
| | <<< Note 20.2781 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| >| > It's a barely hidden slam at homosexuals.
| >
| >| Close. Make that the homosexual agenda.
| >
| > So something you do that's a slam is somehow part of the homosexual
| >agenda?
| My statement says that I'm slamming the gay agenda. Is that what you are
| saying too?
Nope, it isn't. But at least we're on the same page now. I wonder if
you could state what you FEEL the homosexual agenda is? That way we would
continue to remain on the same page....
| > Now I have heard everything!
| No you haven't. You can make up lots more things!
You're right, I can.... but the fact is I don't.
| > And your choice is to oppress people for being who they are when they
| > aren't harming anyone. But I guess that is ok...
| No it's not. And who said anything about oppressing people?
Your views perhaps?
Glen
|
| 20.2785 | | SPSEG::COVINGTON | There is chaos under the heavens... | Thu Aug 17 1995 13:41 | 15 |
| > | > | > It's a barely hidden slam at homosexuals.
> | >
> | > | Close. Make that the homosexual agenda.
> | >
> | > So something you do that's a slam is somehow part of the homosexual
> | >agenda?
>
> | My statement says that I'm slamming the gay agenda. Is that what you are
> | saying too?
>
> Nope, it isn't. But at least we're on the same page now. I wonder if
> you could state what you FEEL the homosexual agenda is? That way we would
> continue to remain on the same page....
(Just seeing how many quoted quotes I could nest together...)
|
| 20.2786 | Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 17 1995 13:53 | 5 |
|
re: .2784
>Your views perhaps?
|
| 20.2787 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Aug 17 1995 17:51 | 2 |
| Whatever, Glen. This is the abortion topic, so let's get it
back on track.
|
| 20.2788 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Aug 17 1995 20:35 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.2787 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| Whatever, Glen. This is the abortion topic, so let's get it back on track.
How nice.... you write several notes off the topic, but now when it
wouldn't be wise for you to answer, you back off and say lets get back on
track. Too funny.
Glen
|
| 20.2789 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Aug 26 1995 04:15 | 17 |
| On July 9, 1995, Brenda Pratt Shafer, R.N., sent a letter to Congressman
Tony Hall (D-Ohio), in which she related her experience as a nurse whose
agency assigned her to work at Dr. Haskell's Dayton abortion clinic in
1993. Nurse Shafer said she had no difficulty accepting the assignment
because she was strongly pro-choice. But she quit after witnessing three
abortions at 26-30 weeks close up. "It was the most horrifying experience
of my life," she wrote.
Here's how Nurse Shafer described the end of the life of one six-month-old
fetus:
The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He
was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck inside.
Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the
baby's head. Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered
suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. I almost threw
up as I watched him do these things.
|
| 20.2790 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Sep 13 1995 03:57 | 28 |
| [Who knows where to put this? Here's fine, I suppose. Would Politics of
the Right be preferable?]
This evening on Chuck Adler's program (simulcast - Boston radio 680 AM,
WRKO, and Boston TV 68, [mumble]) he (Chuck) raised the question as to
whether or not General Powell, who has identified himself as pro-choice,
has any business potentially seeking the Republican presidential
nomination in '96.
My take on this is that the Republican party (exclusive of the religious
right faction) can no longer claim to have a solid pro-life plank in
their platform in any event. (It certainly wouldn't be a fair representation
of my views, and I've been a card-carrying-registered-Republican for over
26 years. And it's quite obvious that I'm non-unique.)
The Republicans would do very well to downplay the abortion issue as a
primary concern for '96 in any event, it would seem. Effectively, they
do this anyway. When's the last time you saw a Republican president
try to stir up public support for legislation to attempt to reverse
the SCOTUS decisions? As I've stated in here for years, Pro-life is a
great stance to take for getting voters' support in an election, but
a lousy political move to make once in office.
I seriously doubt that Powell has a prayer of garnering the Republican nod
in '96 anyway, but basing his credibility on the abortion question certainly
appears to be a rather neanderthal tactic.
|
| 20.2791 | Right to life vs. Freedom of religion | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | My other piano is a Steinway | Tue Sep 19 1995 21:15 | 20 |
| At the risk of jumping into the middle of an active thread:
Something occurred to me that I offer without comment:
Every now and then you hear a case of parents refusing to allow
treatment of a child with a curable but otherwise fatal problem
because it's against their religious beliefs.
I think this might pose a rather interesting dilemna for religious
pro-lifers.
In the case a random woman wanting to have an abortion, the issue
centers on "right to life" vs "right to choose".
In the case of the refusing medical care for the child it's the issue
is a matter of "right to life" vs. "freedom of religion".
Food for thought...
db
|
| 20.2792 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | We upped our standards, now up yours! | Wed Sep 20 1995 17:03 | 14 |
| Poetic justice for the parents, murder for the child -- and lots of 'em
are in prison right now for the ultimate in imposing religious beliefs
on other people.
Somehow seems like poetic justice for the parents to lose a child
because they insisted on following their religious beliefs. Is there
any better reason to question such dogma? And to prevent it from being
codified into our own legal system?
But my favorite bit of poetic justice is the Shakers (I think those are
the ones, anyway). They didn't believe in getting married or having
sex at all, and the last one died out a few years back. Amazing.
|
| 20.2793 | Shakers were less dogmatic | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Sep 20 1995 17:18 | 13 |
|
The Shakers also didn't proselytize or try and make people stay in the
sect. They believed that people should come freely into the sect, and
if they wanted to leave they were given a portion of the shared wealth
to help them on their way. In that respect, they were a lot less
dogmatic than most sects, even though it did was not in the interest of
maintaining the survivakl of the sect.
They were also pro-technology and advanced medicine, so not really a
good example of the kind of dogma that you are trying to illustrate.
Colin
|
| 20.2794 | | SMURF::BINDER | Night's candles are burnt out. | Wed Sep 20 1995 17:33 | 7 |
| The Shakers also ran "foster homes." They were put out of business, as
it were, by the "orthodox" churches, which lobbied until the states
passed laws prohibiting the placing of a child in a foster home not of
the child's own religious faith. So no children could be placed with
the Shakers, where they might actually learn tolerance and a trade;
instead, they were forceed into overcrowded orphanages where they
learned how to be orphans.
|
| 20.2795 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Pettin' & Sofa Settin' | Mon Sep 25 1995 12:47 | 1 |
| How stupid.
|
| 20.2796 | | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | General MIDI | Mon Sep 25 1995 18:57 | 16 |
| Well, I'd like to thank Mr. Goodwin for a response that demonstrated
(to my surprise) that this "dilemna" is not a "dilemna for religion
pro-lifers" as I originally claimed, but a dilemna for both sides.
Seems to me that any pro-choicer who complains about pro-lifers
forcing values down other peoples throats and then turns around
and advocates forcing THEIR values by forcing medical care has
got an inconsistent position.
In fact, the ultimate irony is that I think the pro-choicer who does
this is asking the same thing of our government that the pro-lifers
are asking for.
It's a fascinating dilemna.
db
|
| 20.2797 | There's a lot that other religions could learn from the Shakers | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | General MIDI | Mon Sep 25 1995 19:03 | 20 |
| re: the "stupidity" of the Shakers.
While I do agree that the self-imposed doom of the Shakers does
challenge my notions of "religion" vs "nuts", as Mr. Binder points out,
in nearly EVERY other respect the Shakers were a religion that
I (even as an atheist) admire to an extreme degree.
They didn't even impose their religion on their own children as so many
other religions do. In fact, children reaching a certain age were
given the choice of whether to stay or leave - and with no pushing
in one way or the other.
They were also inventers, business people and more than anything else,
they were almost completely free of the hypocracy that I find so
prevalent in most other religious sects.
Actually, although they have views that some of us find a bit weird,
a lot of similar statements can be made about the Christian Scientists.
db
|
| 20.2798 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Mon Sep 25 1995 19:10 | 5 |
| .2797
FWIW, the Shakers were doing just fine, even GROWING IN NUMBERS, until
the orthodox types put the kibosh on giving children the opportunity to
decide whether they wanted to be Shakers or not.
|
| 20.2799 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Petite Chambre des Maudites | Mon Sep 25 1995 19:18 | 4 |
|
I didn't notice anyone calling the Shakers stupid.
|
| 20.2800 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Sep 25 1995 19:18 | 3 |
|
Shaker snarfer
|
| 20.2801 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Pettin' & Sofa Settin' | Mon Sep 25 1995 19:21 | 1 |
| I didn't notice that either Debra.
|
| 20.2802 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Sep 25 1995 19:24 | 3 |
|
.2801 me neither. we must be not seeing things.
|
| 20.2803 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Mon Sep 25 1995 19:30 | 3 |
| .2799 et seq.
See .2792.
|
| 20.2804 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of oh oh oh/ow ow ow | Mon Sep 25 1995 19:37 | 6 |
|
He didn't use the word 'stupid', just 'poetic justice' and 'amazing'.
Don't tell me I'm being obtuse, either. I'm serious.
|
| 20.2805 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Mon Sep 25 1995 19:55 | 2 |
| You're being obtuse. Either that or you've forgotten how to read an
implication.
|
| 20.2806 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of oh oh oh/ow ow ow | Mon Sep 25 1995 20:10 | 10 |
|
I SAID NOT TO TELL ME THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
{cough} sorry.
Apart from all the other wonderful things Soapbox has done for me, it
has taught me NEVER to imply or to infer.
|
| 20.2807 | {BOING!} | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Mon Sep 25 1995 20:13 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.2808 | | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | General MIDI | Mon Sep 25 1995 20:25 | 7 |
| OK, look I retract any implication that someone called them "stupid".
I'd rather see if anyone has given much thought about this "dilemna"
I presented. I'd like to think that I've insulted the positions
of both most prof-lifers and most pro-choicers.
;-)
|
| 20.2809 | | MPGS::MARKEY | World Wide Epiphany | Mon Sep 25 1995 21:01 | 4 |
|
Oh don't worry Dave, you've left no stone unturned! :-)
-b
|
| 20.2810 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 10 1995 11:57 | 88 |
| From an Internet Forum:
In-response-to: PRO-CHOICE
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 23:44:47 GMT
From: Eric Ewanco (eje@world.std.com)
Utilitarianism
You write:
>With that in mind, of course abortion would be considered murder. An act
>against God, as well as the survival of the entire population. With 5
>billion people and some 8 billion by the year 2010 the world does not have
>this problem anymore. PJPII is not doing God's work by spreading a message
>against birth control and abortion to his believers. Many of whom are
>starving in Third World countries. The pro-life movement is doomed to
>failure because it refuses to acknowledge this simple reality of life on
>earth in the year 1995 A.D.
Unfortunately, your argument precisely illustrates the greatest danger that
abortion poses to the world. I shall explain why.
Your argument, as you have presented it, is as follows: The world is in
danger of overpopulation. Additional (innocent) human beings pose a threat
to the rest of humanity. We must keep the population of the earth down by
any means necessary. Abortion is right because it is a means of
accomplishing that goal, even if, technically, it is murder. This is a
principle known as "the end justifies the means," a cardinal violation of
Catholic moral teaching.
The consequence of this logic is absolutely frightening. It says that the
life of the innocent is expendable in the name of societal advancement.
(Never mind how wrong your assumptions are about overpopulation.) By your
logic, there is no reason why we shouldn't kill not only unborn children,
but adults as well. If the morality of an action is only dependent upon
whether it benefits the human race or not -- if abortion, even though it is
the killing of a human being, is justified because it accomplishes a goal of
keeping the population down -- then nearly any action, no matter how
heinous, would justified. First we decide that we can justifiably kill the
unborn. Next we decide we should euthanize the frail and sick. Then we
approve of infanticide (for those abortions we never quite got around to
doing in time). Then we go to the mentally retarded, and handicapped --
anyone who is not a productive and valued member of society. (Keep in mind
that it was precisely the weak and the sick and the lame that Jesus loved
the most.) Pretty soon, the value of one's life is determined purely by the
degree to which you benefit society -- it has no intrinsic worth. Only the
strong are permitted to survive, while the weak are "eliminated" as a burden
to the human race.
I ask you, does this bear any resemblance whatsoever to the Gospel of our
Lord Jesus Christ? This is why the theme of respecting life is so emphasized
by the pro-life movement. Because if we don't respect the most innocent and
dependent, pretty soon we'll start respecting the lives of the born less and
less, and it cultivates a culture of death, as the Holy Father puts it. We
are already beginning to see the fruits of this culture of death.
The threat of overpopulation is a bogeyman. It has not materialized, and it
is inexcusable to justify killing human beings to avert a threat which
hasn't even arrived yet. It is like saying that because one sees a
threatening looking man coming our way down the street, it is justified to
shoot and kill him from afar because he appears to be a danger to us, even
though our lives are not in immanent peril. If overpopulation does prove a
threat, we need first of all to trust God without playing God and taking
matters into our own hands by killing people. Second of all we need to work
to provide more room for those who need it and more food for those who are
without. (There is in reality far more of a distribution problem and a
density problem than an overpopulation problem. There is more than enough
land; the problem is that people are too densely packed in some areas while
vast quantities of land are unused.) Finally there is the option of
encouraging responsible, natural methods of family planning, methods which
are just as effective if not moreso (and safer) than artificial methods:
Natural Family Planning (more effective than condoms, not to be confused
with the rhythm method) and abstinence, including celibacy and consecrated
virginity. By no means is abortion the only solution to the problem, even if
the problem was grave enough to demand an immediate solution.
In summary, you pursue a line of logic which can only led to the most
horrific consequences (that the destruction of human life is a justifiable
means to a positive end), and which neglects to consider that the problem
does not pose as grave a problem as often portrayed, and even if it did,
abortion is not the only solution to the problem.
For more prolife resources, see Steve Frezza's Pro Life Page.
Sincerely,
Eric Ewanco
eje@world.std.com
|
| 20.2811 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 13 1995 02:48 | 47 |
| PREGNANT SCIENTIST POISONED FOR NOT HAVING ABORTION
WASHINGTON, DC (CWN) - A pregnant cancer researcher at the
National Institutes of Health alleged on Tuesday that she was
poisoned with lethal doses of radiation after receiving pressure from
her supervisor to have an abortion.
"Less than a week after we told our supervisor that I wanted to
declare my pregnancy...I was contaminated on purpose by someone
at NIH with the radiation material P-32," Dr. Maryann Ma told a
news conference, referring to herself and her husband, Dr. Bill Zheng.
The couple asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend or
revoke NIH's license to handle hazardous nuclear materials, which
are common in medical research, and their lawyers called for a full-
scale congressional investigation. The couple also alleged that NIH
tried to cover up the incident, under-reported the dose of radiation
Ma received, discounted any risk to Ma or her baby, and interfered
with proper treatment when she sought help at a hospital.
An NIH spokesman did not dispute the apparently intentional nature
of the contamination, calling it an "unfortunate episode" and noting
that the institute called in the FBI to investigate the case.
Ma ingested the radiation when she ate food she had left in a closed
container in a refrigerator at the National Cancer Institute at NIH on
June 28, her lawyer said. Ma was 17 weeks pregnant at the time. A
consultant hired by the couple said a few drops of liquid P-32 would
be enough to raise Ma's lifetime risk of cancer by as much as 80
percent.
Ma's husband, Dr. Bill Zheng, who worked in the same lab, discovered
the contamination on a routine sweep of the area with a Geiger
counter at the end of the working day. Zheng and 24 other people at
NIH also ingested P-32 when they drank from a water cooler within
two weeks' of Ma's contamination.
Ma and Zheng, both from China, were on a two-year fellowship at the
cancer institute. They did work with radioactive isotopes -- though
not P-32 -- but Ma's intention to declare her pregnancy meant that
under federal guidelines she would be shielded from working with
such materials. She said that when she told her supervisor of her
pregnancy, he asked whether she planned to keep the baby and
throughout June pressured the couple to abort him.
Both Ma and Zheng are currently on administrative leave with pay
from NIH. The baby is expected in December.
|
| 20.2812 | How little some learn | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Thu Oct 26 1995 17:51 | 51 |
|
Poland alarmed by big number of baby homicides.
Warchau - The Polish police is worried about an alarming rise in the
number of babies that is killed by their mothers. The rise follows
the enforcement of a strict anti-abortion law. Figures that have become
known this month indicate last year 162 newborns were found at garbage
heaps, near rivers and in woods.
This is a tenfold rise compared to the mean year figures until 1993,
when the law was enforced.
Most babies were dead before they were left, but some have been dumped
alive near garbage heaps. They could be rescued because their crying
was heard by passer-by's.
In the cases that have been solved turned out to be predominantly poor
mothers who already had two or three kids. According to Jolanta
Plakwicz, of the Polish Feminist Association, these are tragic cases
in a country with a lot of ignorance and mistrust about
contraceptives.
"It is a drastic step for a woman to leave her own child. But they see
it as the only solution."
Under the communist law abortion in Poland was available on demand. For
many women it was a form of birth-control. The new law, originated
after pressure of the influential Polish catholic church, forbids
abortion. The only exceptions are when the pregnancy is caused by rape
or incest, the fetus is deformed, of when the mother's health is in
severe danger.
Except for Ireland the abortion law is the strictest in Europe. The
supporters state it is a overwhelming success. In the eighties an
estimated 500,000 abortions were carried out annually in Poland. Last
year the total number was a mere 782.
Critics point out the negative side effects of the law. Apart from the
high number of baby homicides there are many illegal abortions. Women
also seek abortion services abroad.
At this moment in Chorzow, in the south of Poland, a doctor stands
on trial accused of an illegal abortion. The doctor could be sentenced
to two years in prison. The case will form a precedent. If he is
convicted, it will be a strong message for other doctors.
In spite of numerous protests against the law attempts to make it more
lenient have been blocked by president Lech Walesa, a devoted catholic
himself. Feminist groups hope they can realise a change in the law if
Walesa is defeated at the presidential elections this autumn.
|
| 20.2813 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:11 | 21 |
| <<< Note 20.2812 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>
> known this month indicate last year 162 newborns were found at garbage
> heaps, near rivers and in woods.
>
> This is a tenfold rise compared to the mean year figures until 1993,
> when the law was enforced.
Increase: about 150.
> supporters state it is a overwhelming success. In the eighties an
> estimated 500,000 abortions were carried out annually in Poland. Last
> year the total number was a mere 782.
Decrease: over 499,000.
Death at the hand of the abortionist or the hand of the mother
are both tragic.
Now it's time for the Church to step up and help address the
remaining 150.
|
| 20.2814 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:23 | 12 |
| 20.2813
So Basically what I gather from your note is .... 150 DEAD BABIES is ok
because that's a visable problem, but 499,000 embryo that haven't come
to term (or might not have come to term) is just too large of a number
for you to deal with...?????Help me understand this so it would be ok
if a live baby, crying and cold and hungry and abondon in a GARBAGE CAN
IS OK........But undeveloped tissue being terminated with the mother
permission is a problem......I'm getting really confused..so if the
problem is visable you can deal with 150 DEAD BABIES but not 499,000
undeveloped tissues being terminated.
|
| 20.2815 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:26 | 16 |
|
re: .2184
>undeveloped tissue being terminated
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
Why can't you just be honest... face it and say it...
"Kill".... "kill"... Go ahead.. try it... Be honest to yourself...
The baby is being killed...
|
| 20.2816 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:28 | 2 |
|
150 dead babies....but if it saves one life.....
|
| 20.2817 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:33 | 12 |
|
re: .2816
>150 dead babies....but if it saves one life.....
You just don't get it do you??
You think you're being funny and smart and quippy-like and people will
enjoy your "snappy retort", don't you?
You really haven't a clue... do you?
|
| 20.2818 | more on this.... | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:33 | 17 |
| So How I see it and entirely in my opinion,
In your eyes, 150 dead babies, sons and daughters, in garbage heaps is
morally better than 499,000 maybe births..being terminated, now
breaking that down, do you think out of 499,000 abortions, that maybe
150,000 would make it to term...DO WE HAVE ROOM FOR 150,000 dead
babies? I don't have the stomache for it to be honest with you..
Abortion isn't right, but what is more wrong is telling a woman she
isn't capable of making that desicion on her own and we need to have
laws that force her into a decision. So babies of rape and incest are
less valuable than ones created by accident....If you are pro-life,
that is all life and you can't make a law that demands a woman give
birth to a child of rape, or incest....so PRO-LIFE means LIFE that is
valuable, and life created by a rape or incest, isn't that valuable....
SEE choice is about choice.....I guess prolife isn't about life.
|
| 20.2819 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:35 | 10 |
| .2817
no apparently you have NO CLUE. Undeveloped tissue..is just that
undeveloped tissue...a baby, is developed tissue....see now.
kill is to take a life
if abortion was killing then it would be outlawed no questions..
abortion is legal
Undeveloped tissue is not a fully developed human..or it won't need to
incubate for 9mths of gestation would it..
|
| 20.2820 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:38 | 6 |
|
Ahhh.. so in countries where it's legal it's "tissue" and where it's
illegal it's a baby...
Right!!!!!
|
| 20.2821 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:41 | 10 |
|
Andy, when there is not one person who uses that phrase to justify a
blockade outside an abortion clinic, then it won't need to be brought up. But
many people have said if we can save one life...... if that were the case, they
would try and save all of those one lives, not just the ones being legally
aborted.
Glen
|
| 20.2822 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:42 | 10 |
| .2820
No, those babies in the trash heap weren't embryo's they were fully
develope children......you know..infants..left to die in the trash.
Countries that allow this behavior to continue need to catch up with
medical science. Those abortions that were not preformed at the consent
of the mother, were found 9 mths later...developed and dead. That is
murdered.
So that is acceptable to YOU RIGHT!!!!
|
| 20.2823 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Thu Oct 26 1995 18:53 | 20 |
| And that is the 150 babies that were found, instead of carried away by
stray animals, eaten by wild things, or buried in the woods and never
recovered. They didn't include the fact that the death ratew for women
of child-bearing age is going up, but I expect that will come out soon
too.
Also if you read the article it may be tht women are taking the
"geographical cure" and leaving the country for an abortion.
WillPoland start mandatory pregnancy tests for all women monthly, and
then refuse exit visas to those who want to visit friends?
In Romania and in Russia when this experiment happened the "live birth"
rate did not go up, the infant mortality and maternal mortality rates
climbed incredibly, though, along with babies in trash cans, SIDS
deaths, and hysterectomies for infections and hemorages increased.
So to Joe 150 known deaths of babies, and an untold number of women
dying is OK, I don't get this.
meg
|
| 20.2824 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:03 | 32 |
| > Abortion isn't right, but what is more wrong is telling a woman she
> isn't capable of making that desicion on her own and we need to have
> laws that force her into a decision. So babies of rape and incest are
Rape isn't right, but what is more wrong is telling a man he isn't capable
of making that desicion on his own and we need to have laws that force him
into a decision.
Murder isn't right, but what is more wrong is telling a person s/he isn't
capable of making that desicion on his/her own and we need to have laws that
force him/her into a decision.
Child molestation isn't right, but what is more wrong is...
Stealing isn't right, but what is more wrong is...
Wife abuse isn't right, but what is morw wrong is...
You have a valueless argument... don't you see? If your logic on abortion
is correct, than you must be against laws which punish rape, murder,
child molestation, stealing, wife abuse, etc.... since you can't use your
above logic to justify abortion on that issue alone. You must be consistant.
/scott
p.s. 150 dead babies is tragic, but far more were saved... that is something
to be happy about. But still, it's be a much better place if 0 dead babies
were found... I agree with a previous noter, that the remaining women who'd
go for illegal abortions or kill their newborns need guidence, most likely
from a church for support. I'm not happy there are dead babies, but the
way I see it, close to 500,000 babies were saved in 1 year.
|
| 20.2825 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:05 | 9 |
| > Undeveloped tissue is not a fully developed human..or it won't need to
> incubate for 9mths of gestation would it..
so if a baby is born 2 month premature, is it a baby or just tissue?
3 months pre???
Are you all for abortions in the 3rd trimester???
/scott
|
| 20.2826 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:09 | 12 |
| > So to Joe 150 known deaths of babies, and an untold number of women
> dying is OK, I don't get this.
Obviously you don't... I don't think Joe (and I know I don't) think
that 150 infant deaths and untold numbers of women dying is OK...
Why not stop with your rhetoric... ok? It's not a perfect world, abortions
will happen. Infants will die. We should try to stop it, hope to decrease
the incident of such things... but the answer isn't to make legal 500,000
infant deaths...
/scott
|
| 20.2827 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:17 | 14 |
| ZZ no apparently you have NO CLUE. Undeveloped tissue..is just that
ZZ undeveloped tissue...a baby, is developed tissue....see now.
Michelle:
You state that these countries need to catch up on medical science.
However, I fail to see any pointers where you have substantiated your
statement above. Until you do, the above is simply conjecture.
Meg, I would like to thank you for pointing out that in the natural
state, humanity is basically bad and depraved. I've been trying to
make this point in the other conference.
-Jack
|
| 20.2828 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:17 | 5 |
| > close to 500,000 babies were saved in 1 year.
Great. Half a million unwanted babies being brought up now. Who am I
supposed to go see to be happy about that?
|
| 20.2829 | re: .2811 | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:22 | 4 |
| Re: .211
Mothers killing babies are on the rise in the U.S. too and we have
legal abortion laws, so what's your point?
|
| 20.2830 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:22 | 10 |
| ZZ Great. Half a million unwanted babies being brought up now. Who am I
ZZ supposed to go see to be happy about that?
Jack, who are we to determine they are unwanted? My three nephews cost
my sister 45K and 6 years in waiting!!
However, you might want to address the Great Society clingers. They
are the ones who seem to be rewarding procreation...until recent years.
-Jack
|
| 20.2831 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:23 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.2824 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>
| You have a valueless argument... don't you see?
The things you mentioned, Scott, are against the law. Abortions are
not. So I'm not quite sure the argument is valueless.
|
| 20.2832 | I wish we had that info for the other case as well | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:28 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.2829 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>
| Mothers killing babies are on the rise in the U.S. too and we have
| legal abortion laws, so what's your point?
Mike, can you provide some facts with this? I'm curious as to how much
they have gone up, and if they are newborns or not. Also, if you are going by
the number of babies that were killed from a certain year to now, can you give
us the amount of babies that were had as well? That way we can see if the % is
the same, just that more cases are happening due to more births. Thanks.
|
| 20.2833 | glen's logic | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:28 | 4 |
| re -.1
Homosexual marraiges are illegal so they must be wrong!!!
Steve J.
|
| 20.2834 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:30 | 4 |
| Bingo. You can't always justify the rightness of something because it
is written as an edict.
-Jack
|
| 20.2835 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:30 | 29 |
| > The things you mentioned, Scott, are against the law. Abortions are
>not. So I'm not quite sure the argument is valueless.
It is valueless... The noter made the point that
a) abortion is wrong
and
b) it is wrong to force people into not having abortions
So, if we take the logic and apply it to other things (which are currenly
against the law) does the logic work???
a) rape is wrong
and
b) it is wrong to force people into not raping
Does that logic fit? Of course not! It's a valueless argument that was
supplied, because the logic holds no value! You can say act X is wrong, but
we can't force people into not doing act X... what is that? It means
nothing!!! If act X is wrong, than a society should not allow that act X
to go unpunished...
The act of rape is wrong, so rape is against the law.
The act of murder is wrong, so murder is against the law.
The act of abortion is wrong, but let's not force the issue...
Does that fit? Is it logical? I don't think so...
/scott
|
| 20.2836 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:34 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.2814 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>
> So Basically what I gather from your note is .... 150 DEAD BABIES is ok
Maybe you get that from my note, but I didn't say, nor mean to
imply, that.
If I thought the 150 was OK, I wouldn't have called on the Church
to address the problem.
|
| 20.2837 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:38 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.2833 by NCMAIL::JAMESS >>>
| Homosexual marraiges are illegal so they must be wrong!!!
You just don't get it..... the things mentioned were things that have
laws against them. Trying to compare abortion to it, which has a law saying it
is ok, is comparing apples to oranges.
I do agree that not all laws are good. But I bet we end up not seeing
eye to eye on which laws. :-) But that would happen from person to person
anyway.....
Glen
|
| 20.2838 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:38 | 18 |
| re: Our Jack Martin
> Jack, who are we to determine they are unwanted?
OK. Fine. Let's try to put some structure around this so that we can continue
the discussion from a rational standpoint for a change, then, shall we?
(None/Few/Some/Many/Most/All/__%)[choose one] of the half million babies
not aborted in Poland this past year will be raised in homes
where they are loved and wanted.
(None/Few/Some/Many/Most/All/__%)[choose one] of the half million babies
not aborted in Poland this past year will remain unwanted in the
households of the women who bore them, but would have preferred
to have not carried them to term if that had been a legal option
available to them.
|
| 20.2839 | attack me if you feel it makes you a better human | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:38 | 39 |
| JACK,
I just love the attention you directly give me any chance you get...
Undeveloped tissue....uhhmmmmm could this be tissue that can't survive
outside of the host. (It's not the point of the note, but you know that
don't you jack)
No kidding jack....conjecture, doesn't that me guess work. I would be
a doctor if I had the answers, no better jack, I'd be GOD. Undeveloped
tissue isn't guess work Jack. Have you ever seen a REAL aborted fetus.
(not propoganda prolife pamphelets, a reall life, clean up the mess)
I used to work in a hospital. Spontaneous abortions weren't regular,
but I saw them enough to know clumpy tissue in blood.....guess what..
didn't resemble anything I'd give a name to, actually I wasnt able
to tell the sex of the tissue, probably cause it didn't have any....yet.
Emotionally devastating, no less.
Scott.
..No I'm not for any abortions Scott...let alone third trimesters, or
as birth control as a regular thing. But don't think you'll find me
telling someone else what to do with their body and their mind. That's
not the issue. My problem is with people who constantly try to control
what their neighbors are doing. Choice is Choice.....If you want to
participate in the choice go right ahead. My choice would be to have
the baby, today, but I can't tell you years ago what my choice would have
been. But don't make a law that tells me I have to abide by PRO-LIFE,
because frankly, that's not giving a choice that taking away choice
should it...so is pro-life prolife or pro-guilt..
Don't care much for the Gladys Cravits of this file, you know the ones
that have to know everything....I dont' know everything, but I know
taking away someones choice is like treating an aged parent like a baby
you have to care for, someone not capable of making solid decisions.
that's more appauling to me than an adult making a life decision.
|
| 20.2840 | Right or Left, it's hard to tell! | DASHER::RALSTON | screwiti'mgoinhome.. | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:39 | 28 |
| I think that religious right individuals are among the most worthy of
Americans. Most religious right people are of value to others and society.
Many seem to be hard working, productive, family oriented individuals who act
as foils to the political elitists that control America today. Most of the
religious right are self-sufficient and do not partake of government
sponsored parasitism. Yet they appear to be self-defeating and thoroughly
hoodwinked by their own demagogic leaders when it comes to abortion. Because of
their loyalty to genuine values, religious right people properly respect human
life above all else. Thus they would be correct, morally and legally, to block
anyone who purposely murders other human beings. But the problem with their all
out crusade against abortion is that a fetus is not a human being. Potentiality
is not actuality. Their badly misguided concept of "murdering" fetuses comes
from emotional brainwashings by false "spiritual" leaders. Leaders who support
agendas needed to advance their own self-serving demagogic livelihoods. At any
stage a fetus is nothing but protoplasm. The fetus is not a baby, not a child,
not a human being. The defining essence or attribute of a human being is
consciousness, conscious awareness and conscious functioning. The fetus has no
consciousness. The fetus is not a human being. The fetus has no rights. The
fetus requires no legal or moral protection. Millions of intelligent,
religious people have been duped into morally and physically defending fetuses
as if they were human beings. Consider their forcibly aggressive anti-abortion
demonstrations along with other contradictions like demanding school prayer or
moments of silence in public schools. Such blending of church and state
ultimately subverts the rights and freedoms of all religious and non-religious
people. For demanding any government action to promote political or religious
agendas means sanctioning force backed actions leading to criminal acts by
government, including political mass murder such as Waco.
|
| 20.2841 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:39 | 5 |
|
EEEKKKK!!!!! Sorry, Scott. When I read it, I didn't see it that way.
But you kind of cleared that up now, didn't you. :-) You are right sir.... I
was wrong.
|
| 20.2842 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:45 | 5 |
| .2840
yeah.........................................I think?
|
| 20.2843 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:48 | 9 |
| > EEEKKKK!!!!! Sorry, Scott. When I read it, I didn't see it that way.
>But you kind of cleared that up now, didn't you. :-) You are right sir.... I
>was wrong.
Are you serious??? Or are you pulling my leg? I have to say, it's hard to
believe that after one note you say I was right and you were wrong...
I'll have to re-read my note, maybe it was better than I thought! ;-)
/scott
|
| 20.2844 | An exercise | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:56 | 34 |
| > Abortion isn't right, but what is more wrong is telling a woman she
> isn't capable of making that desicion on her own and we need to have
Can we try a little exercise? Please read the following statements and than
answer the questions...
Statements:
o Rape isn't right, but it is more wrong to tell men they can not rape.
o Murder isn't right, but it is more wrong to tell people they can not
murder.
o Abortion isn't right, but it is more wrong to tell women they can not
have an abortion.
o Spousal abuse isn't right, but is is more wrong to tell people they
can not beat up their spouse.
Questions:
o Do you agree with any of the above statements?
o If so, which ones and why?
o If not, which ones and why?
o Given that the above statements all use the same logical argument,
how can you agree with some and disagree with others?
thank you.
/scott
|
| 20.2845 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:57 | 14 |
| >The fetus is not a baby, not a child, not a human being.
What the hell is it, a caterpillar?
>The defining essence or attribute of a human being is consciousness,
>conscious awareness and conscious functioning.
Oh, so if someone passes out and is unconscious, they're no longer a
human being, right?
You are the one who has been duped, duped into believing that rights
somehow are tied to level of development or place of residence.
/john
|
| 20.2846 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Oct 26 1995 19:58 | 20 |
| | <<< Note 20.2843 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>
| Are you serious???
Yes, I am.
| Or are you pulling my leg?
I've never met you, so I couldn't say this. :-)
| I have to say, it's hard to believe that after one note you say I was right
| and you were wrong...I'll have to re-read my note, maybe it was better than I
| thought! ;-)
Your note pointed out what I read wrong in the other note. Once you did
that...wooooosh! it came to me.... :-)
Glen
|
| 20.2847 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Oct 26 1995 20:00 | 60 |
| <<< Note 20.2818 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>
> So How I see it and entirely in my opinion,
Yes. Your opinion. Please remember this. You seem to be
upset with me expressing my opinion.
Now let's look at some things you said:
> In your eyes, 150 dead babies, sons and daughters, in garbage heaps is
> morally better than 499,000 maybe births..being terminated, now
> breaking that down, do you think out of 499,000 abortions, that maybe
> 150,000 would make it to term...DO WE HAVE ROOM FOR 150,000 dead
> babies? I don't have the stomache for it to be honest with you..
First of all, neither is morally better. Both are tragic.
Now, I have no way of knowing what number of the 499,000 will
make it to term. Let's just use 150,000 for argument's sake.
Why do you say that those 150,000 will end up dead? It has
already been established that 150 are killed. The remaining
ones are not. Why must you suggest they will be killed too?
This reeks of hysterics.
> Abortion isn't right, but what is more wrong is telling a woman she
> isn't capable of making that desicion on her own and we need to have
> laws that force her into a decision.
We've been through this far too many times. The decision
comes BEFORE creating the life. I applaud the Polish
society for recognizing the moral corruption in terminating
those lives once created! Society *SHOULD* be allowed to
determine what it holds as sacred and what it sees as
abhorrent and unsupportable.
> So babies of rape and incest ...
If you reread the posting about Poland, you'll see that
exceptions are made for such cases. Frankly I think
that ALL pregnancies are sacred -- so does the Catholic
Church who apparently influenced the change in Poland --
but we all know that without such exceptions to the rule,
the change would have never occurred.
So now there are 700-some abortions instead of 500,000.
That's quite a step in the right direction!
> permission is a problem......I'm getting really confused..so if the
> problem is visable you can deal with 150 DEAD BABIES but not 499,000
> undeveloped tissues being terminated.
And I'll suggest that because the abortions are not visible
babies, you just have no sense of the loss of human life.
To you it's just tissue. To me it's as precious a life as the
starving, dying baby on the garbage heap. So that's why I see
150 dead babies as an improvement over 500,000 dead babies in
the abortuary barrel. You used the term morally better. That's
not a fair term for neither is morally acceptable.
|
| 20.2848 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Oct 26 1995 20:14 | 8 |
| <<< Note 20.2819 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>
> Undeveloped tissue is not a fully developed human..
A 7-year-old is not a fully developed human either.
Where do you draw the line, and why do you choose that
point for the line?
|
| 20.2849 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Oct 26 1995 20:28 | 37 |
| <<< Note 20.2823 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>
> And that is the 150 babies that were found, instead of carried away by
> stray animals, eaten by wild things, or buried in the woods and never
> recovered. They didn't include the fact that the death ratew for women
> of child-bearing age is going up, but I expect that will come out soon
> too.
Great. For the sake of argument let's say that ten times that
number of babies are killed but unaccounted for. And let's say
that an equal number of women die from childbirth.
So now we're comparing 3,000 against 500,000.
You'll still have to conjure up some more grim reaper scenarios
to show that the toll on human life is now worse.
> Also if you read the article it may be tht women are taking the
> "geographical cure" and leaving the country for an abortion.
> WillPoland start mandatory pregnancy tests for all women monthly, and
> then refuse exit visas to those who want to visit friends?
And this is pure hysterics.
> In Romania and in Russia when this experiment happened the "live birth"
> rate did not go up,
And did that happen (if it truly *DID* happen) because of the
factors you listed (infant mortality, SIDS, etc.) or because
couples were a bit more careful with conception?
> So to Joe 150 known deaths of babies, and an untold number of women
> dying is OK, I don't get this.
Meg, it is terribly unfair of you to say that I see the deaths
as OK. If it's something you don't get, perhaps it's because
you shouldn't be making up such lies in the first place.
|
| 20.2850 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Oct 26 1995 20:31 | 13 |
| <<< Note 20.2828 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>Great. Half a million unwanted babies being brought up now. Who am I
>supposed to go see to be happy about that?
Who is saying that a half million more are being born? All we
know is that a half million are now no longer being killed, but
nothing says that the rate of conception has stayed constant.
And for those extras that *ARE* being born (I have no doubt that
this is the case) what makes you say that a baby that would have
been aborted is not going to be wanted (either by the natural
parents or adoptive parents) once born?
|
| 20.2851 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Oct 26 1995 20:33 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.2837 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
>| Homosexual marraiges are illegal so they must be wrong!!!
>
> You just don't get it..... the things mentioned were things that have
>laws against them. Trying to compare abortion to it, which has a law saying it
>is ok, is comparing apples to oranges.
Sodomy is illegal in your state.
|
| 20.2852 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Being weird isn't enough | Thu Oct 26 1995 20:39 | 5 |
|
Sorry, Joe, but you could technically have a platonic marriage.
[Is "platonic" right? If not, substitute "just friends".]
|
| 20.2853 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Oct 26 1995 20:47 | 27 |
|
Michelle:
Z Undeveloped tissue....uhhmmmmm could this be tissue that can't
Z survive outside of the host. (It's not the point of the note, but you know
Z that don't you jack)
Of course...and let's get something straight. I am not trying to
insult you. I'm merely pointing out that your statement regarding
tissue is based on faulty logic.
In regards to the above, my sister who is a nurse takes care of a
quadropelegic baby with a genetic disorder who cannot survive without
some sort of host. In this case, the care of my sister and the mother.
Granted the baby is going to die soon, if not already. However, the
mother had the pure love to appreciate this child for who he is. In my
opinion, motherhood separates the women from the girls.
I'm sorry but I don't have any more compassion for a women who take
the easy way out. I don't have to like it, I don't have to sanction it
in my own country, and I sure as heck shouldn't have to fund it. (I do
through taxation)
Needless to say, the fact this baby requires a host to survive does not
make this child any less human than another, right??!
-Jack
|
| 20.2854 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Oct 26 1995 22:02 | 14 |
| > Mike, can you provide some facts with this? I'm curious as to how much
I'm going by the obvious increase in frequency while watching the
evening news. Look how many Susan Smith-like cases received national
coverage this past year.
>they have gone up, and if they are newborns or not. Also, if you are going by
>the number of babies that were killed from a certain year to now, can you give
>us the amount of babies that were had as well? That way we can see if the % is
>the same, just that more cases are happening due to more births. Thanks.
Glen, I think that's what libraries are for. Time to renew your card.
Mike
|
| 20.2855 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Oct 26 1995 22:20 | 15 |
| re: .2850, Joe
> nothing says that the rate of conception has stayed constant.
I made the bold assumption that Your Holy Roman Catholic Church wasn't
passing out Blessed Ortho-Novum prescriptions in Poland these days, Joe.
Prolly rash on my part.
> what makes you say that a baby that would have
> been aborted is not going to be wanted (either by the natural
> parents or adoptive parents) once born?
Feel free to take a crack at the math questions I left for Our Jack Martin
back in .2838, Joe.
|
| 20.2856 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Oct 26 1995 22:46 | 19 |
| Another thing that strikes me odd about "celebrating" (damn that Marjorie
Clapprood has me using that stupid word now) the fact that there are
half a million fewer abortions per annum in Poland, now that the country
is controlled by The Church rather than Moscow -
Millions of children die of starvation and disease and neglect
the world over every year. The impact of this problem, in terms
of an order of magnitude, hasn't really varied one iota in all of
recorded history. Not with all of the charities, and adoptions,
and Missions, and Sally_Strutherses and churches that the whole
of humanity has purportedly attempted to throw at the problem
for as long as anyone knows. Millions. Every year. For thousands
of years. With exactly zero chance of it ever changing in our
lifetimes or that of our great-grand-progeny.
Given that, how the HELL am I supposed to "rejoice" that half
a million Polish women who used to have the good sense and the
freedom to avoid contributing to the problem are now forced to
toe the Church's line?
|
| 20.2857 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Oct 26 1995 22:51 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.2855 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>I made the bold assumption that Your Holy Roman Catholic Church wasn't
>passing out Blessed Ortho-Novum prescriptions in Poland these days, Joe.
>Prolly rash on my part.
That's an OK assumption. Along with it you might want to
consider the assumption that couples are simply being more
judicious around ovulation time too.
>Feel free to take a crack at the math questions I left for Our Jack Martin
>back in .2838, Joe.
To what end? Just to collect various opinions from various
perspectives? Thanks. We have enough here to fight about
already.
|
| 20.2858 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Oct 26 1995 22:58 | 8 |
| .2856
Great. So you say there's overpopulation and starvation and
plagues and tragedy. Given that I believe that the baby in the
uterus is as human as you and I are, why would I prefer abortion
over some other form of genocide?
I don't see genocide as the proper answer to world problems at all.
|
| 20.2859 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Thu Oct 26 1995 23:01 | 22 |
| Joe,
You are rejoycing that there were 500,000 fewer LEGAL abortions in
Poland. This doesn't translate to 500K more people carrying to term,
or do you think Poland still has the travel restrictions that existed
before the fall of communism?
countries all the way around Poland have more liberal laws, it is just
that it costs some money to travel, and also costs more money for a
procedure. many women are taking the geographical way out. Is this
something to rejoyce over, or are you just happy in ignorance thinking
those 500K abortions that didn't take place in Poland means 500K more
babies were carried to term and only 150 were killed after birth?
Get real, the ONLY way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted
pregnancies. In Poland this most certainly means better access to
reliable BC, which still hasn't happened, especially with the "church"
getting their muddy boots in politics there. I have friends who just
returned and reliable contraception there is still 40 years behind the
rest of Europe.
meg
|
| 20.2860 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Oct 26 1995 23:07 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.2859 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>
> You are rejoycing that there were 500,000 fewer LEGAL abortions in
> Poland. This doesn't translate to 500K more people carrying to term,
Hey, didn't I say that already?
> countries all the way around Poland have more liberal laws, it is just
> that it costs some money to travel, and also costs more money for a
> procedure. many women are taking the geographical way out. Is this
> something to rejoyce over, or are you just happy in ignorance thinking
> those 500K abortions that didn't take place in Poland means 500K more
> babies were carried to term and only 150 were killed after birth?
You just keep rooting for those abortions, Meg. There aren't
many better cheerleaders than you.
|
| 20.2861 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Thu Oct 26 1995 23:14 | 27 |
| Joe,
I root for the safety of born, breathing women, something you seem to
leave out of the equations regarding how valuable life is.
I also root for women to decide their own reproductive destinies,
preferably by avoiding unwanted pregnancies in the first place,
something which is difficult when reliable, accessable, AFFORDABLE
contraception is not available. Exhaulting in the lack of 500K
abortions that didn't happen in one place in the records is simply not
noticing the facts in the world.
Joe, do you cry for the 200-500K women who die every year from unsafe
abortions? don't forget that is also an additional 200-500K babies as
well, and heaven knows how many more that might have been conceived and
carried to term when the mothers were in a place where they could
afford more children.
Did you also notice that the average Polish woman who is seeking
abortions in that country has 2-3 children already? Don't you think she
knows what carrying life inside her is? Why not work to raise the
standard of living so she and her husband can afford to feed and clothe
the children she has now, instead of wanting to force a mouth to feed
that could push the rest of the family over the edge from subsistance
to true starvation-level poverty?
meg
|
| 20.2862 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Oct 26 1995 23:29 | 19 |
| re: Joe
> Along with it you might want to
> consider the assumption that couples are simply being more
> judicious around ovulation time too.
And this all because the Iron Curtain fell down and Holy Mother Church started
calling the shots? Er, ah, you'll pardon my skepticism, I'm sure.
> To what end?
To the end that I keep hearing over and over from the pro-life side that
all little bebbes are wanted. Well, Joe, I hate to bring you to the cold
reality of the matter, but I believe the statistics and the facts indicate
otherwise. You CANNOT open a newspaper or listen to a news report anywhere
in the world that doesn't make it perfectly clear, to even Rainman and
Forrest Gump, that all the little bebbes are most assuredly NOT wanted,
loved, and cared for. Face it, Joe. Either that, or provide me with those
numbers which prove that I'm wrong.
|
| 20.2863 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Oct 26 1995 23:43 | 20 |
| re: Joe again
> Great. So you say there's overpopulation and starvation and
> plagues and tragedy.
If you'll carefully note, I didn't say one damn word about overpopulation.
(I'm careful about that because the chubby little fellow in Rome keeps
saying "Ain't so! Liar, liar, pants on fire!")
But, yes, there is starvation, and disease and neglect. As it was in the
beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, amen. Get used to it.
And stop trying to tell half a million Polish women (not to mention hundreds
of millions of others of various ethnic and religious backgrounds around the
world) to go ahead and pop out those bebbes. And stop using that silly
"genocide" foil to refer to a concept which allows women as individuals to make
their own personal decisions free of the coercion that you'd like to impose
upon them.
In short, it's none of your damn business. Nor Chubby's, either.
|
| 20.2864 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Oct 27 1995 00:26 | 11 |
| Gee. You know, it just came to mind that thirty-five years ago, if anyone
had heard me voicing these opinions, their response would have been -
"JACK DEL BALSO! What would your MOTHER say if she heard you?"
Fortunately, I had already decided about thirty-six years ago that my mother
didn't really have anything salient to contribute, anyway.
Oddly, if you ever had an opportunity to meet my mother, you'd agree
with me, on that score, at least. I guar-on-teee.
|
| 20.2865 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Oct 27 1995 09:35 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 20.2854 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>
| I'm going by the obvious increase in frequency while watching the evening
| news.
Just as I thought, Mike. You don't have any facts.
| Look how many Susan Smith-like cases received national coverage this past
| year.
So you ARE comparing apples to oranges. Meg talked about new born
killings. You're talking about kids that have been around for a few years. So
your view, isn't anything about what Meg was talking about. Thanks for
clarifying.
| Glen, I think that's what libraries are for. Time to renew your card.
Mike, if you make the claim, you should be able to back it. Not send
someone to the library.
Glen
|
| 20.2867 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Oct 27 1995 12:41 | 4 |
| .2845
is a caterpillar a butterfly?
|
| 20.2868 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Oct 27 1995 12:43 | 11 |
| .2848,
so tell me, how is a 7 year old not completely developed TISSUE.
COMPLETELY DEVELOPED TISSUE IS THE PART YOU FORGOT. A 7 year old
is able to live outside of the womb, outside of the house, fending for
itself, be it ever so infintile it can...undeveloped tissue is a clump
of unrecognizable tissue...unrecognizable as anything discribable.
|
| 20.2870 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Oct 27 1995 12:49 | 21 |
| .2853
First of all the easy way out....the easy way out...you've obviously
been a close friend or been involved with, someone who has had to face
that grueling decision. I'm sure that most woman in this notes file who
have had to face that tragedy, don't feel they took the EASY way out.
As a matter of fact, I think they took the strongest way out. They made
a decision for their own body, going against what society says "you as
the woman are not as important as the undeveloped tissue."
Don't generalize anything about what these woman had to face Jack. They
are probably more holy than thou are.! Only because they case NO
dispersions upon there fellow man, woman or child.
Until you walk a mile in their shoes, don't cast them aside as taking
the easy way out....Where are the fathers, taking the easy way out
Jack! But that's ok..
I'm sure I'll have more to spew about.
michelle
|
| 20.2871 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Cyberian Party Hamster | Fri Oct 27 1995 12:51 | 3 |
| 20.2873 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Oct 27 1995 12:52 | 8 |
| 2869
In what biological way is a 7 year old not like a 70 year old.
explain that please, without the aging part as a contributing factor,
because a 7 year old is aging as we type...!
|
| 20.2874 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Oct 27 1995 12:54 | 6 |
|
Anybody want to take a crack at answering Scott's questions way back??
No?.... didn't think so...
|
| 20.2876 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Oct 27 1995 12:57 | 14 |
| .2875
No, the 7 year old is breathing, eating and physically able to survive
ouside of the host.
The 70 year old is breathing, eating and physically able to survive
outside of the host.
...I will take a crack at Scotts note, as soon as I word it so that it
makes sense for ALL the statements....
|
| 20.2877 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Fri Oct 27 1995 13:08 | 6 |
|
I'm going to stick to my policy of staying out of this debate. I've
deleted my notes.
Mike
|
| 20.2878 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Oct 27 1995 13:11 | 12 |
|
>The 70 year old is breathing, eating and physically able to survive
>outside of the host.
And if the 70 year old is on life-support, does that make him/her
"tissue"??
re: "host"...
Now I see... up until this mass of tissue is expelled from the body,
it's nothing but a "parasite".... correct?
|
| 20.2879 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend, will you be ready? | Fri Oct 27 1995 13:13 | 20 |
|
> No, the 7 year old is breathing, eating and physically able to survive
> ouside of the host.
and the blob of tissue of which you speak is breathing/eating and physic-
ally occupying the safe space that was designed to protect it until it
can survive outside of the "host".
|
| 20.2880 | If you prick it, does it not bleed? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 27 1995 13:16 | 6 |
| And it's no "blob"; it has hands, feet, eyes, ears, a mouth, a nose,
a brain, a nervous system, and a beating heart.
And more.
/john
|
| 20.2881 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | bon marcher, as far as she can tell | Fri Oct 27 1995 13:36 | 18 |
| >First of all the easy way out....the easy way out...you've obviously
>been a close friend or been involved with, someone who has had to face
>that grueling decision. I'm sure that most woman in this notes file who
>have had to face that tragedy, don't feel they took the EASY way out.
>As a matter of fact, I think they took the strongest way out.
I personally don't think that abortion is an "easy" solution to the
problem of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. However, I find it
difficult to dispute the notion that it is _easier_ on the woman (and
man, for that matter) than having a child and raising it for 18 years.
As for abortion being the "strongest way out," I find this notion to be
ludicrous.
People very close to me have had abortions. I think that in the final
analysis, they made the best decision for themselves and for those
around them. I don't think any of them would claim that it was easy;
neither would they claim that having the children would not have been
much harder.
|
| 20.2882 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:08 | 22 |
| > <<< Note 20.2865 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
>
> Just as I thought, Mike. You don't have any facts.
That's true, you can't believe everything you get from the media today.
> So you ARE comparing apples to oranges. Meg talked about new born
>killings. You're talking about kids that have been around for a few years. So
>your view, isn't anything about what Meg was talking about. Thanks for
>clarifying.
What's the difference? Murder is murder and children are involved.
Besides, don't tell me you haven't recently heard of a dead infant being
found in a trash dumpster.
> Mike, if you make the claim, you should be able to back it. Not send
>someone to the library.
Glen, stop being lazy. How are you ever going to win a debate in here
without educating yourself!
Mike
|
| 20.2883 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:10 | 14 |
| >They made
>a decision for their own body, going against what society says "you as
>the woman are not as important as the undeveloped tissue."
It's this type of crap which gets under my skin...
"you as the woman are not as important as the undeveloped tissue"???
That is pollitical bullcrap you're spreading in this note...
1) abortion is wrong (as even you admitted)
2) woman and the baby (not undeveloped tissue) are EQUALLY IMPORTANT...
/scott
|
| 20.2884 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:13 | 8 |
| > ...I will take a crack at Scotts note, as soon as I word it so that it
> makes sense for ALL the statements....
I have a feeling this will take a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time...
;-)
/scott
|
| 20.2885 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Do you wanna bang heads with me? | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:13 | 5 |
|
RE: Mike
Has anyone EVER won a debate in here?
|
| 20.2886 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:20 | 7 |
|
I have seen people change their minds on various subjects, but this
usually isn't one of them.
Mike
|
| 20.2887 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:34 | 21 |
| Scott,
Abortion is not wrong it is tragic, just as is any unplanned/unwanted
pregancy, regardless of outcome.
And, BTW The woman is host to a parasite, however wanted and darling
that parasite may become some day. To properly maintain a healthy
regancy, she needs to consume more food, water, build a larger blood
supply, stress her organs, risk injury, and even death the longer a
pregnancy is carried. This is not to say that the risk is minimal in a
healthy, well-nourished woman, but it is there. This year I had two
friends suffer placental abruption near-term. In one case it was
completely unexpected, and I almost lost a cousin, as well as her son.
She had done everything "right", as far as nutrition and excercise and
was within seconds of a high tech obstetrical hospital, or she would
have just been another statistic, as would her very lovely son.
How can I ask someone who is unwilling, or unable to care for herself
to carry a fetus to term?
meg
|
| 20.2888 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:34 | 22 |
| re: .2881
Personally, having an abortion and finding out 15 years later that
you can't have any more children isn't particularly "easy"
either, but you makes your choices and takes your chances
and that's that.
I think there is a difference between "choice" and "informed
choice". I have written numerous notes in here on the physical
and emotional consequences of abortion, and while I would
never wish to remove a woman's right to choose, I think that
we have this big myth around "fixing a little problem" that
needs to be dispelled. Women need to understand the consequences
of choosing an abortion. It carries a little more emotional
baggage than having your teeth cleaned does. Men who request a women
undergo this procedure need to understand what they are asking
her to go through. Yes, it is easier than raising a child,
but it is still a tough row to hoe. Some women are better
prepared emotionally to handle it. Others are not.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.2889 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:44 | 10 |
| > Abortion is not wrong it is tragic, just as is any unplanned/unwanted
> pregancy, regardless of outcome.
Abortion is wrong AND tragic, even Michelle agrees to that... (see .2818)
Unplanned/unwanted pregnacy is not WRONG but it is tragic. However,
just because something is tragic doesn't mean it gives us license to do
something WRONG...
/scott
|
| 20.2890 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:46 | 7 |
|
I don't think unplanned pregnancy fits in the category. Unwanted yes,
unplanned, no.
Mike
|
| 20.2891 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Do you wanna bang heads with me? | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:50 | 4 |
|
"Unwanted AND unplanned" pregnancy is technically wrong because
there are various ways to keep it from happening.
|
| 20.2892 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:55 | 3 |
|
.2891 i could be having some sort of mental lapse or something, but
this makes no sense to me.
|
| 20.2893 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Oct 27 1995 14:55 | 11 |
| > "Unwanted AND unplanned" pregnancy is technically wrong because
> there are various ways to keep it from happening.
true - unless the birth control fails... but if they don't use birth
control, I will agree - it's wrong and irresponsible...
I will also go along with the notion that unplanned is not really tragic...
My 6 month old daughter was unplanned, but I certainly don't see the
result as tragic (rather, really really cute!)
/scott
|
| 20.2894 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't drink the (toilet) water. | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:08 | 3 |
|
OK, Lady Di, what didn't you understand?
|
| 20.2895 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | bon marcher, as far as she can tell | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:11 | 21 |
| >Personally, having an abortion and finding out 15 years later that
>you can't have any more children isn't particularly "easy"
>either, but you makes your choices and takes your chances
>and that's that.
Yep. Sorry to hear about that, BTW. Frankly, it occurs to me that
having an abortion isn't particularly "easy" even if future fertility
is not lost.
>I think there is a difference between "choice" and "informed
>choice". I have written numerous notes in here on the physical
>and emotional consequences of abortion, and while I would
>never wish to remove a woman's right to choose, I think that
>we have this big myth around "fixing a little problem" that
>needs to be dispelled.
I agree. Seems to me that part of sex-ed ought to be just exactly what
happens during an abortion, and how it affects the participants. I also
think that teens ought to spend a day in the delivery room, watching
what happens to a woman when she has a baby. It tends to discourage
accidental pregnancy.
|
| 20.2896 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:24 | 7 |
|
>> OK, Lady Di, what didn't you understand?
your reasoning. the fact that there are ways to try to prevent
getting pregnant doesn't mean that if you do get pregnant, you
planned it.
|
| 20.2897 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't drink the (toilet) water. | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:31 | 9 |
|
If you're referring to contraceptives failing, then that's why
I used "technically". All rules have exceptions.
How many "unplanned and unwanted" pregnancies occur each year?
Contraceptive failure rate is somewhere around 10-11% or so,
max, and all other pregnancies could be considered "wrong" due
to the non-use of same.
|
| 20.2898 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:33 | 17 |
| .2878
I read through my notes, NOWHERE did I say that the undevelope tissue
was a parasite, I'd thank you for not putting words in my mouth, I
speak very well on my on ....thanks anyhow..
I guess you'll have to agree to disagree with me....that's all I have
to say to a one liner "back at ya" comment.
and for the record...If my 76 year old father was on life support, I
would opt to have him removed....because he has consented to that
DNR (do not recusitate (sp)). Because I don't believe his QUALITY of
life was being lived to its fullest. As his daughter, if I were the
executer of the living will....I would opt to let him rest in peace.
|
| 20.2899 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:38 | 16 |
| .2884
You wrote it buddy...apparently it will take a LONNNNNNNNGGGGG time to
make sense of your note..you're talking about taking about telling
grown adults they CAN'T do something...I couldn't tell charles mansion
not to kill, so I voted for a law that would...
I can't tell the sick bas**** not to use his control and rape an
unsuspecing woman, however, I voted for a law that does....
Abortion is a choice for a woman to make between her, her highest power
and her physical and spouse if present, so....I vote to keep her
choice..
(ps, your smile is a bit sarcastic, I don't think we should go that
route).
|
| 20.2900 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:45 | 42 |
| Mike,
Unwanted pregnancies are generally not planned. I know of no women who
decided to get pregnant so they could experience the "joys" of an
abortion.
I will not say abortion is wrong, it is tragic, it is something to be
avoided if at all possible, by use of good contraception by both people
involved in sexual congress, or by abstinence, (not always possible if
one partner doesn't cooperate) and by having a reasonable support
structure so people caught in an unplanned pregnancy don't have to feel
economically pressured not to carry to term. (See NJ stats on
pregnancy rates and live birth rates on AFDC mothers since the no
additional money for additional children laws kicked in)
Many people who claim to be pro-life and pro-family are supporting
bills that are cutting the very programs that make carrying a fetus to
term lewss desirable, or even feasible for people living on the edge,
including nutrition programs, immunization programs, AFDC, medical care
for those who have no way of affording insurance, family planning, child
care, elder care, you get the picture.
I can't help but wonder how one can claim to be pro-life womb to
cradle, yet ignore the consequences of what to do with the born,
breathing children that might be born. The Romanian solution of trying
to force women to carry to term has resulted in the tradgedy of
warehoused children, increased infant mortality, increased maternal
mortality and broken families, as well as a thriving black market in
children, abortion services, and contraception. In Brazil, children as
young as 5 are abandoned to the streets, and are murdered by corporate
thugs. There has been a much higher number of ceasarians in Brazil, as
a ceasarian has been the only way women could get Dr's to sterilize
them. Thousands of women and children die and are crippled as a result
of the illegal abortion industry, leaving more orphaned children to
roam the streets.
IMO until every child is a wanted child with enough food in their
belly, enough education, training, and ccare to be productive to the
best of their abilities we have absolutely no business trying to
regulate reproduction in this country or abrad.
meg
|
| 20.2901 | | DASHER::RALSTON | screwiti'mgoinhome.. | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:47 | 3 |
| re: <<< Note 20.2890 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER>>>
There you go mike, getting involved again. :)
|
| 20.2902 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:50 | 11 |
| <<< Note 20.2863 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>And stop using that silly
>"genocide" foil
Sorry, but I see a clear equation between abortion as a practice
and genocide. I also see a clear equation between an individual
abortion and murder.
Get used to it if you haven't already, for I'm not about to stop
speaking my mind about it.
|
| 20.2903 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:52 | 8 |
| <<< Note 20.2867 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>
> is a caterpillar a butterfly?
Genetically, yes.
Your analogy would hold water if we went through the same
type of metamorphosis as certain insects.
|
| 20.2904 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:52 | 12 |
|
Not in the debate, just in the semantics.... ;')
Meg,
What you say may be true, but all unpolanned pregnancies are not
unwanted. That is my point.
Mike
|
| 20.2905 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 27 1995 15:58 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.2887 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>
> Abortion is not wrong it is tragic, just as is any unplanned/unwanted
> pregancy, regardless of outcome.
Regardless of outcome?
A rather extreme claim, don't you think? I'll spare us all the
exercise of dueling anecdotes to disprove your claim.
|
| 20.2906 | PC-speak... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:00 | 37 |
| re: .2898
>I read through my notes, NOWHERE did I say that the undevelope tissue
>was a parasite, I'd thank you for not putting words in my mouth, I
>speak very well on my on ....thanks anyhow..
>I guess you'll have to agree to disagree with me....that's all I have
>to say to a one liner "back at ya" comment.
The American Heritage Dicitionary
host - 1 n. One who entertains guests. 2. Biol. An organism on or in
which a parasite lives.
>I guess you'll have to agree to disagree with me...
No I won't... because you're wrong!!! If you don't mean it, then don't
use a word that distorts your meaning!!! You are obviously ignorant of
the conotation, and therefore not too, too able to speak on your own
behalf...
>and for the record...If my 76 year old father was on life support, I
>would opt to have him removed....because he has consented to that
>DNR (do not recusitate (sp)). Because I don't believe his QUALITY of
>life was being lived to its fullest. As his daughter, if I were the
>executer of the living will....I would opt to let him rest in peace.
You, again obviously, have a problem with comprehension... I wasn't
talking about your father, and/or what you would do in his case... I
asked you what it(who?) was that was hooked up to a life support
system? According to your literal definition, it's just a mass of
tissue... No matter that he/she/it may only need life-support for a
relatively short while... Does it then (re)evolve back into a human
once they're off??
|
| 20.2907 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:04 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.2873 by BRAT::MINICHINO >>>
> In what biological way is a 7 year old not like a 70 year old.
The 7-year-old cannot father a child.
The 70-year-old is genetically identical to what he was at
7-years-old, and the 7-year-old is genetically identical to
what he was a 7 weeks in the womb (and 7 days, etc.)
|
| 20.2908 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:06 | 8 |
| > <<< Note 20.2897 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Don't drink the (toilet) water." >>>
> If you're referring to contraceptives failing, then that's why
> I used "technically". All rules have exceptions.
I wasn't referring to just that. People who have sex without
taking into account the possible ramifications aren't ipso
facto planning a pregnancy.
|
| 20.2909 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:10 | 6 |
| Joe unlanned pregnancies which are also unwanted, and continue to be
unwanted can grow into unwanted children. I won't argue that some
unplanned pregnancies become wanted, and then not a tradgedy, but if
they don't make that transition to wanted they are tragic.
meg
|
| 20.2910 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't get even ... get odd!! | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:12 | 9 |
|
So you're saying that ignorance IS an excuse for wrongdoing?
Someone said that unplanned was not "wrong". I replied that
"unplanned AND unwanted" pregnancies should be considered wrong,
since contraceptives will avoid 90%+ of unwanted pregnancies.
I'm still not sure why you don't understand this.
|
| 20.2911 | One old fart's opinion | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:12 | 20 |
| I'll jump in here, ready to take abuse because I didn't read all of
the prior replies. I read many of them, though.
Is there a companion Women's Choice topic? It seems that there are two
questions: a woman's right to choose, and the rightness/wrongness of
abortion, which I think are two very different questions. I fully
support a woman's right to choose, and I am against abortion, and I
don't see those as mutually exclusive.
The problem I have with the two groups (which may be another
question/topic), is that right-to-life leaves no room for pro-choice
while pro-choice does leave room for right-to-life.
If pro-choice limited itself to the woman's right, and right-to-life
limited itself to anti-abortion, they should be able to coexist, but
it doesn't seem that they do.
There. I'll go to my room now.
Pete
|
| 20.2912 | :') | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:15 | 6 |
|
RE: .2909 unlanned pregnancies.
What does abortion have to do with cybersex?
|
| 20.2913 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:17 | 7 |
| Pete,
Welcome to the club of "fence sitters", those of us who would like to
see abortion become unnecessary, but still want the options available
to those who need/want the services.
meg
|
| 20.2914 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:17 | 30 |
| 2906
I'm wrong.... ok so you're right....na na na nah!!!
get a grip...I'll say what I want when I want and if the law is on my
side, I'll do what i want also. I wouldn't stop you from doing
something that I didn't necessarily agree with. Not my business what
you do in your life....
I'm not ignorant, I am vocal...if that scares you ... oh well.
I'm not uneducated either, I'm just not the tunnel visioned person it
seems easy for you to assume I am. I see both side, however, I would
rather err on the side of NO JUDGEMENT, than to stand in judgement of
other in personal matter....
You did refer to elderly folk, well, I have elderly folk and
wouldn't sustane his life if it was just a tissue on a machine..He
would have no conscious being, that to me is a disgrace. I would only
be keeping him on life support to subdue my guilt of making a decision
to let him rest.
Host was not used in that context....use it as you may, I don't
consider a "undeveloped tissue" a baby, nor do I conciderate a
parasite. However, the person making the decision, well, I concider
that person capable of making a life decision for there self and their
body. Not anyone else.
I'll keep reading your explosive notes, they are a bit less painless
then the stomache I'm nursing right now.
|
| 20.2915 | :.\ | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:20 | 7 |
| .2913
Yeah. That's the ticket, sorry meg, can't sit on this fence today, got
a pole up my butt with this crowd...I'll retreat soon. Not yet though.
|
| 20.2916 | | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:23 | 6 |
| I don't feel that my position absolutely for a woman's right to choose
and absolutely against elective abortion is on either of the two
fences. I just don't think one *must* be in favor of abortion to be in
favor of the woman's right to choose.
Pete
|
| 20.2917 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:25 | 7 |
|
For me, if I believed that the unborn was not a human being, I would
not be against abortion.
Mike
|
| 20.2918 | | POWDML::AJOHNSTON | beannachd | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:27 | 16 |
| well, Pete, I've been blasted to holy hell by both "sides" in this for
saying that:
1 - I believe that abortion is wrong [under most circumstances] and why
I believe this.
2 - I absolutely believe that it is not a matter for laws, but rather a
matter of conscience.
I am anti-abortion, pro-choice
By so stating, I've apparently branded myself as neither.
Go figure.
Annie
|
| 20.2919 | Ignorance is curable... stupid is forever... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:33 | 5 |
|
re: .2914
I'll leave your response, for others, as an exercise in un-comprehension
|
| 20.2920 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:34 | 38 |
| > You wrote it buddy...apparently it will take a LONNNNNNNNGGGGG time to
> make sense of your note..you're talking about taking about telling
Michelle, I think the post in question where I asked you several questions
was very clear... what isn't clear is your response to that note...
Please, ANSWER what I asked... your last note was very hard to understand.
Are you saying since abortion is legal right now that you can't or wouldn't
vote for a law that would make it illegal?
So, then, given your logic, if rape all of a sudden became legal, then are
you saying you couldn't or wouldn't vote for a law that would make it illegal?
> I can't tell the sick bas**** not to use his control and rape an
> unsuspecing woman, however, I voted for a law that does....
> Abortion is a choice for a woman to make between her, her highest power
> and her physical and spouse if present, so....I vote to keep her
> choice..
The above 2 sentences make no sense... why not:
Rape is a choice for a man to make between him and his highest power,
so... i vote to keep it his choice.
how is that any different from what you say above about abortion? They are
both very similar, in that the victim of both acts is left out of the
statement (i.e. baby in case of abortion, woman (or man) in case of rape)
In fact, that is your problem with your argument above... I think I see
it now... in the case of rape or murder, you include a victim. However,
for abortion, you don't include the victim at all...
> (ps, your smile is a bit sarcastic, I don't think we should go that
> route).
My smile had nothing to do with abortion...
/scott
|
| 20.2921 | | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:41 | 6 |
| re: "By so stating, I've apparently branded myself as neither."
I assume you're talking about what others have branded you. Who cares.
And you probably don't need to be told, but don't worry about it.
Pete
|
| 20.2922 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:43 | 11 |
| <<< Note 20.2909 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>
> Joe unlanned pregnancies which are also unwanted, and continue to be
> unwanted can grow into unwanted children. I won't argue that some
> unplanned pregnancies become wanted, and then not a tradgedy, but if
> they don't make that transition to wanted they are tragic.
>
But your claim was that it is tragic regardless of outcome (or
words to that effect.)
It's good to see you begin to temper your words.
|
| 20.2923 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:47 | 3 |
|
Shawn, never mind - it was a mental lapse on my part, as i
feared. ;> i misunderstood your original sentence.
|
| 20.2924 | For Michelle: questions reposted | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:47 | 42 |
| Let me repost to make things fresh in your memory again, and please
answer each of the questions individually, please... thank you.
/scott
--
> Abortion isn't right, but what is more wrong is telling a woman she
> isn't capable of making that desicion on her own and we need to have
Can we try a little exercise? Please read the following statements and than
answer the questions...
Statements:
o Rape isn't right, but it is more wrong to tell men they can not rape.
o Murder isn't right, but it is more wrong to tell people they can not
murder.
o Abortion isn't right, but it is more wrong to tell women they can not
have an abortion.
o Spousal abuse isn't right, but is is more wrong to tell people they
can not beat up their spouse.
Questions:
o Do you agree with any of the above statements?
o If so, which ones and why?
o If not, which ones and why?
o Given that the above statements all use the same logical argument,
how can you agree with some and disagree with others?
thank you.
/scott
|
| 20.2925 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:47 | 10 |
| >I fully support a woman's right to choose, and I am against abortion, and I
>don't see those as mutually exclusive.
There were people in the 1850s who were against slavery, but supported
the right of slaveowners to practice it.
I consider that position as bankrupt as being against genocide but
supporting the right of Hitler to practice it.
/john
|
| 20.2926 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:50 | 15 |
| >>I fully support a woman's right to choose, and I am against abortion, and I
>>don't see those as mutually exclusive.
>
>There were people in the 1850s who were against slavery, but supported
>the right of slaveowners to practice it.
>
>I consider that position as bankrupt as being against genocide but
>supporting the right of Hitler to practice it.
Good points... I agree 100%... those types of positions remind me of
someone in a position of power right now... someone who wants to make all
sides feel as if he agrees with them... who is that guy... oh ya.. I
remember... Clinton!
/scott
|
| 20.2927 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't get even ... get odd!! | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:51 | 6 |
|
Yeah, I don't see how someone can be both anti-abortion and pro
choice.
You're either against it, or you tolerate/support it.
|
| 20.2928 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:53 | 12 |
| > Yeah, I don't see how someone can be both anti-abortion and pro
> choice.
>
> You're either against it, or you tolerate/support it.
I think most people who say they are against it but will support it are
just trying to make themselves feel good rather than deal with the hard
issue at hand...
(I have a feeling I should quickly hide for cover...)
/scott
|
| 20.2929 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:54 | 8 |
|
Not really. You can be vehemently opposed to legislating an
end to it (on the basis that it's not government's business),
but generally find it morally reprehensible. (This is the
position of many "libertarians".) You can want to end abortion,
but not want the government to interfere.
-b
|
| 20.2930 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:57 | 2 |
| But, Brian, if you want to end abortion, aren't you therefore
wanting to take away the choice from women?
|
| 20.2931 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | nothing's going to bring him back | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:57 | 11 |
| John,
Are you also proposing ammending the first ammendment, as it is morally
bankrupt by your idea here?
I don't like what certain people say, but I will fight for their right
to say it. I don't like certain peple's religious practices, up to and
including ritual cannabalism, but they have a right to practice it,
also according to the first ammendment.
meg
|
| 20.2932 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Oct 27 1995 16:59 | 13 |
| > Not really. You can be vehemently opposed to legislating an
> end to it (on the basis that it's not government's business),
> but generally find it morally reprehensible. (This is the
> position of many "libertarians".) You can want to end abortion,
> but not want the government to interfere.
This isn't the position we are talking about... your position is simply
that of no government involvment...
We're talking about the position of "I think abortion is wrong, but I
will not stop you from getting one"...
/scott
|
| 20.2933 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:04 | 13 |
|
> But, Brian, if you want to end abortion, aren't you therefore
> wanting to take away the choice from women?
Was that a "wink wink" question or a serious question? :-)
Assuming the latter, I think it is entirely possible to work
to end abortion without making its end mandatory (i.e. by
law). Clearly, one gets an abortion because one is pregnant.
That is, in most cases, what one could call a "preventable
outcome." :-)
-b
|
| 20.2934 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | bon marcher, as far as she can tell | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:05 | 4 |
| > But, Brian, if you want to end abortion, aren't you therefore
> wanting to take away the choice from women?
If they make the "right" choice, then both of our objectives are met.
|
| 20.2935 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:11 | 19 |
| > This isn't the position we are talking about... your position is simply
> that of no government involvment...
> We're talking about the position of "I think abortion is wrong, but I
> will not stop you from getting one"...
Yes, but... how can I "stop someone" from getting an abortion if
I do not have the legal means? I may be able to talk someone
out of getting an abortion, but that is different than forcefully
stopping them. I guess it depends on what you mean by stop...
If by stop, you mean by barricades and similar means, I think
that is a violation of civil rights. If by stop you mean taking
the time to provide reasonable counsel, then I see nothing wrong
with that.
Either way, my preferred solution is to do the work before the
bun is in the oven...
-b
|
| 20.2936 | | POWDML::AJOHNSTON | beannachd | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:11 | 18 |
| Scott,
"Stop" is a slippery term.
I've done what I could to stop friends and family from getting
abortions. That is to say, I've talked with them, offered them support
[financial as well as emotional], explored options, offered an unwanted
child a home.
I have stopped short of duct-taping them to the garage floor [or
something equally draconian.]
And I won't support laws that would prevent them.
It doesn't feel especially "good", but it does feel "right." If it
didn't feel right, it would change.
Annie
|
| 20.2937 | It must be nice to know what is best for all! | DASHER::RALSTON | screwiti'mgoinhome.. | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:24 | 9 |
| >We're talking about the position of "I think abortion is wrong, but I
>will not stop you from getting one"...
This is correct. There are those who make personal choices for
themselves, based on what they think to be right, for themselves. These
are people that are not so presumptuous to assume that what is right
for them is right for someone else, as many here seem to be. Especially
those who what government to force what they think is right onto others.
And then they erroneously proclaim to be moral.
|
| 20.2938 | | MROA::YANNEKIS | | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:26 | 22 |
|
> Yeah, I don't see how someone can be both anti-abortion and pro
> choice.
>
> You're either against it, or you tolerate/support it.
Are you serious? I can think of 10 examples easy ...
I'm anti-gun but pro-choice on gun ownership
I'm anti-cigaretts but pro-choice
I'm anti-flag-burning but pro-freedom-of-speech
etc, etc, etc
I can easily support the right of someone to have a choice even if I
abhor the choice.
Greg
|
| 20.2939 | pardon, your slip is showing | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:30 | 11 |
| > There were people in the 1850s who were against slavery, but
> supported the right of slaveowners to practice it.
>
> I consider that position as bankrupt as being against genocide
> but supporting the right of Hitler to practice it.
Presumably, John is also against forced conversions of Jews to
Catholicism under the inquisition, or the forced practise of religion
by those who aren't adherents. Like with draconian abortion laws.
DougO
|
| 20.2940 | Presumably... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:32 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.2941 | | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:33 | 9 |
| The comment re: Hitler and genocide is, IMO, very different. I know
who and what is being hurt, and it is obviously (legally and morally)
wrong, but I haven't been convinced in the area of what is happening
in an abortion. It gets back to when does the fetus become a human and
all that. I just don't know, and I haven't heard anyone who does,
based on something other than emotion or philosophy, and that isn't
good enough for me to interfere to the extent that some people will.
Pete
|
| 20.2942 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Erin go braghless | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:34 | 12 |
|
RE: Greg
Well, you're not really "anti-abortion" if you tolerate others
going out and getting abortions. You don't choose to get one
yourself, but someone else can get one if they want.
That's pro-choice.
Apparently you don't like abortions, but you're not anti-abort-
ion.
|
| 20.2943 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:37 | 7 |
| >> Presumably, John is also against
>
> -< Presumably... >-
right. unless he's a hypocrite.
DougO
|
| 20.2944 | | NEMAIL::BULLOCK | | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:43 | 21 |
|
I just wanna make sure that all the "pro-lifers" in here have
no problem with "crack babies". The vast majority of these
preganancies are unwanted. Sex for drugs is an epidemic in
the inner city.
The Washington Post had a series a while back on "crack babies",
.......average intensive care stay is five months,.....five months
in a neo natal intensive care unit cost approx. $600,000.00.
That's our taxes,.....don't get upset about it. The Post reported
that the "crack baby syndrome is bad and getting worse" And let's
face it,......over 95% of these births,...in the urban America are
Black. Statistically,....the Black male births under these
conditions are headed for disater. The thing that really blows my
mind is that if/when this person adopts a life of violence,..people
want the death penalty.
E
|
| 20.2945 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | bon marcher, as far as she can tell | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:47 | 6 |
| re: Slab
Oh, so there's a litmus test for anti-abortion feelings? What is
"tolerate"? Do you have to kill a doctor who performs abortions, or is
simple picketing sufficient? Do you have to get arrested in a protest,
or does a letter to your congressman suffice?
|
| 20.2946 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:50 | 22 |
| Michelle, I love it when you get mad! I have visions of this woman,
sitting at her terminal with flailing arms!! Cute.
ZZ Until you walk a mile in their shoes, don't cast them aside as taking
ZZ the easy way out....Where are the fathers, taking the easy way out
ZZ Jack! But that's ok..
Noted on the first part. However, I still believe I made the
important point. There are living people outside the womb that need a
host to live, and this doesn't make them any less a person than you or
I.
Secondly, you and I have been over this in the past. Like you, I
believe that fathers who ditch should be flailed alive. This isn't
germane to the topic. i am speaking about human rights issues here and
quite frankly, the onus is upon your ilk to scientifically prove the
fetus is a blob of tissue and not a person. It may be legal but you
will constantly have a thorn in the left cheek until this issue is
resolved (You meaning the pro choice camp!)
-Jack
|
| 20.2947 | | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Fri Oct 27 1995 17:59 | 19 |
| ================================================================================
Note 20.2941 Abortion 2941 of 2946
CAPNET::PJOHNSON "aut disce, aut discede" 9 lines 27-OCT-1995 14:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment re: Hitler and genocide is, IMO, very different. I know
who and what is being hurt, and it is obviously (legally and morally)
wrong, but I haven't been convinced in the area of what is happening
in an abortion. It gets back to when does the fetus become a human and
all that. I just don't know, and I haven't heard anyone who does,
based on something other than emotion or philosophy, and that isn't
good enough for me to interfere to the extent that some people will.
Pete
Hitler dehumanized his victims through propaganda before mass
executions.
Steve J.
|
| 20.2948 | | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Fri Oct 27 1995 18:20 | 14 |
| 2 <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 18.1730 Bill Clinton/Hillary Rodham 1730 of 1730
CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" 15 lines 27-OCT-1995 15:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When you are ready to start referring to humans as humans, let me know.
|
| meg
Please extend to us the same courtesy.
Steve J.
|
| 20.2949 | I miss the point | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Oct 27 1995 18:23 | 1 |
| re: Note 20.2947 by NCMAIL::JAMESS
|
| 20.2950 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Erotic Nightmares | Fri Oct 27 1995 18:29 | 8 |
|
RE: Doc
The way I see it, there are 2 sides to this fence ... either
you're pro-life [anti-abortion] or you're pro-choice. You
either believe that abortion is wrong, or that the choice is
better left to the one that needs to make their own decision.
|
| 20.2951 | | MROA::YANNEKIS | | Fri Oct 27 1995 18:33 | 24 |
|
> Well, you're not really "anti-abortion" if you tolerate others
> going out and getting abortions. You don't choose to get one
> yourself, but someone else can get one if they want.
>
> That's pro-choice.
Two thoughts ...
1) I'm pragmatic about the government's roll in stopping things I am
anti. Governments don't stop behaviors different societial attitudes
do. And I do not think the legality of an item has a lot to do with
the current attitude.
2) This may be a semantic rathole but I do not see the relationship of
my being anti something and my desire to stop someone from else from
doing it. I think cigarettes and smoking are *&^Y*&(&( and )(*)(* and
could not be more anti-smoking. At the same time I could not be more
in favor of other people's right to be stupid (IMO) and smoke as long
as they don't intefer with non-smokers.
Gr
eg
|
| 20.2952 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | bon marcher, as far as she can tell | Fri Oct 27 1995 18:34 | 3 |
| You didn't answer the questions. You have created a false dichotomy,
the implications of which are clear if you attempt to answer the
questions. Dude. :-)
|
| 20.2953 | | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Fri Oct 27 1995 18:41 | 6 |
| Pete,
The point is pro-choice has dehumanized the fetus in much the
same way.
Steve J.
|
| 20.2954 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Erotic Nightmares | Fri Oct 27 1995 18:44 | 27 |
|
Not sure EXACTLY what I'm getting myself into here, but:
Oh, so there's a litmus test for anti-abortion feelings?
Basically, yes. Pro-life = anti-abortion, pro-choice = "tolerate"
other's [and/or your own] abortions.
What is "tolerate"?
Let happen, regardless of personal opinions. You can choose not
to have an abortion, but you can tolerate others' choices, even
though they are completely opposite yours.
Do you have to kill a doctor who performs abortions, or is
simple picketing sufficient?
You don't have to do either one if you don't want to. Just be-
cause someone is anti-abortion, it doesn't mean they have to go
out and prove it. It just means that they are against them.
Do you have to get arrested in a protest,
or does a letter to your congressman suffice?
See previous.
|
| 20.2955 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Erotic Nightmares | Fri Oct 27 1995 18:47 | 10 |
|
RE: Greg
Well, then forget laws for a minute here. I never related ANY
of my statements to laws prohibiting/allowing abortions.
Are you pro-choice or anti-abortion? Either you're willing to
let them happen due to personal choice, or you don't agree that
they should be performed.
|
| 20.2956 | | MROA::YANNEKIS | | Fri Oct 27 1995 18:51 | 11 |
|
> Are you pro-choice or anti-abortion? Either you're willing to
> let them happen due to personal choice, or you don't agree that
> they should be performed.
We're back top semantics and I'm off this circular argument. I do not
find tolerating someone elses choice inconsistant with being
anti-something. You do. Let's agree to disagree.
Greg
|
| 20.2957 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Compilation terminated with errors. | Fri Oct 27 1995 18:55 | 12 |
| >Pro-life = anti-abortion, pro-choice = "tolerate" other's [and/or your own]
>abortions.
>>What is "tolerate"?
> Let happen,
Then by your definition, anyone short of John Salvi is pro-choice.
People who protest but do nothing to physically prevent abortions by
your definition tolerate abortions and are thus (by your definition)
pro-choice. Which is why your definition of pro-choice/pro-life is
incorrect (well, incoherent at the very least.)
|
| 20.2958 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Erotic Nightmares | Fri Oct 27 1995 19:03 | 14 |
|
Did I say that? Why is it necessary to be physical or violent
in being against abortions? Can't you be against abortions
without getting involved?
If I say I'm "anti-abortion", do I have to prove that by tell-
ing you how many clinics I pelted with rocks, or how many doc-
tors I stabbed in my travels? Why can't I just say "I'm anti-
abortion because I don't agree they should happen."?
And if I'm pro-choice, do I have to prove that by telling you
how many clinics I DEFENDED from rock pelters, or how many
doctors I shielded with my own body?
|
| 20.2959 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Erotic Nightmares | Fri Oct 27 1995 19:08 | 16 |
|
RE: Greg
Well, the way I read 1 of your previous entries, it sounded like
you wouldn't personally give your blessing to an abortion but
you wouldn't want the government to make them illegal, because
you think that the choice should be left to the affected person.
[And before I start a war with that last phrase, "affected per-
son", it referred to the mother-to-be.]
I'm not referring to a law for/against, I'm referring to person-
al feelings. Pro-choice can mean "I wouldn't do it, because I
don't like them, but someone else can" or it can mean "I would
do it, and someone else can, also". The key word is "choice".
|
| 20.2960 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Cyberian Party Hamster | Fri Oct 27 1995 19:10 | 4 |
|
Shawn, maybe you'd have more luck replacing "anti-abortion" with
"anti-choice".
|
| 20.2961 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Erotic Nightmares | Fri Oct 27 1995 19:14 | 6 |
|
Well, it doesn't sound like it would make much of a difference.
Heck, anti-choice could mean that you MUST get an abortion if
you're pregnant.
|
| 20.2962 | | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Oct 27 1995 19:31 | 19 |
| I see it this way:
The woman should be the one responsible for making her choice.
Today, choices include carrying to term [which is then followed by
other choices (such as adoption)] or aborting.
If a point was sufficiently defined that I understood at which a fetus
becomes a person, then I would favor outlawing abortion beyond that
point. For example, if I was convinced that consciousness and sense
appears sometime after the first trimester, then as far as I'm
concerned, abortions could be an option during the first trimester and
not after.
As far as I know, that point is unknown (and I guess that is one of
the BIG arguments). I don't believe in erring on the side of tissue if
it means forcing action on another (the mother).
Pete
|
| 20.2963 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Exit light ... enter night. | Fri Oct 27 1995 19:40 | 9 |
|
Another thing to take into consideration is that not all preg-
nancies are exactly the same length of time [they're 9 months,
give or take], and therefore the dividing line between trimesters
becomes a fuzzy line.
So, making a law that leaglizes an abortion in a trimester but
not the next one would be kind of a fuzzy line of 3-4 days.
|
| 20.2964 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 27 1995 19:48 | 11 |
| >>> Presumably, John is also against
> >
> > -< Presumably... >-
>
> right. unless he's a hypocrite.
Presumably, DougO is against abusing little boys.
Unless he's a hypocrite.
/john
|
| 20.2965 | | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Oct 27 1995 19:52 | 9 |
| re: "So, making a law that leaglizes an abortion in a trimester but
not the next one would be kind of a fuzzy line of 3-4 days."
I know that, it was a hypothetical and it would take a lot of
convincing. I'm not sure any group of more than three people could
agree, and we (collectively) probably wouldn't agree on the choice of
them!
Pete
|
| 20.2966 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Oct 27 1995 20:00 | 5 |
| For all those who are "anti-abortion" but "pro-choice"...why are you
anti-abortion?
-steve
|
| 20.2967 | Just my gut | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Oct 27 1995 20:07 | 7 |
| re: "For all those who are "anti-abortion" but "pro-choice"...why are
you anti-abortion?"
I don't *know* that the fetus is incapable of feeling pain. It would
seem that there must be *some* alternative less draconian.
Pete
|
| 20.2968 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Foreplay? What's that? | Fri Oct 27 1995 20:09 | 9 |
|
I was anti-abortion, for the reason that I thought it was a
senseless act of brutality, basically.
But, given the over-crowding, over-population and money prob-
lems that this world has nowadays, I believe that abortion
does have its good points. Even though it's still a senseless
act of brutality.
|
| 20.2969 | | DASHER::RALSTON | screwiti'mgoinhome.. | Fri Oct 27 1995 20:18 | 10 |
| >For all those who are "anti-abortion" but "pro-choice"...why are you
>anti-abortion?
Based on a personal belief system, abortion may or may not be the choice
of certain individuals. Those who would choose not to have an abortion
would be against it for any number of personal reasons, and visa versa.
The realization that choices are made based on a personal belief system
that may be in conflict with another persons belief system makes the
person, who decides to be anti-abortion, be pro-choice. I don't
understand why it is so difficult to understand.
|
| 20.2970 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Oct 27 1995 21:36 | 3 |
| re .2963
Fuzzy lines or not, it would be better than what's in place now...
|
| 20.2971 | 'Yawn' yourself | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Sat Oct 28 1995 00:25 | 10 |
| >For all those who are "anti-abortion" but "pro-choice"...why are you
>anti-abortion?
How many times do we have to answer this? Is there some sense that if
it's asked frequently enough, the answers will change? For someone who
"yawn"s a lot at the repetitive commentary in this string, I question
why you'd ask this yet again, Steve?
I answered this several times for you and others in the past, most recently
in .2693, I believe.
|
| 20.2972 | | DPE1::ARMSTRONG | | Sat Oct 28 1995 00:54 | 16 |
| >For all those who are "anti-abortion" but "pro-choice"...why are you
>anti-abortion?
I'm not sure who you are referring to. I expect most people
who are 'pro-choice' would say they are not pro-abortion,
but that does not make them 'anti-abortion'.
I'm not 'pro-cavity drilling' but if I get tooth decay, I
like having the choice to have my teeth drilled.
I'm not 'pro-wound stitching' but if I cut myself, I like having
the choice to have my skin stitched with a needle.
I'll work as hard as anyone trying to prevent these acts from
being necessary. But sometimes they just are.
bob
|
| 20.2973 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Sat Oct 28 1995 03:50 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.2882 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>
| What's the difference? Murder is murder and children are involved.
The difference is you can tie one to abortions becoming illegal (Megs),
and yours you can't. But you did try to.
| Glen, stop being lazy. How are you ever going to win a debate in here
| without educating yourself!
Mike, you already stated you don't have facts..... so as usual, your
claims are just that, claims...and not fact.
|
| 20.2974 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Sat Oct 28 1995 13:24 | 1 |
| What facts do you have, Glen?
|
| 20.2975 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Sun Oct 29 1995 01:49 | 10 |
| Joe,
I don't know about Glen, but I have the facts on Poland, Romania, and
Brazil. So do you. Explain what is wrong with their pictures.
there are also the facts from the World Health Organization. 200K-500K
deaths from form illegal abortions each year. 2 Million-5 million
women crippled as well.
meg
|
| 20.2976 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Oct 30 1995 12:03 | 3 |
|
Joe, another nice deflection. Now you're doing it for others. How nice.
|
| 20.2977 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Mon Oct 30 1995 15:35 | 7 |
| .2946
Well Jack, You MUST be looking over my cube wall!!!!
Eddie Can testify, when I get "angry" I do tend to flail.
|
| 20.2978 | | ACIS03::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Oct 30 1995 15:38 | 10 |
| re: .2971
No need to get into a huff. I asked the question because we have new
blood in this discussion. If you've already answered it in the past,
just ignore the question.
But of course, going on a tirade is more fun, right?
-steve
|
| 20.2979 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Oct 30 1995 15:53 | 4 |
| Jack, we've beaten just about every possibility five times over.
You're not playing fair by complaining about this!!!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.2980 | | MFII::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 30 1995 15:54 | 3 |
|
lucky Jack, complain away. i thank you.
|
| 20.2981 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Oct 30 1995 16:05 | 1 |
| Di is being anti-establishment. Regard her not!
|
| 20.2982 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Mon Oct 30 1995 23:13 | 10 |
| <<< Note 20.2975 by CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors" >>>
> I don't know about Glen, but I have the facts on Poland, Romania, and
> Brazil. So do you. Explain what is wrong with their pictures.
Do you? So far you've presented facts that show the level
of killing has dropped drastically in Poland. Beyond that
all you've done is speculated about how many abortions
are done over the border, or illegally within the border.
Those aren't facts.
|
| 20.2983 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Oct 31 1995 01:39 | 30 |
| Joe,
The l;evel of INFANT killing is up. I don't consider an embryo of less
than 12 weeks to be anywhere near the same thing.
Are you denying the facts in Romania? Did some miricle hapen on
prenatal care that suddenly dropped infant and maternal mortality rates
by a significant amount? Is there some reason other than the drop in
pregnancies that fewer newborn children are being warehoused in
institutions that are on a par with the worst prisons in this country,
where only the most basic needs are tended to (if you don't consider
cuddling, loving and diapers being changed on demand, rather than
schedule being basic needs)
Do you even know how many kids are abandoned in Brazil each and every
day to fend for themselves? If they are "lucky" they band up with
other street children, if not so lucky, they wind up murdered by
private thugs working for peole who find abandoned children in gangs to
be distasteful (and probably hurting tourist dollars)
Now in Polnd infanticide is going UP! You can ignore that while
piously being proud that women are being killed in unsanitary
conditions and smothering children when they can't prevent an
unaffordable birth. Do you really think the women of Poland are so
ignorant, that those who can afford it aren't leaving the country to
get a pregnancy that is untenable terminated? If this is something you
are proud of, IMO, you have a lot to learn about humans, and a lot to
learn about what it truly means to cherish life, also MO.
meg
|
| 20.2984 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Tue Oct 31 1995 13:44 | 11 |
| > if not so lucky, they wind up murdered by
> private thugs working for peole who find abandoned children in gangs to
> be distasteful
Meg, it sounds like these "private thugs" perform abortions, if you ask me.
Abortion isn't the way to solve over-population/abandoned kids/etc....
if so, the next step (we are on the way to it already) is the "compasionate"
killing of our old... who next after that???
/scott
|
| 20.2985 | One step at a time. Status quo is not the answer. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Oct 31 1995 15:55 | 6 |
| Keep cheering for abortions, Meg.
Like I said already, I'll cheer for the elimination of abortion,
and also call for groups like the Church to address the sinful
fallout that your facts show are a small fraction of the original
slaughter.
|
| 20.2986 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Oct 31 1995 16:11 | 10 |
| > Presumably, DougO is against abusing little boys.
>
> Unless he's a hypocrite.
Very good, John. Yes, I am against abusing little boys. I take it
then that you accept the premise of .2939, and agree with Andy's
"presumably", that you are against the forced practise of religion
via draconian abortion laws. Thanks for clearing that up.
DougO
|
| 20.2987 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Oct 31 1995 16:36 | 8 |
|
Joe, another deflection by you. Just keep taking what is being talked
about and twist it back onto the author. But ya ain't foolin anyone and ya
haven't answered the questions or addressed the issues brought up.
Glen
|
| 20.2988 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Oct 31 1995 16:46 | 14 |
| Glen, you know what you remind me of? Did you ever see the Return of
the Jedi? Remember that little monster puppet that would always laugh,
kind of like Jabba the Huts stooley?! Well, you remind me of it! Ya
know why? Because no matter WHAT Joe brings up, you will always be
against him. If he told you your sister was a very attractive woman,
you would go out of your way to announce her mediocrity from the
rooftops. If Joe mentions he believed abortion should be available for
saving somebody's life, then you would remain silent just for the sheer
fact you wouldn't want to humble yourself and agree with Joe. In other
words, all bite but weak jaws!
Have a nice day!!!!!!!
-Jack
|
| 20.2989 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Oct 31 1995 16:54 | 1 |
| What do you mean by that, Glen?
|
| 20.2990 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Oct 31 1995 16:55 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 20.2988 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| Because no matter WHAT Joe brings up, you will always be against him.
Gee, if that were the case, then I would be writing in all of the same
topics, have the oppisite view on everything, right Jack? But then I would not
be against abortion, would not believe in God, etc. Be real.
| If Joe mentions he believed abortion should be available for saving somebody's
| life, then you would remain silent just for the sheer fact you wouldn't want
| to humble yourself and agree with Joe.
Errr..... maybe you should go back and read this topic, Jack. Joe and I
agree on a lot of things in here. We disagree too.
Now if you would, please tie this all in with him deflecting what Meg
said and turning it against her?
| all bite but weak jaws!
Just the oppisite, Jack. No bite, strong jaws... opps...wrong topic....
|
| 20.2991 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 31 1995 19:30 | 12 |
| > "presumably", that you are against the forced practise of religion
> via draconian abortion laws.
I don't agree that "draconian" abortion laws are "the forced practise of
religion".
But that's because I consider the unborn child to be a unique human being,
with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I would
not consider a law requiring a mother who is in good health to carry her
pregnancy to term to be "draconian".
/john
|
| 20.2992 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Cyberian Party Hamster | Thu Nov 02 1995 12:05 | 5 |
|
House of Representatives voted 288-139 to ban "partial-birth"
abortions, imposing a two-year prison term for doctors who
perform the procedure.
|
| 20.2993 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 02 1995 12:33 | 1 |
| My understanding is that there were cases where this could be done.
|
| 20.2994 | | ACIS03::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 02 1995 13:44 | 1 |
| <--- correct.
|
| 20.2995 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 02 1995 14:01 | 1 |
| Then I fail to see what the problem is from the lefties!
|
| 20.2996 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 02 1995 14:23 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.2995 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| Then I fail to see what the problem is from the lefties!
Righties?
|
| 20.2997 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 02 1995 14:24 | 3 |
| Nope...can't be that. I'm sure Glen that you as a pro lifer would not
advocate the drilling of the skull and sucking out the brain while the
baby's arms are flailing in the air, right?
|
| 20.2998 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Thu Nov 02 1995 14:26 | 2 |
| hey, this sounds like that pentacostal thing out in Colorado!
|
| 20.2999 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 02 1995 14:29 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.2997 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| Nope...can't be that.
It IS that, OJ.
| I'm sure Glen that you as a pro lifer would not advocate the drilling of the
| skull and sucking out the brain while the baby's arms are flailing in the air,
| right?
Depends on the situation, Jack.
Glen
|
| 20.3000 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 02 1995 14:30 | 1 |
| aborted snarf!
|
| 20.3001 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Thu Nov 02 1995 14:37 | 1 |
| hey, snarf have volition, too, ya know!
|
| 20.3002 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Thu Nov 02 1995 14:38 | 1 |
| snarfs
|
| 20.3003 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 02 1995 15:08 | 10 |
| Glen:
Read carefully. The situation is covered under the bill if the mothers
life is in danger or for severe abnormality. Therefore, what other
conditions would you condone drilling into skull while baby's arms
flail in agony Glen?
No answer will come I'm sure.
-Jack
|
| 20.3004 | true colors | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Nov 02 1995 15:24 | 3 |
| This is an excellent ruling.
Clinton says he will veto it.
|
| 20.3005 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 02 1995 15:40 | 1 |
| last reply deleted for insult to livestock!
|
| 20.3006 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Nov 02 1995 16:01 | 1 |
| Thank G-d for the results yesterday!
|
| 20.3007 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 02 1995 16:10 | 4 |
|
How old is the fetus at this stage, Jack?
|
| 20.3008 | It's in today's paper... read it. | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Nov 02 1995 16:22 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.3009 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 02 1995 20:49 | 27 |
| RE: .3003 Jack
/ Read carefully. The situation is covered under the bill if the mothers
/ life is in danger or for severe abnormality. Therefore, what other
/ conditions would you condone drilling into skull while baby's arms
/ flail in agony Glen?
Actually, the bill stipulates that the mother's life being in danger
can be used in the defense of the criminal charge for a doctor who does
this abortion. This means that the doctor would go on trial for saving
the woman's life, but s/he MAY be acquitted if a jury finds that the
mother's life was really in danger.
So the doctor has to choose between:
1. Saving the woman's life.
2. Leaving my patients and my family up in the air while I go
on trial for a criminal act for which I may serve time
in prison.
The 'lefties' don't want doctors to be afraid to save women's lives
during childbirth.
As for the 'flailing'...
As I understand it, the woman is sedated such that the fetus is
either dead or unconscious by the time this procedure is performed.
|
| 20.3010 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Thu Nov 02 1995 21:29 | 11 |
| > As I understand it, the woman is sedated such that the fetus is
> either dead or unconscious by the time this procedure is performed.
Err. Does this mean that the fetus is conscious without the drugs? So
what were talking about is killing a being that would otherwise be
conscious of its surroundings?
-- Dave
P.S. Don't worry about. I also believe in the death penalty and forced
euthanasia in certain circumstances.
|
| 20.3011 | The bill says that the risk of mom's death can be a 'DEFENSE'... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 02 1995 21:42 | 23 |
| RE: .3010 Dave
/ Err. Does this mean that the fetus is conscious without the drugs?
Not necessarily, but it's possible. It depends on the condition of
the fetus at this time.
/ So what were talking about is killing a being that would otherwise be
/ conscious of its surroundings?
Someone asked why the 'lefties' would object to this bill so I explained
that 'lefties' don't want doctors to be afraid to save women's lives.
This bill would amount to doctors having to choose between saving
a woman's life and worrying about their own professional futures
and family obligations.
Would you want a doctor to operate on you after telling you: "I hope
things go well, but if they don't, I'm going to have to let you die
because this is not a good time for me to risk going to prison. Sorry."
That is the concern, whether you agree with it or not - and I do realize
that a good number of people here do not agree with it.
|
| 20.3012 | | DASHER::RALSTON | screwiti'mgoinhome.. | Thu Nov 02 1995 22:55 | 2 |
| Just another example of us placing medical decisions in the hands of
politicians. If it wasn't so devastating it would be funny.
|
| 20.3013 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Thu Nov 02 1995 22:57 | 7 |
| > Would you want a doctor to operate on you after telling you: "I hope
> things go well, but if they don't, I'm going to have to let you die
> because this is not a good time for me to risk going to prison. Sorry."
I suppose that civil malpractice would come into play at that point.
Some complaints against bills sound legitamite. Others sound
contrived.
|
| 20.3014 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Nov 03 1995 00:31 | 23 |
| RE: .3013
// Would you want a doctor to operate on you after telling you: "I hope
// things go well, but if they don't, I'm going to have to let you die
// because this is not a good time for me to risk going to prison. Sorry."
/ I suppose that civil malpractice would come into play at that point.
If this bill becomes law, the dead women's families will have no recourse
because this procedure will be against the law.
/ Some complaints against bills sound legitamite. Others sound
/ contrived.
The bill doesn't make this procedure legal if the mother's life is
in danger. The procedure is illegal regardless of the situation.
The life of the mother can be considered as part of the defense
in the criminal case against a doctor who performs the procedure,
which puts the doctor's fate in the hands of a jury (after the
woman was put in the hands of a doctor who had to risk going to
prison to save her life.)
This is a big concern for many who oppose the bill.
|
| 20.3015 | See .2789 for an eyewitness account | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 03 1995 07:17 | 34 |
| <<< Note 20.3009 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> Actually, the bill stipulates that the mother's life being in danger
> can be used in the defense of the criminal charge for a doctor who does
> this abortion. This means that the doctor would go on trial ...
Not so fast, Suzanne. This is no different from person-A
defending person-B being attacked by person-C. If person-A
kills person-C in the process, it is true that he might be
tried for murder, but we both know that this most likely
doesn't happen.
If the mother's life is truly endangered and the abortionist
does this procedure, his ability to provide evidence of that
danger will most likely be sufficient to prevent legal action
against him.
> So the doctor has to choose between:
>
> 1. Saving the woman's life.
> 2. Leaving my patients and my family up in the air while I go
> on trial for a criminal act for which I may serve time
> in prison.
Typical hysterics from you.
> As for the 'flailing'...
>
> As I understand it, the woman is sedated such that the fetus is
> either dead or unconscious by the time this procedure is performed.
Then you don't understand it. Eyewitness accounts show it.
Weren't some of them already entered here in soapbox? I'm
sure I saw them in notes somewhere...
|
| 20.3016 | Tangent | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Nov 03 1995 09:35 | 6 |
| re: "I also believe in the death penalty and forced euthanasia in
certain circumstances."
What's the difference between the death penalty and forced euthanasia?
Pete
|
| 20.3017 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Consume feces and expire. | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:23 | 4 |
|
Forced euthanasia can be used just because you don't like
someone, regardless of wrongdoing.
|
| 20.3019 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 75 |
| ABORTION:
THE CONTINUING HOLOCAUST
MORAL RELATIVISM IN OUR TIME bears closer scrutiny as the underpinning
of many, possibly all, of the movements which tear at the fabric of
American society. Moral relativism has permeated American thinking to
such an extent that nothing, not even theology, is sacrosanct or immune.
Americans, in the spirit of moral relativism, redefine whatever
stands in the way of the attainment of their proud goals, whether those
goals be simply "happiness" and contentment (as they define them) or
perhaps recognition and renown. The common ground in all of these
redefinitions seems to be expediency and denial. The following are just
a few examples of redefinitions and their effects:
*Pro-abortionists*, in their eagerness to avoid the consequences of
their sexual acts, deny not only the humanity and the personhood of the
human fetus, but even go so far as to deny that it is alive. Their
denials thus redefine life itself, as well as humanity and personhood.
*Homosexuals*, in their insistence that society not merely accept
their behavior but approve of it, deny that there is a natural law, and
thus maintain that their homosexual acts are not "unnatural acts." In so
doing, they are redefining not only nature, but also manhood, womanhood,
marriage, and the family.
*The medical community*, in its eagerness to maintain its supply of
live body parts for transplantation, has redefined death. It matters not
that some (though admittedly not many) people who have been declared
"brain dead" have recovered. That _some_ physicians would prostitute
their high calling and violate their Hippocratic Oath by actually
participating in the taking of human life in abortion, infanticide, and
euthanasia, is unconscionable. The Hippocratic Oath has been rendered so
irrelevant that some medical schools no longer administer it.
*The Supreme Court*, in its eagerness to accommodate pro-abor-
tionists in _Roe v. Wade_, has redefined the Constitution. Under the
leadership of Justice Blackmun, it actually invented the constitutional
"right to privacy." Although explicit mention of such a right is nowhere
to be found in the Constitution, the Court claimed that it resides in
the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. In taking the position that the
fetus is not a person and is not alive, it has also redefined life and
personhood.
*Ecumenists*, in their eagerness to unite all of the sects which
profess to believe in Christ and even some that don't, have redefined
His Church. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, they are redefining
not only Christ, as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, but also
the Trinity Itself. There are no limits--the redefiners presume to
redefine God Himself.
Under the influence of moral relativism, Americans in general are
regressing in their character development toward a state of infantilism.
Two principal traits of maturity of personality and character are:
(1) the ability to postpone the satisfaction of one's needs and
wants, and
(2) acceptance of the consequences of one's own acts.
Society fails to meet either criterion. Materialism and pursuit of
"the good life" show a very low tolerance for postponing the satisfac-
tion of needs and wants. The militant push for acceptance of sodomy as a
"lifestyle" and abortion as a means of retroactive birth control indi-
cates a refusal to accept the consequences of one's own acts. However,
the immature who care at all about maturity of character will probably
choose to redefine it so that they can no longer be portrayed as
immature.
In the following discussion it will become abundantly evident that
these two common moral relativistic threads--(1) redefinition of what
doesn't permit the attainment of one's goals and (2) immaturity,
especially the failure to accept the consequences of one's own acts--run
through all of the pro-abortion arguments and all of the ethical stances
taken by pro-abortionists.
|
| 20.3020 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 89 |
| The Sanctity of Life
Most people today, when they speak of the sanctity of life, mean
that life has some kind of special value. Because they have lost their
religious moorings, they no longer understand the terms "sanctity" and
"sacred" because such terms have their genesis in the realm of religion,
and our society is a secular one.
When, if ever, have most people heard that mankind is created in
the image of God? that their human dignity comes from God? that it is
precisely this image of God that confers the human dignity that sets
them apart from all other creatures? Those who think about it at all
often think that man's Godgiven dignity and humanity were lost in the
Fall, but:
In creation, man was given the ability and the responsibili-
ty to mirror and reflect the holy character of God. Since
the Fall, the mirror has been splotched by the grime of sin.
We have lost our capacity for moral perfection, but with this
ethical loss, we have not lost our humanity. Man may no longer
be pure but he is still human . . . . We may no longer be wor-
thy, but we still have worth. (Sproul 1990, p. 31)
In this passage, Dr. Sproul's Protestant fundamentalist under-
standing of the Fall and its effects become theologically problematical
for Orthodox Christians. He fails to mention the regeneration brought
about by our Saviour's economy and he fails to take into account the
ongoing deification which can begin in this life with our spiritual
struggle (prayer, fasting, and almsgiving). He is correct, however, in
maintaining that we are still human and we still have worth.
It is also the image of God in us that makes murder an assault
against God Himself, and an implicit attempt to murder God. Sproul
characterizes Genesis 9:6 as a divine mandate for punishment for murder:
He that sheds man's blood, instead of that blood shall his
own be shed, for in the image of God I made man. (Genesis 9:6
Septuagint)
Those who oppose capital punishment because of God's commandment
not to kill have not acquainted themselves with all of God's law. It is
precisely because of the value of the victim that the gravity of the
crime is so great that the murderer must be put to death:
And if any man smite another and he die, let him be certain-
ly put to death. (Exodus 21:12 Septuagint)
Because of life's sacredness, the taking of it must be for just
cause.
It is not sufficient, however, merely to refrain from the act of
murder. We are also prohibited from anger, slander, or anything else
that injures our neighbor. That is not to say that anger and slander are
just as serious a sin as murder, and it is not to say they should be
avoided just because of what they might lead to. They are prohibited
because of "the actual harm they do to the quality of life." (Sproul
1990, p. 36)
Likewise, it is not sufficient merely to avoid sin: we are required
to engage in virtuous behavior. If adultery is a sin, we are required to
be chaste and pure. If murder is a sin, we are required not only to
avoid murder and all its related sins, but to promote life. And, "What-
ever else abortion does, it does not promote the life of the unborn
child." (Sproul 1990, p. 37)
The Natural Law
G. K. Chesterton spoke of the modern tendency always to sacrifice
the normal to the abnormal as being a "morbid weakness" of his time and
society. Other authors have criticized our own penchant for a burgeoning
body of laws and rules to protect abnormal people, overlooking and thus
failing to provide the requisites for sustaining normal life. But "nor-
mal" and "natural" have become "no-no words," which have either been
redefined or completely denied by sexual revisionists.
However Sproul, undaunted, flatly states: "Abortion--whatever else
it may be--is an act against nature" (Sproul 1990, p. 44), i.e., it
violates the natural law. Natural law has a number of different sources.
One is the laws of nations, where over the ages regular patterns become
apparent, such as the laws against murder. Another is in "first
principles," based in self-evident truths and a universal sense of the
way things ought to be. Yet another is in natural science, particularly
the universal biological law of self-preservation.
It is not hard to see how the biological law of self-preservation
is set into motion in human reproduction. In each act of human sexual
intercourse, 30 to 60 million sperm are released to fertilize a single
egg. Numerically, not much is left to chance in this system designed to
ensure survival of the species.
|
| 20.3021 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 94 |
| Once the egg is fertilized, it seeks to be implanted in the wall of
the womb. Sometimes fertilized eggs fail to achieve implantation, and,
even if implanted, some are lost through miscarriage. Then, after all
the self-preservation mechanisms of nature have produced a developing
human embryo, along comes the abortionist to frustrate nature's law.
"Humanity's greatest enemy . . . is humanity itself." (Sproul 1990, p.
44) When fetuses are not considered persons, they become things, and
things can be discarded. Fetuses, after all, have no names. Too many
people are no more concerned about what happens to "undifferentiated
blobs of protoplasm" or "biological parasites," as fetuses are sometimes
called, than they are about discarding a placenta.
Yet even our Declaration of Independence affirms the right to life
as being self-evident, inalienable, and basic to all other human rights.
Also, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution protects life, liberty,
and private property by due process of law. But the Supreme Court has
decided that the unborn are not persons (until they are able to survive
outside the womb) and are not alive, and therefore they are not
protected by the fifth or any other amendment.
Historically nations have been inconsistent in their attitudes
toward and practices of abortion. The ancient Greek philosophers found
both abortion and infanticide acceptable if they furthered the interests
of the state, but their medical community opposed both, as exemplified
in the Hippocratic Oath. The ancient Romans, too, allowed abortions,
although their philosophers were not in agreement about it.
The Jewish community, and later the early Christians, were notable
exceptions, in that they permitted neither abortion nor infanticide.
_The Didache_, a manual of early church discipline and codebook for
morality, contrasts two styles of living: the way of life and the way of
death. Probably written at the beginning of the second century, it
contains this exhortation:
Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys;
do not fornicate; do not steal; do not practice magic; do
not go in for sorcery; do not murder a child by abortion or
kill a new-born infant. (Library of Christian Classics, cited
by Sproul 1990, p. 48)
In the Epistle of Barnabas is the commandment, "Thou shalt not
murder a child by abortion." (_Library of Christian Classics_, cited by
Sproul 1990, p. 48)
Far more recently Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence at
Amherst College, attempted to account for the position taken by Jews in
the confirmation hearings for Robert Bork's appointment to the Supreme
Court. He says:
The teachings of Jewish law have been set quite emphatical-
ly in opposition to abortion. On that point the Orthodox
[Jews] have never suffered serious doubts, even though Jewish
teaching has been far more equivocal and far more shaded with
stray confusions than the teachings of Catholicism on this mat-
ter. (Arkes 1991, p. 32)
Where Jews and Christians were able to influence national policies,
sanctity of life protections were extended to the unborn. The number of
abortions among Jewish women is still the lowest of any of the major
religious groups. A 1988 study of women aged 15 to 44 who had abortions
in 1987 showed that 41.9 percent were Protestant, 31.5 percent were
Catholic, 1.4 percent were Jewish, 2.9 percent were grouped as "other,"
and 22.2 percent had no religious affiliation (Henshaw and Silverman
1988, p. 158). One would expect a lower proportion of Catholic women,
given that they belong to the church which has always gotten the credit
(or blame) for being most vehemently opposed to abortion.
When Life Begins
The question of when life begins is closely tied to the mystery of
life itself. Holy Scripture does not contain any explicit statement of
when life begins, but it does contain several passages which assume life
and personhood, and, in the case of the Forerunner, even cognition and
emotion before birth.
Psalm 138:13-15 shows that the continuity of life from before birth
is assumed in the Scriptures:
For Thou hast possessed my reins; O Lord, Thou hast holpen
me from my mother's Womb.
I will confess Thee, for awesomely art Thou wondrous; marvel-
lous are Thy works, and my soul knoweth it right well.
My bone is not hid from Thee, which Thou madest in secret; nor
my substance in the nethermost parts of the earth.
My being while it was still unformed Thine eyes did see,
and in Thy book shall all men be written; day by day they
are formed, when as yet there be none of them. (_The Psalter_,
p. 244)
The psalmist clearly shows here that God is involved in the life of
his creatures from the time of conception, and even before conception.
|
| 20.3022 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 113 |
| A passage from Isaiah shows that an unborn baby is not part of the
body of the mother but is a separate person, and also that God formed
the child Isaiah in the womb:
And now, thus saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to
be his own servant, to gather Jacob to him and Israel. I shall
be gathered and glorified before the Lord, and my God shall be
my strength. (Isaiah 49:5 Septuagint)
A passage from Jeremiah makes a similar point about God's personal
knowledge of Jeremiah before he was born:
The word of the Lord came to him, saying, "Before I formed
thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth
from the womb, I sanctified thee; I appointed thee a prophet
to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:4-5 Septuagint)
Not only is God's knowledge made clear, but also that Jeremiah was
treated by God as a personal being and was sanctified before birth.
Surely this indicates that the sanctity of human life and personhood
extend back to the time in the womb.
From these passages, it can be concluded that "the Bible clearly
indicates that unborn babies are considered human living persons . . .
The weight of the biblical evidence is that life begins at conception."
(Sproul 1990, p. 59)
Even though some would not draw this conclusion, they cannot deny
that development begins at conception. At only two weeks after concep-
tion there is a discernable heartbeat. The circulating blood is the
unborn baby's, not the mother's. At forty-three days brain waves are
detectable, and there is evidence that the fetus can perceive pain.
Since brain waves and heartbeat are considered "vital" signs, why are
some people so reluctant to admit vitality (life) before birth?
Associate Professor Micheline M. Mathews-Roth of the Harvard
Medical School, a self-declared nonreligious person, takes issue with
those who maintain that determinations about when human life begins must
be based on religious and philosophical arguments. The following is part
of a letter she wrote to the _Boston Herald_:
A letter on July 26 stated that the preamble to the "Missouri
anti-choice legislation," declaring that human life begins at
conception, "can only be based on religious or philosophical
arguments" ("At 2 months, [the] fetus isn't `human'"). The
statement is in conflict with the facts reported in embryolo-
gy and genetics textbooks. Humans, like all other animals
reproducing by sexual reproduction, start their existence as
one cell, the zygote, which is formed by the union of egg and
sperm during the process of fertilization.
In addition, the laws of genetics state that like begets like--
people make people, not horses or mice. Thus, a fetus conceived
by a human female and a human male is a member of Homo Sapiens,
the human species, from fertilization throughout its life. It
is genetics that determines an individual's biological species,
not the psychological traits it later develops. (Mathews-Roth 1989)
It bears repeating that this is scientific (not religious)
testimony from a nonreligiously aligned scientist who felt strongly
enough about the scientific facts to correct fallacious statements by a
misguided advocate of abortion. She obviously has no ideological or
religious ax to grind.
Independence is another of the criteria stipulated by pro-
abortionists for determining life, humanity, and personhood. By that
criterion, a child is not a living person even at birth, and for some
considerable time thereafter. Some of those who insist that the
independence criterion is a valid one use it as a justification for
infanticide.
Ensoulment
Roman Catholic thinking about the beginning of human life has often
gotten bogged down in the complexities of when ensoulment takes place.
Father Patrick O'Mahoney, author of _A Question of Life: Its Beginning
and Transmission_, explores five categories of thought about when human
life and personhood begin: the genetic, the developmental, the relation-
al, the social consequences, and the potentiality schools. In each
category he explores the "body soul" question, as he calls it, and
admits that this question has "dominated much of Christian thinking"
about when life begins.
He finally concludes that the question itself assumes a dualism
which sees the human being as a "union rather than a unity." He then
explores the question in light of recent scientific findings:
. . . Whether in the context of immediate or delayed ensoul-
ment, it is difficult to conceive of the "infusion of souls"
by the Creator in the light of modern science. It seems more
realistic to envisage the developing embryo as the human indivi-
dual becoming what it already is . . .
. . . Indeed it seems more in line with the new genetics to
think of matter and spirit as two aspects of the one human unity
. . . It would also seem reasonable to suggest that whenever this
genetically unique organism is set in motion, . . . there is
present a human unity with its own ongoing principle which could
be described as a person at least in capacity and becoming, if
not already in actuality. Accordingly as this unity develops,
the individual would become capable of transcending the limita-
tions inherent in its physical composition. It will then surpass,
because of its spiritual dimension, the merely biological . . .
(O'Mahoney 1990, p. 32)
It would seem that Father O'Mahoney is making a valiant attempt to
rise above the traditional dualistic thought about ensoulment which has
its origins in the rationalism of Aristotle and Aquinas. But his newly
holistic train is still on a rationalistic track of two rails which he
thinks is a monorail. The very fact that Roman Catholic thought about
the matter has had to be revised to accommodate scientific findings
shows an ongoing inability to accept the mystery, and a continuing
compulsion to try to explain even the unexplainable.
|
| 20.3023 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 94 |
| Prejudice, Denial, and Irrationality
The human fetus looks and acts like a living human person; has the
genetic makeup and vital signs of a living human person; and has sexu-
ality and movement. In the face of all this undeniable evidence, it has
to be because of prejudice that people resist the conclusion that the
fetus must therefore be a living human person. _Prejudice_ and _denial_
are both states of mind in which one lies to oneself. Rationality has no
place in either. As long as someone can convince himself that a fetus is
not a living human person until birth, he does not have to deal with the
enormity of the moral implications of killing it before birth.
Even the term "stillborn" should be a clue to the prior vitality of
an unborn child. Babies referred to as stillborn are dead at "birth," or
the time at which they are expelled by the womb. A fetus might die in
the process of being delivered or from unknown or accidental causes at
some time before delivery. The point is that the term "stillborn" itself
implies a prior opposite condition. To have died, the fetus must have
been alive at some point. If it had not died, it would have been
"liveborn."
The argument that a fetus is not a living human being, therefore,
is irrational--a denial which seeks to stifle the pangs of conscience of
those who would deliberately kill it by abortion before it can be
liveborn.
Conscience and the Morality of Abortion
Although the furor over abortion has gone on for almost twenty
years (ever since the radical reversal in public opinion in 1973
occasioned by the Supreme Court decision of _Roe v. Wade_), there are
many people who have not come to any conclusions about the matter, or
they vacillate. Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency for people to
accept civil law and what society condones as their guides in making
their moral decisions. One pitfall in this process is that people come
to accept the _argumentum ad populum_, that a majority vote determines
truth.
Deciding how to act when one is honestly not sure of the moral
rightness of abortion is not as simple as making up one's mind intel-
lectually. The person who is honestly not sure that abortion is evil,
for instance, is required to act in good faith. In order to act in good
faith, he must avoid the option that he thinks is possibly evil or that
he isn't sure is right (i.e., abortion), and choose the option that he
knows to be right (i.e., refraining from abortion).
The assumption that conscience is an infallible guide to moral
behavior is fraught with danger. Joseph Sobran, essayist for the _Human
Life Review_ and senior editor of _National Review_, remarks:
How often we hear that abortion should be left to the indi-
vidual conscience, as if we should presume that whatever
choice is made reflects the triumph of conscience. (Sobran
1983, p. 89)
Though a person ignores his conscience at his own peril, he cannot
assume that his conscience will always guide him aright. Many proponents
of abortion claim that they are acting according to the dictates of
their conscience, but their conscience may be tainted by personal
preferences, expediency, civil law, or the desire for social acceptance.
In the twisted logic of the "doctrine of the unwanted child," for
instance, the decision to abort is disguised as responsible rather than
irresponsible (Sobran 1983, p. 89).
To those who are still unsure, Dr. Sproul recommends sober thinking
and deep reflection--but fails to include possibly the most important
element of all, an active spiritual life, particularly prayer--when he
says:
Before we choose to participate in abortion, we must give
serious consideration to what God's _views_ in the _matter
might be_. To ignore this is to ignore the call of conscience
and to place ourselves in a perilous position. If an act a-
gainst conscience is an act against God, then we can easily
see how dangerous such an action is. (Sproul 1990, p. 76)
It sounds strange to Orthodox Christian ears when someone speaks of
"what God's views in the matter might be." In American society we have
become so accustomed to speaking in egalitarian, supertolerant terms
that even "God's laws" become "God's views"--views being positions
taken, ways of thinking, or opinions that anyone is free to disagree
with. The phrase "might be" is far too tentative, it seems to me, given
that it is very clear what God's laws (not views) are (not might be), as
they apply to abortion. The points about conscience, nevertheless, are
well taken.
Unfortunately, however, "conscience" has also become part of the
rhetoric of the debate. Those who call the most stridently for abortion
to be a matter for the individual conscience deny the same rights of
conscience to pro-lifers. They require that pro- lifers act as if they
approve of abortion even though they do not, and chide them for their
"divisiveness" when they speak out against it (Sobran 1983, p. 97).
Therefore the exercise of conscience is reserved to those who share
their pro-abortion views.
|
| 20.3024 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 90 |
| The Role of Government in Abortion
Before a proper role for government in abortion can be identified,
one must consider why governments exist at all. Obviously legitimate
governments exist to make life and society possible. It is their right
and duty to enforce just laws. Legitimacy and justice, therefore, are
key words in any discussion of the general or specific role of
government.
The secular society no longer recognizes that all legitimate autho-
rity comes from God, and that legitimate governments must therefore be
His gift to us. It has set itself up as the source of authority, and has
promulgated the idea that democracy and suffrage are what provide legi-
timacy and justice, and stamp out tyranny. Tyranny, however, is not
limited to the actions of dictators and unjust kings. A tyrant can be a
Supreme Court justice openly brokering pro-abortion laws among his
fellow justices, as Justice Blackmun did, or a democratic majority which
chooses to legislate unjust laws, or even an individual citizen voting
for an unjust vested interest.
If Christians truly believe that God is love, and that out of love
He has gifted us with legitimate and just government, then of course we
must submit to its authority. St. Paul is very clear about that in his
epistle to the Romans:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there
is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi-
nance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves
damnation.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is
good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword
in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute
wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but
also for conscience sake.
For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's
ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute
is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to
whom honour. (Romans 13:1-7 KJV)
When it becomes evident, however, that civil authority commands us
to do what is forbidden by God's law, or forbids us to do what God
commands, we must exercise civil disobedience. In this system which
stems from God's love, we must take care that justice is established and
maintained, because injustice is opposed to love.
If government exists to make life and society possible, as stated
above, its fundamental duty is to protect, sustain, and maintain human
life. It must protect people from being murdered--this is the very heart
of its mandate from God. It stands to reason, therefore, that those who
regard abortion as murder, as being opposed to love, and therefore as an
injustice, will call upon government to fulfill its duty to protect
life. Because most of the opposition to legalized abortion comes from
churches and their members, pro-abortionists regard this call as a
violation of the separation of church and state. At worst, this is a
ploy of warfare; at best, it is a misunderstanding of the concept of
separation.
The constitutional prescript of separation of church and state was
written to ensure that there be no state-established church. It was
assumed that there would be interaction such as prayers at the convening
of Congress or at the inauguration of the President. It was never
anticipated that extrapolations from this principle would be utilized to
disenfranchise those whose moral judgments are based on their religious
beliefs, or to abolish prayer and all mention of God's name at public
functions.
Separation of church and state involves a division of roles, with
neither infringing upon the other's. The church doesn't send troops to
the Persian Gulf, and President Bush doesn't administer the sacraments.
There is no power struggle--the state assures freedom of worship, and
the church is supportive of the proper activities of the state. This
symbiotic relationship does not preclude interaction when the situation
warrants, however. The state has the right and duty to step in, for
instance, if the church or its representatives are accused of misappro-
priation of funds (e.g., the Bakker case). Likewise, the church has the
right and duty to criticize and attempt to bring about change when the
state initiates, concurs in, or perpetuates unjust actions (e.g., the
_Roe v. Wade_ case).
|
| 20.3025 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 94 |
| A number of years ago, possibly in the late sixties, I watched a
television interview of a Roman Catholic priest. The interviewer wanted
to ascertain the priest's reactions to one of the first cases of a state
having repealed its laws prohibiting abortion. He very coolly responded
that it didn't matter, because removing the illegality of abortion did
not make abortion morally right. In fact, he said, he supported repeal
of all laws prohibiting abortion because "you can't legislate morality."
On their face, the priest's statements were true. Human behavior is
not automatically changed by the passage of a law. Nor do civil laws
change moral theology. But would he have all laws repealed that have a
bearing on morality? Would he be willing to endure the anarchy that
would result if the state abdicated completely from its duty to make
life and society possible? if it repealed all laws against murder and
theft and proper use of an automobile and proper concern for the
environment? What about the government's duty to protect the weak and
powerless against the strong and powerful? What about the fact that many
people take their moral cues from civil law and from what society
condones? The priest's fatuous remarks showed a remarkably limited
ability to project the ethical consequences of what even a non-
theologically trained news person saw as a significant event.
Richard J. Neuhaus, editor-in-chief of _First Things_, has some
interesting things to say about the implications of the "legislation of
morality" argument and the rhetoric of church-state conflict:
In response to the oft-heard claim that "you can't legis-
late morality," it needs repeatedly to be said that, in
fact, you can't legislate anything _except_ morality. Legis-
lation is always based on _somebody's_ morality. That is to
say, it is based on somebody's notion of what is right or
wrong, just or unjust, fair or unfair--all of which are moral
categories. The claim that we cannot legislate morality is
verbal sleight of hand designed to exclude from the democratic
process those citizens who frankly acknowledge that their
motivation is moral in nature. If, in addition, they acknow-
ledge that their moral judgment is religiously grounded, anoth-
er exclusionary trick is in store. They are then told that their
advocacy "violates the separation of church and state."
. . . . Jefferson's separationist maxim will be trotted
out in order to impose an exclusionary religious test for
participation in the public arena. People may publicly advo-
cate on the basis of moral judgments that they have taken off
Marx, Freud, or a current television series, but the ACLU for-
bid that they advocate on the basis of religious teaching . . . .
(Neuhaus 1991a, p. 8)
He goes on to point out that the "state" is not a particular
administration, government, or leader. In our country, it is the
constitutional order. Therefore a genuine church-state conflict would
occur only if a church or coalition of churches attempted to challenge
or overturn or replace the constitutional order.
When the concept of state as constitutional order is understood,
pro-abortion strategy becomes quite transparent. The pro-abortionists'
opposition to strict construction and their efforts at Constitutional
amendment are clearly part of a brilliantly conceived program to revise
the constitutional order. In addition, it is clear that the rhetoric
about church-state conflict is designed to neutralize religious
influence and to disenfranchise those whose sense of morality is shaped
by it:
. . . [T]alk about church-state conflict is a rhetorical
device aimed at imposing a religious test upon the democrat-
ic process. It is aimed at intimidating, or even excluding
from that process, citizens whose moral judgments are shaped
by religious teaching. Such aims _are_ in conflict with the
state--the state being understood as the constitutional order
of these United States. (Neuhaus 1991a, p. 9)
So the accusers are themselves the offenders in the arena of their
own choosing. The pro-abortionists, while crying "foul" against reli-
gious influence of any kind on public policy, are themselves blatantly
tampering with the constitutional order. Sproul has this to say about
the magnitude of the upheaval in the constitutional order brought about
by the pro-abortion forces:
The _Roe v. Wade_ decision has provoked the most serious
ethical crisis in the history of the United States. This is
the nadir in American jurisprudence, the moment of the state's
greatest failure to be a state. (Sproul 1990, pp. 91-2)
A Woman's Right to Her Own Body
Frequently pro-abortion rhetoric will affirm that a woman has a
right to her own body. The fact that there is partial truth in this
affirmation makes it a very appealing argument, especially in a rights-
conscious society. But where does this right come from? An Orthodox
Christian would take the position that indeed all living human beings,
male or female, are endowed with free will. Therefore, having free will,
a person may choose to use or even dispose of his or her own body in
ways which are consonant with or contrary to God's law. But free will
does not confer the "right" to break God's law.
|
| 20.3026 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 137 |
| The Right to Privacy
Sobran makes the profoundly insightful observation that many
things, including ethics, health, nutrition, beauty, literature, and
music, are important to a society, but, in addition, there is at least
one more crucial element:
Sex matters too, and . . . one sign of this is the grisly
form it takes in war, where victors often mutilate their
adversaries and rape the women, these abuses being the ulti-
mate annihilations of the dignity and integrity of the defeat-
ed: nothing could more horribly violate their dignity; death
and agony do not suffice. This is a cross-cultural phenomenon,
reflecting the universal perception that _sexual order is at
the heart of social order_ [emphasis added]. (Sobran 1983, p. 37)
Obviously, how the armed forces behave is not the compelling issue
here. Of concern is the social disorder of our society and its related-
ness to the sexual disorder in it--the sexual disorder ushered in by the
sexual revolution. The proponents of abortion, in seeking to perpetuate
the sexual revolution, are thereby aggravating the socio-sexual
disorder.
The so-called "new morality" ushered in by the sexual revolution of
the sixties began with demands for the right to privacy in everything
from sexual activity "between consenting adults" to a tidal wave of
pornography, wherein sex became a spectator sport--the ultimate
stripping away of privacy. It soon became clear that neither sexual acts
nor pornography would be limited to "consenting adults." How ironic,
that on the one hand there was a clamor to obtain and preserve sexual
license which involved the stripping away of privacy from man, woman,
and child, and on the other, the invention of new privacy rights for
women.
When pro-abortionists use the shibboleth of a woman's right to her
own body, they are very likely claiming a legal right based on the
"right to privacy" established by the Supreme Court in the _Roe v. Wade_
decision. Their position is that abortion legislation intrudes on the
privacy rights of individuals and families, and that it is none of the
state's business whether a woman chooses to abort or to carry to term.
The right to privacy claimed in _Roe v. Wade_ is based on
Amendments IX and XIV, the relevant portions of which are as follows:
Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privile-
ges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (U.S. Constitu-
tion as cited by Sproul 1990, pp. 99-100)
Nowhere in these two amendments (or in any of the rest of the
Constitution, for that matter) is there any explicit word about privacy
rights. They have literally been read into the Constitution, as
evidenced by this passage from the majority opinion in _Roe v. Wade_:
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth
Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon
state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court
determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to
the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision
whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. (Sproul 1990, p. 100)
While stretching the meaning of Amendment XIV, and declaring it to
be broad enough to encompass a previously nonexistent right, the Court
glosses over the most relevant and explicit part of Amendment XIV as it
applies to abortion: " . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of
life . . . without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Because the Court has
redefined life, humanity, and personhood so as to exclude the fetus, it
feels no compunction about ignoring the explicit language relevant to
the rights of the unborn while at the same time stretching the law so as
to be able to invent a new right for others.
On September 11, 1990, Molly Yard, the prominent and vocal pro-
abortionist president of the National Organization for Women, appeared
at a rally to oppose the appointment of now-Justice Souter. She
speculated that Souter would interpret the Constitution as it is
written, not according to present conditions. When the Constitution was
written, women had no rights and were the property of men, she asserted.
This call for the Constitution not to be interpreted as written is an
admission, it seems to me, that the Constitution does not provide any
rights to privacy, and thus to abortion-on-demand. She and other pro-
abortionists want to _insert_ meaning into the Constitution to suit
their personal preferences.
If the Constitution can be interpreted "according to present
conditions," why bother amending it at all? Why, for instance, has NOW
and other organizations sought an Equal Rights Amendment? Perhaps the
vagaries of this deceptively simple statement of rights already more
clearly stated in existing amendments was designed to provide further
opportunities for creative interpretation by the Supreme Court.
Pro-abortionists apparently see this newly established legal right
to privacy as an absolute right, even though absolutes are not
consistent with an ethical system based on moral relativism. They deride
anti-abortionists as "fetal police" and "bedroom police" whose concerns
they perceive as intrusions into their most private relationships.
If privacy were an absolute right, it would have to be God-given.
If so, there would be virtually nothing precluded from one's behavior as
long as it is done out of the public view. Not only would the usually
clandestine sins such as cheating, theft, adultery, fornication, and
murder be permitted, but the often overt sins such as blasphemy,
cursing, slander, anger, gluttony, and genocide would be permitted if
done covertly. Thoughts and desires would be completely outside the
moral realm. Anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with God's law
knows that this cannot be.
Another error made by pro-abortionists is related to the absolute
right issue. They regard the right to privacy as a higher and greater
right than the right to life. If this were true, one could kill anyone
who invaded one's privacy. Since the right to privacy, like the right to
vote, is a civil right--one granted by civil law--it is of a lower order
than the right to life, which is God-given. The same is true of the
"quality of life" issue. A mother who elects an abortion rather than
have a child which she foresees as degrading the quality of her future
life is placing her notion of what the quality of her life should be
above the unborn child's right to live. Such a notion would have to be
classified as a "personal preference," and therefore of a lower order
than any right, whether civil or God-given.
Since the right to life transcends the right to privacy, the
Supreme Court erred in its _Roe v. Wade_ decision to allow the
destruction of a fetus in the application of the right to privacy
principle.
|
| 20.3027 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 110 |
| A Woman's Moral Rights
Both women and men have any number of rights to their own bodies.
Examples of these rights are the right not to be violated sexually and
not to be subjected to malicious physical injury. In the abortion
controversy, however, pro-abortionists are claiming rights for women
that approach the absolute.
If a woman had an absolute right to her own body, she would have
the moral right to do anything with it that she pleased: become a
prostitute or mutilate herself or commit suicide. It seems obvious that
these are choices she can make, but they are not moral rights, and
merely to say that they are doesn't make it so. One thing is certain:
they are not God-given rights.
The assumption made about a woman's right to her own body in
relation to the abortion issue is that the fetus is a part of the
mother's body. This is an invalid assumption, a fallacy based on moral
relativism. The fetus is obviously contained within the mother's uterus,
and is connected to the placenta by an umbilical cord. Through this
umbilical cord it receives nourishment from the mother. Does this mean
that mother and fetus are _essentially_ the same? Since the fetus is
destined to leave the mother's body, the fetus must have an essence that
is distinct from the mother's. In addition, the fetus has a brain,
heart, blood, circulatory system, and genetic markers that are different
from the mother's. Every cell in the fetus has a distinct genetic
fingerprint which is different from that of the mother's cells,
indicating that the fetus is indeed a separate person, not a part of the
mother's body.
Another consideration in the fetus-and-mother-are-one argument is
the contribution of the father. Even though he does not carry the fetus,
half of the substance that determines its genetic makeup comes from him.
He therefore has an interest in, and ensuing rights related to, the
fetus. Are his rights properly nullified by the mother's decisions about
"her own body"? Might her claimed rights to her own body not be rights
at all, but just personal preference? Whichever they are, the argument
does not justify abortion.
"Back-alley" Abortions
A frequently-heard argument for the legalization of abortion is:
"If abortion is illegal, women will have dangerous back-alley abor-
tions." The argument assumes that when abortion is made illegal, women
will nevertheless continue to seek abortions, but, because of the
illegality factor, the procedures will no longer be available from
qualified physicians in aseptic surroundings. It implies that although
abortion might not be desirable, it is better than the alternative,
which is to place women seeking abortion into the hands of back-alley
butchers armed with coat hangers, and thus to increase their risk of
death.
What is overlooked, and what anti-abortionists have not done a good
job of publicizing, is this:
More women have died from abortions in the United States
since abortion was legalized than in the preceding times
of illegal abortion. This is due not to the incompetency
of the physicians, but to the huge increase in the number
of abortions performed. (Sproul 1990, p. 110)
Nearly two decades have gone by since abortion was legalized in
this country. Before _Roe v. Wade_, 0.6 million babies were being
legally aborted every year. By 1976, three years after _Roe v. Wade_,
that number had nearly doubled. From 1980 to the present, the rate has
remained relatively stable at about 1.6 million per year in the United
States alone.
In 1988, married women accounted for about 20 percent and single
women about 80 percent of legal abortions. White women (married and
single) accounted for 70 percent and nonwhite women 30 percent. The
highest abortion rates occurred in the District of Columbia, with 163.3
(up 17.4); California, with 45.9 (down 2.1); and New York with 43.3
(down 4.0). Rates are stated as the number of abortions per 1000 women
aged 15-44. The rates of increase or decrease (in parentheses) are for
the period 1985-1988. (Henshaw and VanVort 1990, p. 103)
From the late 1960s to the present, almost thirty million abortions
have taken place--_five times the number of Jews killed in the Holo-
caust_. Thirty million is equal to the combined (1980 census) popula-
tions of fourteen of these United States: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah,
Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arizona. This monstrous fact is and must remain
the focal point of the debate over death by abortion. As Sproul points
out:
For those convinced that abortion involves killing living
human persons, the continuation of it to protect those
who are having the abortions is ethically intolerable. The
loss of a woman's life in abortion is a tragic thing; but
if abortion is evil, then the life lost is that of the
guilty party. The destruction of the unborn baby is the
loss of the innocent party. Ideally, we should refrain
from abortion altogether, because then neither the woman
nor the baby would die.
If the practice of abortion is unjust, then the protection
of those who engage in the practice is not the duty of the
state . . . . To protect the criminal in the course of commit-
ting a crime is not the responsibility of government. (Sproul
1990, pp. 110-11)
The point is well taken and eloquently stated. However, it occurs
to me that this is not the only situation in which the state has stepped
in to protect the guilty from the consequences of their own immoral or
unethical behavior. Consider the "safe sex" instructions provided by a
government information pamphlet for sodomists, and the condoms
distributed by public high schools to their fornicating students, and
the "clean needle" programs for drug addicts. Whether or not it is the
state's duty to do so, the state _is_ stepping in.
|
| 20.3028 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 94 |
| On April 2, 1991 a television news program showed a woman giving a
tearful speech to a pro-abortion group about the tragedy of her teenage
daughter dying after obtaining a "back-alley" abortion. The woman was
campaigning for the repeal of all legislation requiring parental consent
for underage children to have abortions. She said that at one time she
would have been opposed to such action, but since the loss of her own
daughter, who was afraid to inform her parents that she was pregnant,
she realized that she had forced her daughter into a back-alley abortion
and thus to her death.
The mother related deathbed statements which, along with her own
tearfulness, moved her audience to sobs. Included in her account was
what I thought a strange observation which she did not interpret: she
said her daughter had never told them, even on her deathbed, that she
had had an abortion. The newscaster finished the story by saying that a
pro-life group had come forward with the information that an autopsy
revealed that the daughter had died of a spontaneous abortion. Could
that have been why she had not admitted, even on her deathbed, to an
abortion? Did the grieving mother lie about the back-alley abortion? We
don't know, of course, but the story forcefully illustrates the false
assumptions that prevail in the use of the back-alley abortion argument.
Recently, the Population Council in Washington, D.C. conducted a
study of teen abortion discussion groups in 11 cities around the
country. Almost all of the groups, when asked the question "What comes
into your head when you hear the word abortion?" gave answers such as
"murder," "killing a baby," and "death." On the other hand, they say
abortion "should remain legal to keep it safe," and that no one should
"take away anyone's rights even though abortion is not right." (_Boston
Herald_ 1990, p. 3)
The study concluded that teens "use pro-life vocabularies but take
pro-choice positions." That's a blatantly false conclusion. Calling
abortion murder is hardly taking a pro-choice position. Nor is it merely
using pro-life rhetoric. The teens are making a moral judgment. In
deciding that (1) a legal abortion is better than an illegal one because
the mother is safer, and (2) the mother's right to choose is a higher
and greater right than the baby's right to life, however, they have
merely bought into the logical fallacies propounded by their elders.
Given the generally biased press coverage of right-to-life issues, and
the excessive rights consciousness extant in our society, that is not
difficult to understand. What's amazing is that they see abortion itself
for what it is--a form of murder.
Men's Rights
Another often-heard pro-abortion statement is: "Men shouldn't speak
on abortion because it's a women's issue." Sometimes, along with this
specious argument, cynical statements are made, such as: "If men had to
have the babies, there would never be more than one child in a family,"
or "If men had to carry babies in pregnancy, there would be no laws
against abortion." The assumption seems to be that the pro-life movement
consists of men and the pro-choice of women. This is far from true. It
also assumes that "since childbearing is exclusive to women, men have no
right to address the moral issues connected to it." (Sproul 1990, p.
112)
These kinds of assertions trivialize the issues and might even be
characterized as "male-bashing." It is female chauvinism which, if
carried to its logical conclusion, would exclude from the discussion all
of the male Supreme Court justices who are responsible for inventing a
woman's right to privacy and for legalizing abortion--actions dear to
the hearts of pro-abortionists. _Argumentum ad hominem_, or attacking
the person who puts forward an argument rather than refuting the
argument itself, should be recognized for what it is, an unworthy debate
tactic.
Sobran maintains that with the advent of pluralism and the primacy
of the individual as social values, such social units as race, tribe,
nation, and family decline in importance. That decline carries with it
the authority of fatherhood. With social services progressively taking
over the provision of the material needs of children, and with lineage
no longer conferring authority, fatherhood has been considerably
weakened. Convincing evidence of that weakening is that a woman no
longer has to have the consent of the father of her child before having
an abortion, even if she is married (Sobran 1983, p. 44).
Pro-abortionists claim that a woman has a right to control her own
body, of which they say the fetus is a part. The father is permitted no
say in whether or not the child will be allowed to live. How is it,
then, that he is nevertheless expected to support the child if the
mother chooses to carry it to term? He has no rights, and his respon-
sibilities hinge upon the whim of the mother (Sobran 1983, p. 45).
He should have no more responsibilities than he has rights. Most
certainly, therefore, if his responsibilities are determined by someone
else's decision in which he is denied his right to participate, he is
being done an injustice.
Are women to blame for this state of affairs? According to Sobran,
it is not the rise of women but the rise of the individual that is
destroying the once-strong social units that conferred authority through
lineage. By buying into the idea of the sovereign autonomy of the
individual, men are systematically abdicating their authority (Sobran
1983, p. 47).
|
| 20.3029 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 132 |
| The Pro-choice Position
One benighted politician running for the Senate in the fall of 1990
announced in his political spot-ad that he wanted to guard poor women's
right to choose to have an abortion, because choice should not be
available only to the rich. First of all, this crass appeal to class
envy is outrageous. He wants to preserve choice in the matter of
abortion only. Does a poor woman have the right to a degree from
Radcliffe, or to live in a mansion, or even to see a good dentist once
in a while? Why is he not concerned about the rich/poor disparity in
these matters? Why is the legal right to choose to take her own child's
life more "sacred" than her right to other things that wealthy women can
choose?
The "pro-choice" position was actually invented by the pro-
abortionists in their "divide and conquer" efforts of the 1970s.
Realizing that the most unyielding opposition would be from the Roman
Catholic Church, it sought the support of the mainline Protestants in
overcoming the long arm of Rome by offering them a middle-ground, less-
offensive position than pro-abortion. In addition, it linked the
movement to feminist issues, and succeeded in equating the terms "pro-
choice" and "pro-women." The pro-women forces in the various Protestant
denominations saw that they had to adopt the pro-choice position or
possibly lose ground in such matters as the ordination of women.
On the secular front, pro-choice views were linked with feminism
and good old American freedom of choice. What could be more appealing?
(Certainly not apple pie and motherhood!) No one was encouraged to be an
out-and-out pro-abortionist. The standard statement to affirm each
person's inalienable right to choose was: "I'm personally not in favor
of abortion, but I don't want to impose my views on others. It's a
matter of individual liberty and private conscience." Pro-abortionists
used the statement to make themselves appear reasonable and moderate,
and politicians used it to appease the pro-lifers by paying lip service
to opposition to abortion, while actually taking a pro-choice position.
One still hears the statement in every political campaign for office,
from president to dog-catcher.
Thus the side issues of women's rights, individual liberty, matters
of conscience, and freedom from the Catholic Church's morality obscured
the cardinal issue--the rights of the unborn. The pro-abortion strate-
gists succeeded in establishing a culturally, socially, and ethically
safe middle-ground position, but those standing on that middle ground
did not see how they were being manipulated. There is no difference
legally between the two positions. So long as the law does not _mandate_
abortion, but merely _allows_ it, a pro-choice vote is a pro-abortion
vote. Once their strategy had succeeded, the pro-abortionists co-opted
the pro-choice label.
But what does it mean to be pro-choice? Is freedom of choice an
absolute freedom and the right to choose an absolute right? Hardly. The
freedom of choice ends where it infringes on another person's rights to
life and liberty. Therefore a woman's right to choose ends where it
infringes on her unborn baby's right to live. After the Gulf War we
often heard that it was safer to serve in the war than to be on the
streets of our American cities. It might be added that it is safer to be
on the streets of our cities than in a woman's womb. The statistics
prove it.
In the summer of 1989, Dale Vree, a contributing editor to the
_National Catholic Register_, was invited to what he characterized "a
pre-planned living-room discussion on abortion which included six pro-
lifers, six or seven pro-choicers, and one or two undecideds." The pro-
choicers "wanted to find out what makes pro-lifers tick," but ended up
revealing what makes pro-choicers tick. The participants were intellec-
tual types and included some famous names.
Vree expected that the heart of the pro-choice case would turn on
when life begins, but it didn't. (So much for Sproul's naive statement
quoted at the beginning of this article.) It didn't even turn on the
hard cases--rape and incest. A brief skirmish over the right to choice
quickly ended when a woman pro-lifer noted that "_the_ choice is made
when a woman agrees to have sex." The next skirmish was over political
classifications, with pro-choicers accusing the pro-lifers of being
rightists in such matters as the death penalty, handguns, and nuclear
weapons--even though none of these has anything to do with or justifies
abortion.
Finally, one of the pro-choicers blurted out: "We're pro-sex and
you're anti-sex," meaning, according to Vree, that "they're for lots of
sex in lots of forms while we pro-lifers feel it should be limited to
heterosexual marriage." He explains further:
They made it abundantly clear that they're committed to the
sexual revolution, that that revolution will wither without
the insurance which is abortion and that this is their bottom-
line concern. (Vree 1989)
So this is what makes pro-choicers tick. This is the crux of the
matter. This is what thirty million unborn babies have given their lives
for since the late sixties.
By way of contrast, Sobran puts human sexuality into a context of
social responsibility. He says:
. . . [T]he public must be encouraged to see clearly what
most of them dimly and confusedly believe already: that a
healthy society, however tolerant at the margins, must be
based on the perception that sex is essentially procreative,
with its proper locus in a loving family . . . [L]ove must
be sustained by the will, with charity, patience, fidelity,
devotion; a marriage vow is not a prediction that the flames
will never die down, but a mutual consecration which humaniz-
es sexuality by absorbing it, in the solemnest way, into the
system of social responsibility . . . (Sobran 1983, p. 19)
What Sobran is saying, in effect, is that those who use sex
frivolously are not being socially responsible, i.e., they are not
accepting responsibility for the consequences of their acts but are
demanding that somebody else bear those consequences. The same is true
of the right to choose. Though touted as the woman's ultimate right by
pro-choicers, it is never granted to the aborted child. Her right to
choose should be exercised before intercourse, not after the baby has
been conceived, when the baby has to bear the consequences of her choice
to abort. _She_ is the one who should bear the consequences of _her own_
acts.
Although the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-women" have been linked,
to be anti-abortion does not mean to be anti-women. Being pro-life is
being pro-humanity, and it includes being both pro-men and pro-women.
Women have value and dignity because of their humanity, not because of
their gender. On the other hand, being either pro-abortion or pro-choice
demeans human dignity, the dignity of both men and women.
A woman who is convinced that abortion is the wrongful taking of a
human life, but who still supports someone else's right to choose, is
making a serious ethical error. She is placing the right to choose,
which is not an absolute right, above the right to life, which is
absolute. Therefore no one should ever be deluded into taking the pro-
choice position on the grounds of moral uncertainty or on the grounds of
the right to choose. It is not a middle ground, because it puts one
squarely into the proabortion camp.
|
| 20.3030 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 124 |
| Unwanted Pregnancies
Hedonism is a philosophy which causes people to seek maximum
pleasure along with maximum avoidance of pain. The fly in the ointment
is the paradox inherent in hedonism: if we don't achieve the pleasure we
are frustrated, but if we do we are bored. (Remember the song, "Is That
All There Is?") We're all conditioned by hedonism, whether or not we
realize it. Unless we have an emotional disorder, we do not enjoy pain,
so we seek ways to avoid or minimize it. The impulse to seek abortion is
so strong for that very reason. It's a means of escape.
Since very few abortions are performed because of rape or incest,
and abortions to save the life of the mother are _extremely_ rare, the
real issue is abortion-on-demand for convenience or because the child is
unwanted. If not wanting a baby is just grounds for its destruction
before birth, it is also just grounds for its destruction afterwards. In
other words, it is no more unjust to kill a three-year-old unwanted
child than it is to kill a child after three months of gestation in the
womb.
Some people think that if a child is destined to live in poverty or
with a severe physical handicap, it is better to destroy it before it is
born. Someone who has this mind-set could well consider whether he, as a
living human person, would honestly want someone else to decide that the
quality of his life is so bad that he should be destroyed. Neuhaus has
this to say about the quality of life criterion:
. . . [W]e must ask whether we can speak about lives not
worth living without remembering the phrase, _lebensunwertes
Leben_? It means in German [sic], lives unworthy of life. It
was used by the Nazis to justify the directly intended killing
of the burdensome. Yes, I know . . . This is America, and we
are motivated by kindness and compassion . . . The question is
not intentions. The question is the thing itself. (Neuhaus
1991b, p. 53)
One of the early arguments used by pro-abortionists was that
abortion would permit women to avoid having unwanted children, the
implication being that unwanted children are unloved, neglected, and
abused. Therefore it was in the unwanted child's best interest to be
aborted if the mother chose to do so. With abortion-on-demand, they
reasoned, child abuse would be lessened, or perhaps even disappear.
Quite the opposite has happened. Even with 1.6 million unwanted babies
being killed by abortion every year in this country, child abuse is at
an epidemic level and rising at an ever-increasing rate.
It seems clear that abortion-on-demand has not, and will not, cure
this social malady. What is also clear is that government has failed its
primary duty to protect the weak and the powerless--that children's
human rights are denied them both before and after their birth. As
sexual disorder grows, so does the social disorder. As Sobran so aptly
points out, "The real problem of our age is not unwanted children but
unwanted selves, and no surgery can correct the emptiness that comes of
the selfish refusal to love." (Sobran 1983, p. 99)
Adoption
One of the most frequent fallacies occurring in pro-abortion
arguments is "the false dilemma" or the "either/or fallacy." It consists
of incorrectly reducing several options down to two. It is often joined
with the "lesser of two evils fallacy" to come up with the argument that
though abortion is not a desirable option, it is to be preferred to the
greater evil of having an unwanted or poverty-stricken or handicapped
child. Given this argument, abortion is found to be the lesser of the
evils. Other alternatives, such as adoption, are lost in the flawed
process and never considered. Adoption should be seen not only as a
viable option, but one which preserves justice, as well as the honor and
integrity of the mother.
Rape and Incest
Abortions to end rape- and incest-caused pregnancies repre-
sent a very small number of cases and should be dealt with
separately from the broader question of legalized abortion.
As in all issues of human need and suffering, this requires
absolute compassion. It is a small consolation to a rape vic-
tim who is impregnated that she represents a tiny minority.
Her problem is real. (Sproul 1990, p. 132)
Dr. Sproul thus expresses his compassion for a woman who finds
herself in such truly heart-rending circumstances. The moral dilemma
with respect to the child, given the intensity of the mitigating
circumstances and the complexity of the interrelated issues, would
probably propel her strongly toward abortion as a solution to her
problem. As Sproul appropriately points out, however, "to kill the
fetus, who is innocent of [any] offense, is to add insult to injury."
(Sproul 1990, p. 133) The child's right to continue living, as pointed
out earlier, is an absolute right, and must take precedence over the
mother's strong urge to seek a way out of her trauma-induced misery.
This particular category of human tragedy evokes overwhelming
emotions about the injustice done to the victims. A fact that bears
repetition, however, is that very few abortions involve rape or incest.
A 1988 survey to determine the reasons why women seek abortions,
conducted in a facility in the North Central region of the United
States, revealed that only one of 1,900 women surveyed gave as a reason
that she was a victim of rape or incest (Torres and Forrest 1988, p.
170).
Two factors stand out among the several explanations for the low
number of rape-related abortions. The first is that the pregnancy rate
in rape cases is lower than three percent--the approximate rate of
pregnancy in normal intercourse. Apparently the extreme trauma of the
situation tends to suppress ovulation. The second is that proper medical
treatment administered immediately following a rape is highly successful
in preventing pregnancy. A study of such medical treatment of 4,500 rape
cases over a ten-year period in a large urban area of the Midwest showed
that no pregnancies occurred.
Another category involving very special circumstances is that of
therapeutic abortions (those done to save the life of the mother). Such
abortions are extremely rare (Sproul 1990, p. 129). I recall a talk
given by a medical doctor to students at the Newman Center when I was a
student at the University of Wisconsin. He said that never, in his
entire career as a physician (he was probably in his late fifties) had
he ever encountered a case where a decision had to be made between
saving the mother's and saving the child's life. Given the progress of
medical science during the decades since then, cases which might
occasion a therapeutic abortion are virtually nonexistent now.
Given the rarity of therapeutic abortions, and the infrequency and
ethical complexity of rape- and incest-related abortion, these issues
should not be allowed to cloud the real issue, which is abortion for
convenience.
|
| 20.3031 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 130 |
| 20.3032 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:46 | 74 |
| A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arkes, H. 1991. Judaism and American public life: a symposium.
_First Things_, no. 11 (Mar.), pp. 31-3.
_Boston Herald_. 1990. Study: teens oppose abortion, but want to
keep it legal. Oct. 5, p. 3.
Demos, Rev. Dr. A. 1990. The abortion issue: another perspective.
_The Orthodox Observer_, Sept.
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_. 1984. 15th ed., s.v. "birth control,"
vol. 2, pp. 1065-73.
Grabbe, Protopresbyter G. 1970. Abortion: the Orthodox view. _The
True Vine_, pp. 14-16.
Harakas, S. S. and Pehanich, E. 1986. _What the Orthodox Church
Says about Abortion_ (pamphlet). Minneapolis, Minn.: Light and Life
Publishing Company.
Henshaw, S. K. and Silverman, J. 1988. The characteristics and
prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. _Family Planning
Perspectives_, vol. 20, no. 4 (July/Aug.), p. 158 ff.
Henshaw, S. K. and VanVort, J. 1990. Abortion services in the
United States, 1987 and 1988. _Family Planning Perspectives_, vol. 22,
no. 3 (May/June).
_Holy Bible_, King James version.
_Library of Christian Classics_. 1951. Eds. Baille, J.; McNeill, J.
T.; and VanDusen, H. P. Vol. 1, _Early Christian Fathers_. Philadelphia,
Pa.: Westminster Press.
Mathews-Roth, M. M. 1989. Letter to the _Boston Herald_, Aug. 2.
Reprinted in the _Orthodox Christian Witness_, vol. XXII, no. 49, p. 4.
_NLRC (National Right to Life Committee) Convention Handbook_.
1989.
Neuhaus, R. J. 1991a. When church-state conflicts aren't. _First
Things_, no. 11 (Mar.), pp. 7-9.
----1991b. The death watch. _First Things_, no. 11 (Mar.), p. 53.
O'Mahoney, P. J. 1990. _A Question of Life: Its Beginning and
Transmission_. Westminster, Md.: Christian Classics, Inc.
_Orthodox America_. 1985. Abortion: an Orthodox Christian
Perspective (pamphlet).
_Orthodox Christians for Life_. 1989. Pamphlet, rev. 2.2.
_The Psalter according to the Seventy_. 1974. Translated from the
Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. Boston, Mass.: Holy
Transfiguration Monastery.
_The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church_. 1983 reprint. West
Brookfield, Mass.: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society.
_The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English_. 1851
translation by L. C. Brenton. Zondervan Publishing House.
Sobran, J. 1990. _Single Issues_. New York: The Human Life Press.
Sproul, R. C. 1990. _Abortion: a Rational Look at an Emotional
Issue_. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Navpress.
Torres, A. and Forrest, J. 1988. Why do women have abortions?
_Family Planning Perspectives_, vol. 20, no. 4 (July/Aug.).
Vree, D. 1989. An argument for abortion. _National Catholic
Register_, June 4.
|
| 20.3033 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Working for paper and iron... | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:50 | 3 |
|
...speaking of `disk space'...
|
| 20.3034 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:55 | 3 |
|
.3033 and it would certainly appear that we'll be doing that,
along with speaking about cpu cycles, for quite some time.
|
| 20.3035 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Consume feces and expire. | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:55 | 3 |
|
Those are "good" CPU cycles, though.
|
| 20.3036 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Consume feces and expire. | Fri Nov 03 1995 12:56 | 5 |
|
NOTES crash, but it worked quite well.
8^)
|
| 20.3018 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 13:01 | 83 |
| Abortion: The Continuing Holocaust
by Presbytera Valerie M. Bockman
INTRODUCTION
The American people are as divided over abortion as they were over
such historically divisive issues as slavery, the civil rights movement,
and the Vietnam War. The issue is emotional and volatile, in both camps.
Because of its interconnectedness with other popular movements, many
people fear that reversing the legality of abortion would also reverse
the progress that has been made in their favorite social movements.
Everyone is intent on preserving his rights as he perceives them.
However, the heart of the issue is whether abortion is the willful
destruction of a living human person. Dr. R. C. Sproul, a Protestant
fundamentalist theologian, minister, professor, and author of an
excellent book on abortion frequently cited and paraphrased in this
paper, is vehemently opposed to abortion. Early in the book, however, he
makes this rather naive statement:
I am convinced that if somehow it could be proven conclus-
ively that the destruction of unborn babies is in fact the
willful destruction of living human persons, the debate on
abortion would be over, and the law of the land would as
clearly prohibit abortion as it does all forms of homicide.
(Sproul 1990, p. 16)
The author seems to have forgotten about the advocates of infanti-
cide, euthanasia, and medically assisted suicide.
He goes on to decry use of the term "murder," which he regards as a
polemicized word in the context of abortion. He feels that it merely
adds to the emotionalism and volatility of the issue, as he states:
Pro-abortionists and pro-choice proponents are not advocat-
ing murder. They are not endorsing the premeditated, with
malice aforethought, willful destruction of human persons.
Almost universally, the proponents of abortion act on the
conviction that what is being aborted is less than a living
human being. (Sproul 1990, p. 17)
Use of the word "murder" in reference to abortion, however, is not
an invention by pro-lifers in the current debate over this issue. The
Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church, from the earliest times, unequivo-
cally and consistently refer to abortion as murder. It is difficult to
believe that Sproul really does not question the motives which incor-
rectly influence the consciences of, or lead to the rationalizations
used by, proponents of abortion--because almost immediately he begins to
"play hard ball":
What is a fetus? . . . The fetus is either alive or not alive.
The fetus is either human, or not human. The fetus is either a
person, or not a person. _What I think the fetus is does not
determine which of these it actually is._ If a fetus is a living
human person but I do not believe or think that it is a living
human person, my thoughts have no bearing on what a fetus actual-
ly is. _By merely thinking or believing I cannot change what is
personal into a nonperson, what is living into unliving, or
what is human into the nonhuman_ [emphasis added]. (Sproul 1990,
p. 17)
He denounces the moral relativism of our time, which denies that
there are objective norms for what is right and wrong and supplants the
norms with personal preferences as a basis for making moral decisions.
In this misguided state, everyone seems to be very much aware of his own
perceived rights and oblivious to the rights of others.
In order to protect ourselves from the unprincipled preferences of
others a system of laws had to be devised, and every law in the code
restricts someone's freedom in order to protect someone else's rights.
In our republican form of government, each person's rights have to be
protected from incursion by the majority. Unfortunately, unjust laws can
be passed which make moral rights illegal and immoral activities legal--
abortion laws being a case in point. And so-called natural law, the
common ground on which church and state could once co-exist peaceably,
has been eliminated as a foundation for societal law. Even the
Constitution is being eroded by moral relativism.
Since many people no longer look to Holy Scripture for ethical
norms, and many others find natural law too vague as a moral guide, and
no one in his right mind would look to government today for ethical
guidance, right seems to be based on power alone. However, not power,
not the Constitution, and most surely not misguided ethics based on
moral relativism can or will determine when human life begins.
|
| 20.3037 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Fri Nov 03 1995 13:02 | 5 |
| > Hedonism is a philosophy which causes people to seek maximum
> pleasure along with maximum avoidance of pain.
I don't really have any comment here, but I thought it useful to
restate this concept.
|
| 20.3038 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 14:52 | 17 |
| >re: "I also believe in the death penalty and forced euthanasia in
>certain circumstances."
>
>What's the difference between the death penalty and forced euthanasia?
The death penalty is a form of punishment. It is spelled out in law if
you commit a given crime under given circumstances then you will (may)
suffer a given consequences.
Forced euthanasia is when grandma is old and senile, in great pain, has
never let her thoughts be known on the subject of euthanasia, has an
underdetermine length of time in front of her in a near vegative state,
and the family is looking at another $100K to $200K in medical debt
being piled up, and the family decide it is more humane to put her out
of her misery.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3039 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 15:00 | 14 |
| Shifting gears and arguing the point that the law is stupid, it does
seem a bit obscene to make a medical procedure illegal that would have
been legal if the woman had sought medical attention a month, a week, a
day, or even an hour before.
As long as the umbilical cord is still attached, the fetus is still
part of the woman's body and she should still have a choice to abort,
even if the fetus is external.
I can think of a number of cases where the world would have been better
off if the mother had chosen to have a retroactive abortion performed,
but that's another subject.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3040 | So now we proceed to infanticide | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 15:06 | 16 |
| > As long as the umbilical cord is still attached, the fetus is still
> part of the woman's body and she should still have a choice to abort,
> even if the fetus is external.
Baloney. The umbilical cord is not a direct attachment; the umbilical
cord connects to the placenta, and the placenta is an organ which provides
nourishment for the child without directly connecting the child's and
mother's bloodstreams.
The child and mother have different DNA and often have different blood types.
No part of the mother's body is like this.
By your logic, as long as the child is sucking on its mother's baps, it
is part of her body. And that is hogwash.
/john
|
| 20.3041 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Fri Nov 03 1995 15:17 | 15 |
| Correct. And besides, the fetus is at a point of viability. Doesn't
Roe v. Wade address this?
So if I understand you, forced euthanasia is when a senior citizen
would require a host to live, would be considered an inconvenience to
the family, and due to senility is therefore now at a different stage
of personhood.
Hmmmm....Suzanne, Michelle, anybody have a comment on this??? I'd be
interested to see if there are any double standards on your part.
I can just here the son of daughter now, (Pointing finger)..."As Long
as you live under my roof, I have the right to cut you off!!"
-Jack
|
| 20.3042 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 15:19 | 12 |
| > Baloney. The umbilical cord is not a direct attachment; the umbilical
> cord connects to the placenta, and the placenta is an organ which provides
> nourishment for the child without directly connecting the child's and
> mother's bloodstreams.
Ah. Forgive my ignorance but does the placenta the cord is attached to
have the fetus' DNA or the mothers? If the fetus' then it is still
connected/attached/inside the mother.
Carrying your logic out, then the fetus is never part of the mother,
but has differnent DNA, blood, etc. and if one accepted your arguments
then no abortions would be allowed.
|
| 20.3043 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Fri Nov 03 1995 15:22 | 4 |
|
I believe he's caught on.....
|
| 20.3044 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Do you wanna bang heads with me? | Fri Nov 03 1995 15:25 | 5 |
|
Yup, I'd have to give John a point for that one, for actually
convincing someone who thinks differently to turn around and
state John's opinion to a "T".
|
| 20.3045 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 03 1995 15:26 | 3 |
|
john's opinion = T
|
| 20.3046 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 15:42 | 4 |
| The placenta has the child's DNA; it functions as the child's lung, intestine,
and kidney during gestation.
/john
|
| 20.3047 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 15:51 | 11 |
| > Yup, I'd have to give John a point for that one, for actually
> convincing someone who thinks differently to turn around and
> state John's opinion to a "T".
I did say "if" one accepts his argument ...
I still ask where is the logic behind making a medical procedure
illegal simply because of the passage of time. No-one would think of
making a knee-operation illegal simply because the patient waited 9 or
10 months after the injury to have the procedure performed. Why should
this be different?
|
| 20.3048 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 15:54 | 11 |
| RE: placenta has the child's DNA
Forgive my ignorance again, but how is the placenta connected to the
mother? It is possible that I should modify it from "as long as the
umbilical cord is attached" to "as long as the placenta hasn't been
birthed."
-- Dave
(Assuming I recall the phrase "the birthing of the placenta" correctly
from the child-birth classes.)
|
| 20.3049 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Do you wanna bang heads with me? | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:01 | 13 |
|
RE: Illegal procedure after time passes
A knee is always a knee, with regards to it being available for
operations. But is a fetus always a human?
And, it's not really fair to compare a knee operation to an
abortion, unless:
You don't get permission from the knee itself before performing
the operation.
In the course of the operation, you completely destroy the knee.
|
| 20.3050 | yob tebe | CLYDE::KOWALEWICZ_M | red roads... | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:09 | 10 |
| 20.3051 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:11 | 22 |
| RE: a knee is always a knee
Do I have permission to shift my analogy before answering the
questions? Let's say that instead of a knee operation it's a tumorous
growth.
> ... not really fair to compare a [tumor] operation to an abortion unless:
> you don't get permission from the [tumor]
I have yet to see a form requesting permission of the tumor to
operate. The person the tumor is being removed from yes, the tumor
itself no.
> in the course of the operation you completely destroy the [tumor]
That is the goal of the tumor operation. In the cases of maligant
tumors it is possible to use radiation and/or chemo therapy to
ensure that all of the tumor was killed.
-- Dave
<reposted with a corrected typo>
|
| 20.3052 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't drink the (toilet) water. | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:14 | 17 |
|
>> ... not really fair to compare a [tumor] operation to an abortion
>>unless:
> > you don't get permission from the [tumor]
>
> I have yet to see a form requesting permission of the tumor to
> operate. The person the tumor is being removed from yes, the
> tumor itself no.
Well, this is part of the abortion argument ... that the parent
shouldn't be allowed to make a decision as to the fate of the
child.
And again, a tumor is always a tumor. Is a fetus always a
human being?
|
| 20.3053 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:23 | 7 |
| ZZ I shudder everytime I remember you claim
ZZ to be a Christian.
ZZ kb
kb, you're being mellow dramatic here. No need for it!
-Jack
|
| 20.3054 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:39 | 16 |
| 20.3055 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:42 | 17 |
| > And again, a tumor is always a tumor. Is a fetus always a
> human being?
Assuming for the sake of argument that one choses to draw a line and
say that before this point a fetus is not a human being and after this
point a fetus is a human being then I would contend that the line is
arbitrary and therefore feeds into my argument.
How can you state that a medical procedure is legal at one point and
arbitrarily state that it is illegal a month, a week, a day, or an hour
later? It would seem obscene to bring someone up on charges simply
because they were five minutes late to the operating room. Even if
during that five minutes the woman's body expelled the unwanted tissue
growth before the medical procedure to terminate that tissue growth was
performed.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3056 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:46 | 7 |
|
That's one of the best arguments for the pro-life side. If it is a
human being, when, in it's development, does it not constitute a human
being? You don't know? Hmmm, dangerous stuff there.
|
| 20.3057 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't drink the (toilet) water. | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:46 | 5 |
|
So I guess if abortions are illegal, it should also be illegal
to masturbate and flush the toilet when you're done? Or to
dispose of a used condom?
|
| 20.3058 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:47 | 2 |
| When does a caterpillar become a butterfly, an egg a chicken, a
kangaroo embryo a full marsupial?
|
| 20.3059 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:53 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.3055 by BREAKR::FLATMAN "Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund" >>>
> Assuming for the sake of argument that one choses to draw a line and
> say that before this point a fetus is not a human being and after this
> point a fetus is a human being then I would contend that the line is
> arbitrary and therefore feeds into my argument.
Fine. Why draw the line at birth as you apparently do...
|
| 20.3060 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 03 1995 16:57 | 10 |
| <<< Note 20.3058 by CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors" >>>
> When does a caterpillar become a butterfly, an egg a chicken, a
> kangaroo embryo a full marsupial?
Genetically, each of your examples undergo no change.
Using your logic it could be argued that a 3-year-old human child
is discernably and functionally different from a 30-year-old human.
Be careful what you are arguing for!
|
| 20.3061 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Nov 03 1995 17:01 | 7 |
| Joe,
A three-year-old doesn't generally depend on a host organism to
survive. In the case of a fetus, it depends on a host for food, waste
disposal, oxygen........
|
| 20.3062 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 17:11 | 24 |
| .3059> Fine. Why draw the line at birth as you apparently do...
Actually, I'm NOT drawing the (arbitrary) line at birth. In this
argument I'm drawing the line as long as the mother and fetus are
still attached to each other which includes after the birthing process
of the fetus, but before either the umbilical cord is cut or the
placenta is birthed.
Given time and establishment of my position, I'll willing start arguing
for an arbitrary time further ahead in the tissues life cycle.
> A three-year-old doesn't generally depend on a host organism to
> survive. In the case of a fetus, it depends on a host for food, waste
> disposal, oxygen........
Actually, my three-year-old is still reasonably parasitic. She
requires other organisism to supply her nutrition. While she is
probably capable of making it through a couple of meals by scrounging
around the kitchen, she still requires the table/kitchen to be populate
with consumables. She just isn't tied to one specific host organism at
this time.
-- Dave
-- Dave
|
| 20.3063 | Well, if that's how you define it... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Frustrated Incorporated | Fri Nov 03 1995 17:14 | 4 |
|
Dave, you yourself are reasonably parasitic. So am I.
bb
|
| 20.3064 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Fri Nov 03 1995 17:14 | 16 |
| > A three-year-old doesn't generally depend on a host organism to
> survive. In the case of a fetus, it depends on a host for food, waste
> disposal, oxygen........
Will you please stop all this parasite-like garbage!!! Is that all a human
is to you? A parasite...
And don't give me crap that "I never said parasite"... you are claiming the
mother is a "host organism".
BTW, a 3 yr old DOES DEPEND on others to survive...
Get a clue.
/scott
|
| 20.3065 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 17:15 | 12 |
| RE: .3057
> So I guess if abortions are illegal, it should also be illegal
> to masturbate and flush the toilet when you're done? Or to
> dispose of a used condom?
Actually, we wouldn't let them go that far. After all the basis for
their position so far seems to be the DNA structure is different from
the host organism (mother). With disposing of condoms you're disposing
of only one persons (half) set of DNA.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3066 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 17:20 | 10 |
| > Dave, you yourself are reasonably parasitic. So am I.
Yes. In the current civilization societal structure, I am parasitical
with regards to food, water, shelter, and waste disposal. However, if
you removed the current environmental structure and rolled back
technology 100 years, I could successfully function on a farm, raising
my own food, and digging my own out house(s). My parasical
three-year-old could not. (And we won't even mention my 21 month old).
-- Dave
|
| 20.3067 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Nov 03 1995 17:54 | 53 |
| RE: .3015 Joe Oppelt
// Actually, the bill stipulates that the mother's life being in danger
// can be used in the defense of the criminal charge for a doctor who does
// this abortion. This means that the doctor would go on trial ...
/ Not so fast, Suzanne. This is no different from person-A
/ defending person-B being attacked by person-C. If person-A
/ kills person-C in the process, it is true that he might be
/ tried for murder, but we both know that this most likely
/ doesn't happen.
This bill makes the procedure in question illegal. The 'defense'
about the woman's life being in danger is something which can be
raised during the trial.
If the writers of this bill wanted doctors to be able to use this
procedure if it were necessary to save a woman's life, they could
have made it legal in this situation. They didn't do this.
/ If the mother's life is truly endangered and the abortionist
/ does this procedure, his ability to provide evidence of that
/ danger will most likely be sufficient to prevent legal action
/ against him.
The amount of danger present to someone is a judgment call, unless
the person does actually die. Any doctor who saves a woman's life
with this procedure would be in danger of a trial and prison if
this bill becomes law.
// So the doctor has to choose between:
//
// 1. Saving the woman's life.
// 2. Leaving my patients and my family up in the air while I go
// on trial for a criminal act for which I may serve time
// in prison.
/ Typical hysterics from you.
The problem with making a procedure illegal is that some individuals
will get the weird impression that the procedure is against the law.
In such a situation, a person truly has to weigh using the life-saving
procedure against the legal consequences set forth by the law.
People on the pro-choice side don't want to put doctors in the position
of choosing between saving a woman's life and obeying the law. This
bill puts doctors precisely in this position in certain situations.
Assurances from the anti-choice camp that doctors wouldn't really
be prosecuted for saving a woman's life are worthless. If the
writers of the bill wanted it to be legal to use this procedure to
save a woman's life, they would have written it into the bill.
Again, they didn't.
|
| 20.3068 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't get even ... get odd!! | Fri Nov 03 1995 17:59 | 6 |
|
>/ Typical hysterics from you.
Uh-oh ... sexual harassment!!
|
| 20.3069 | Who cares who's a "parasite" - irrelevant ! | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Frustrated Incorporated | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:00 | 26 |
|
Which is relevant to nothing. After all, in nature, animals have
neither any right to life, nor any right to choose. And both hosts
and parasites are routinely eaten through no fault of their own.
In real human societies, what's legal and what's illegal is ordinarily
up to the legal system, not some off-the-wall theory of nature. And in
representative systems, that means the members of a society have a voice
in what will be allowed and what will not. In most cases, our society
is supposed to work like that. We get the laws most of us want. In
the USA, that system has restricted abortion many times.
But we recognize an exception - there are certain fundamental meta-laws
we have enshrined as "rights", a concept invented by humans. And here
in the USA, we disallow the majority law if it contradicts these
meta-laws.
In the case of abortion, the meta-law is the Fourth Amendment :
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, shall not be violated."
The question is whether it applies. I understand why some people
think it does. Do you understand why I think it doesn't ?
bb
|
| 20.3070 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:09 | 9 |
|
Of course.
Is a baby considered an "effect", or its own entity?
And/or is "secure in their persons" referring to the pregnant
parent-to-be, making abortion OK, or the baby, making abortion
not OK?
|
| 20.3071 | Gee... the things you learn... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:14 | 10 |
|
Amazing....
I wasn't aware that nature gave all of us sexual urges so that we
(collectively) would ACTIVELY want a parasite lodged in the bellies of
the females of our species... (or any parastical bearing species for
that matter)...
|
| 20.3072 | | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:21 | 20 |
| Parasitic relationships usually exists between two *different* types
of organisms and the parasite is usually injurious to the host. To
discuss parasitic relationships is, IMO, inappropriate in this
argument.
The change of state from not a human to human must occur at some
point. That point must lie somewhere along the line that connects
conception with birth (though not necessarily between those two
points). I submit that it is unnecessary to argue about pre-conception
and post-birth.
At what point does the fertilized egg become implanted in the womb?
That may be a logical point to fix state-change. I guess also that
some propose that that point is when the fetus is capable of surviving
outside the womb, which could seem a bit late in the process, IMO.
Obviously, I don't know, and I bet you don't, either. I haven't heard
of anyone who *knows*, which is the problem.
Pete
|
| 20.3073 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:31 | 12 |
|
>That may be a logical point to fix state-change. I guess also that
>some propose that that point is when the fetus is capable of surviving
>outside the womb, which could seem a bit late in the process, IMO.
Well, thoughts of the doctor poised between the woman's legs
with a 2x4, waiting for it to pop out, don't do too much for
me in that regard.
BEFORE the cord is cut, of course.
|
| 20.3074 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:33 | 14 |
|
re: .3072
>Parasitic relationships usually exists between two *different* types
>of organisms and the parasite is usually injurious to the host. To
>discuss parasitic relationships is, IMO, inappropriate in this
>argument.
yes, but, according to meg's handy-dandy medicine book we's was all
parasites at one time or another... (and some of us remain so to this
day!!)
|
| 20.3075 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:42 | 24 |
| ______
---_ --__ __
-_ --_ (__)
\ -_ | |
_______\ \__________________| |_________
\ -----_\ \ __-----/\------| |------- /
\\ \ --__/ | | | //
\\ --__ | | //
\\ --__| | // LEAVE MEG ALONE!!!!
\\ -| |/
\\ ---__
\/ -_
/ -_
/ __--__ ((( =+= )
/ __- \\ --___ ___---vvvvvvv--~
/___--- \\ --____--_=__vVVVWWWWW
_----------____-- ~-----^
/ _------- //
/---/ //
/---/ \\ //
/---/ \\ //
/---/ \ /
/___/
|
| 20.3076 | | SWAM1::FLATMAN_DA | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:43 | 51 |
| >Parasitic relationships usually exists between two *different* types
^^^^^^^
Usually, but not always eh?
>of organisms and the parasite is usually injurious to the host. To
I don't suppose you've ever witnessed the trauma that a woman goes
through during the birthing process. Let's also not forget that the
fetus is consuming significant amounts of resources from the host
organism. Parasite fairly well describes the biological relationship
between fetus and host organism (mother).
>discuss parasitic relationships is, IMO, inappropriate in this
>argument.
I respectfully disagree. Parasite is a good word to sum up the
biological relationship.
>
>At what point does the fertilized egg become implanted in the womb?
>That may be a logical point to fix state-change. I guess also that
>some propose that that point is when the fetus is capable of surviving
>outside the womb, which could seem a bit late in the process, IMO.
Let's see, what arbitrary points do we get to pick from?
-- conception
-- conception + an arbitrary length of time
-- attachment/implantation
-- when the woman misses her cycle
-- when the placenta is formed
-- when the brain stem is formed
-- when the fetus establishes its own heart beat
-- when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb with
"heroic" medical help
-- when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb without
"heroic" medical help
-- when contractions begin
-- when second stage labor begins
-- when the head crowns
-- when the fetus' first breath is taken
-- when the umbilical cord is cut
-- when the doctor's bill is paid
>Obviously, I don't know, and I bet you don't, either. I haven't heard
>of anyone who *knows*, which is the problem.
We KNOW that the woman exists at all of the above stages and we KNOW
that she has rights. Why should we arbitrarily pick a time when her
rights should be trampled on?
-- Dave
|
| 20.3077 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:51 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.3061 by CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors" >>>
> A three-year-old doesn't generally depend on a host organism to
> survive.
Neither does the caterpillar depend on the butterfly. I brought
up the 3-year-old issue because it more closely parallels your
caterpillar/butterfly analogy than does a fetus "parasiting"
off its mother.
|
| 20.3078 | | SWAM1::FLATMAN_DA | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:54 | 14 |
|
> Well, thoughts of the doctor poised between the woman's legs
> with a 2x4, waiting for it to pop out, don't do too much for
> me in that regard.
In the womb, out of the womb but still attached. Big deal. Late term
abortions are (correct me if I'm wrong) conducted by using a
roto-router grinding type tool to chop the fetus up into manageable
bits to be siphoned/suctioned out. The same tools can be used once the
fetus clears the birth canal. They can even use the bowl that's
normally used to catch the placenta to hold the various bits and pieces
of the external fetus while they're chopping it up.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3079 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Fri Nov 03 1995 18:58 | 3 |
|
Where's that "gak" note, anyways??
|
| 20.3080 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 03 1995 19:05 | 12 |
| re .3067
Suzanne, I can't understand why you see it important to defend
this hideous, gruesome practice of partial birth abortions.
There *ARE* other alternatives to stopping the birth process for
the purpose of sucking out the brains of a live baby being
delivered.
Butchery, Suzanne. That's what it is. I think it is very
appropriate for a doctor to have to defend his decision to
resort to such a violent procedure.
|
| 20.3081 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Fri Nov 03 1995 19:07 | 3 |
| Agreed. If they're going to snuff out the child, it would seem in this
age of technology there would be a more civilized way to do it. (As it
were.)
|
| 20.3082 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 03 1995 19:31 | 8 |
| <<< Note 20.3078 by SWAM1::FLATMAN_DA "Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund" >>>
> Late term
> abortions are (correct me if I'm wrong) conducted by using a
> roto-router grinding type tool to chop the fetus up into manageable
> bits to be siphoned/suctioned out.
You're wrong. The late-term body is too large to do this.
|
| 20.3083 | | SWAM1::FLATMAN_DA | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 19:37 | 10 |
|
> You're wrong. The late-term body is too large to do this.
Ok. Whatever you use to chop up/abort a late term fetus can be used
to chop up/abort an external fetus. The concept is still there.
-- Dave
P.S. If done properly you'd have the side benefit of using the
remaining tissue for transplant operations.
|
| 20.3084 | | CAPNET::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Fri Nov 03 1995 19:37 | 11 |
| re: 20.3076
I never proposed to arbitrarily choose to trample on rights. If you
had read my previous posts, you'd know my position on all of this. I'm
simply trying to dialogue.
And I have witnessed the trauma of birthing, three times, which has
nothing to do with anything. The attempted distillation and
simplification of the myriad personal, religious, moral, and
philosophical concerns and issues to an analogy with a parasitic
relationship is sophomoric.
|
| 20.3085 | | SWAM1::FLATMAN_DA | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 19:57 | 41 |
| > <<< Note 20.3084 by CAPNET::PJOHNSON "aut disce, aut discede" >>>
>
>re: 20.3076
>
>I never proposed to arbitrarily choose to trample on rights.
Implicitly implied in .3072 is that you would set the point that the
fetus becomes human at the time that the fertalized egg is implanted in
the womb. I contend that this is an arbitrary designation as to when a
fetus becomes a human.
"Why should *we* choose an arbitrary time to trample on a woman's
rights?" is/was a rhetorical question.
>If you
>had read my previous posts, you'd know my position on all of this. I'm
>simply trying to dialogue.
100% guilty as charged. With 3000+ repliles, I haven't read them all.
I too am simply trying to dialogue.
>And I have witnessed the trauma of birthing, three times, which has
>nothing to do with anything.
Again, I respectfully differ. The definition of "parasite" was one
that causes injury. The trauma of childbirth is an injury.
>The attempted distillation and
>simplification of the myriad personal, religious, moral, and
>philosophical concerns and issues to an analogy with a parasitic
I wasn't trying to distill the above with the term parasitic. I was
distilling the BIOLOGICAL relationship between host organism (mother)
and fetus. From a BIOLOGICAL point of view the term parasitic is very
appropriate.
>relationship is sophomoric.
Was it Voltaire who said "A witty saying proves nothing"?
-- Dave
|
| 20.3086 | Just a 'procedure' for 'reproductive health'. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 03 1995 20:15 | 15 |
| <<< Note 20.3083 by SWAM1::FLATMAN_DA "Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund" >>>
> > You're wrong. The late-term body is too large to do this.
>
> Ok. Whatever you use to chop up/abort a late term fetus can be used
> to chop up/abort an external fetus. The concept is still there.
Late term abortions are not chopped up. They are delivered.
Whole. Dead, but whole. And if the saline solution used to
kill the late term fetus did not work, then the baby is delivered
live. Disfigured, but alive. You see, these late term fetuses
are generally viable if they are not properly killed first. Your
timeline argument is not an issue here, for it is not a matter of
gestation at this point anymore. It is merely a matter of
abortionist competency.
|
| 20.3087 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Nov 03 1995 20:32 | 24 |
| My anatomy and Physiology text (moores) refers to a fetus as having a
parasitical relationship.
Yes I do refer to fetuses as parasites. some are wanted parasite where
a mother will take any and all risks to her self to bring to term, (and
there are significant risks for many women) and some are not. Now my
leach is not a true parasite, as she and I are both (still) benefitting
from a nursing relationship. She is getting allergy protection and
immune factors, as well as nutrition, and I am getting breast cancer
protection, and not having to be as careful in dieting. However, as a
parasite, she drove my blood sugar high, affected my liver, kidney and
other functions, sent my blood pressure higher, and due to a rare
blood incompatability, gave me jaundice shortly after birth from a cross
transfusion before the placenta seperated. Also since my immune system
was suppressed while pregnant (a normal funtion to keep a woman's body
from rejecting the fetus) I was at greater risk for a lot of viruses,
and bacterial infections.
This is something many women enter into joyfully and I fully support
it. there is no way I would force this on someone who was unwilling.
meg
|
| 20.3088 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 03 1995 21:03 | 24 |
| RE: Your timeline argument is not an issue here, ...
Forgive my denseness, but what "timeline argument" have I been putting
forward. I've been implicitly arguing (or thought I was implicitly
arguing) that the viability of the fetus was irrelevent in the context
of abortion. The ONLY thing of concern is the woman's right(s).
We already have the technology to remove an egg from woman A,
fertialize it in a petri dish, implant the egg into woman B, and
produce a viable offspring.
Given sufficient medical research, it should be possible to remove a
fertalized egg/attached embryo/developing fetus from woman A and
implant that egg, embryo, or fetus into woman B and obtain a viable
offspring. At this point, the fetus would be dependent upon *a* host,
but not necessarily the host it started with. (Much like my three
year old).
Even once this technology is available I will contend that it should
not impact/take away a woman's rights. Therefore the principals that
grant a woman's right to an abortion cannot be founded upon the
viability of the fetus.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3089 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Nov 03 1995 21:38 | 35 |
| RE: .3080 Joe Oppelt
/ Suzanne, I can't understand why you see it important to defend
/ this hideous, gruesome practice of partial birth abortions.
Joe, someone asked what objections people could have to this bill,
so I explained. The procedure would be illegal even when performed
to save a woman's life. The bill mentions that the danger to the
mother's life can be used as a 'defense' - in the criminal trial
- but that only confirms that using the procedure to save a
woman's life is still grounds for a criminal charge and a trial.
This is an objection to the bill.
/ There *ARE* other alternatives to stopping the birth process for
/ the purpose of sucking out the brains of a live baby being
/ delivered.
If the woman is about to die unless this procedure is performed
to save her life, there's no choice but to perform it or watch
her die (along with the fetus, probably.)
/ Butchery, Suzanne. That's what it is. I think it is very
/ appropriate for a doctor to have to defend his decision to
/ resort to such a violent procedure.
It's inappropriate for a doctor to risk prison for saving a
pregnant woman's life. If the bill meant to allow women's
lives to be saved legally by this procedure, it would have
been written into the bill. As it stands, the procedure
would be illegal even if it saved the life of a particular
woman. The doctor could be arrested, tried and imprisoned
for doing something which saved the woman's life.
This is an objection to the bill.
|
| 20.3090 | | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DIGITAL=DEC; Reclaim the Name&Glory! | Sat Nov 04 1995 23:58 | 9 |
| Try double-spacing, Suzanne -- it aids comprehension.
Might just momentarily increment a reader's effective IQ such that a
neuron past the optic nerve might get a chance to fire.
Not mentioning any readers' names, of course...
:-)
|
| 20.3091 | | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DIGITAL=DEC; Reclaim the Name&Glory! | Sun Nov 05 1995 00:00 | 4 |
| PS -- I didn't double space .3090 because it was addressed to Suzanne.
It (and this) might just slip thru the radar until BLAMMO, the double-
spaced version hits & enlightenment sets in. Enjoy!
|
| 20.3092 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Sun Nov 05 1995 11:43 | 6 |
|
Sue, very good note! I wonder how long doctors would try to save the
mothers life if they were going to be dragged into court for it?
Dan...you're too much! And that is a good thing! :-)
|
| 20.3093 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Mon Nov 06 1995 01:34 | 28 |
| <<< Note 20.3089 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> / Suzanne, I can't understand why you see it important to defend
> / this hideous, gruesome practice of partial birth abortions.
>
> Joe, someone asked what objections people could have to this bill,
> so I explained. [insert explanation here.]
>
> This is an objection to the bill.
Do you object to the bill because of this explanation?
If so, you are defending the procedure.
> If the woman is about to die unless this procedure is performed
> to save her life, there's no choice but to perform it or watch
> her die (along with the fetus, probably.)
Come back and tell me "I told you so" if under such a
circumstance the abortionist faces trial. I have enough
faith in the process that this will never happen, and
I've already labeled your claims to the contrary as
hysterics. Continuing to use them in argument with me
is meaningless. Perhaps Dan K is convinced, so you
can share them with him.
So, do YOU object to the bill? Or are you just practicing
your debating skills...
|
| 20.3094 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Mon Nov 06 1995 12:07 | 9 |
| As the bill is currently written I have serious objections to it. Now
if the exception for prosecution was made up front, instead of as a
possible defense when a woman's life is in danger or there are fatal
fetal defects, it would be less objectionable. However, I don't
believe the government should be in the business of dictating medical
procedure. What is next? telling people when and how to treat
prostate cancer by law, instead of by oncologist?
meg
|
| 20.3095 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Mon Nov 06 1995 12:12 | 3 |
|
Comparing a preganancy to prostate cancer......how interesting.
|
| 20.3096 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 06 1995 12:30 | 7 |
| Mike, the only way a woman can possibly justify killing her child is to
use every possible means to convince herself and others that it's not a
child. Bogus comparisons, such as to parasites and cancers are quite
effective, at least until the real knowledge of the terrible deed sinks
in.
/john
|
| 20.3097 | | DPE1::ARMSTRONG | | Mon Nov 06 1995 12:40 | 19 |
| > <<< Note 20.3096 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>
>Mike, the only way a woman can possibly justify killing her child is to
>use every possible means to convince herself and others that it's not a
>child. Bogus comparisons, such as to parasites and cancers are quite
>effective, at least until the real knowledge of the terrible deed sinks in.
>
>/john
John, you just keep showing everyone how far off the mark you are
in trying to characterize what 'the other side' is thinking. You
have made some good arguments but NOT when you try to paraphrase
what pro-choice is all about.
It's NOT a child. It's a fetus. It may someday become a child,
if it develops for another 9 months. It represents a wealth of
dreams and futures, some wonderful and some terrible. Abortion
is killing those dreams and futures, not killing a child.
bob
|
| 20.3098 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Nov 06 1995 12:45 | 9 |
|
John, your belief is that the fetus is a child. I wonder if you spend
as much time with those women who had miscarrages that they all should have a
proper burial for their child as you do trying to convince people who are
seeking an abortion. I mean, both are babies, aren't they?
Glen
|
| 20.3099 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 06 1995 13:00 | 3 |
| Some people do have burials for miscarried children.
/john
|
| 20.3100 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Mon Nov 06 1995 13:02 | 8 |
|
I can't speak for John, but I can speak to the fact that when my wife
lost a baby, she was very upset as have been countless women I have
known who have lost a pregnancy. So, I guess you tell them no big
deal, it wasn't a real kid, eh Glen?
Mike
|
| 20.3101 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Mon Nov 06 1995 13:04 | 6 |
|
Actually, I'm sure you don't Glen, but I think you see my point with
regards to your example.
Mike
|
| 20.3102 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Nov 06 1995 13:09 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.3099 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| Some people do have burials for miscarried children.
That's not what I asked you, John. Do you spend as much time with the
mothers who had miscarriages trying to convince them that they all should have
burials because their babies died that you do with trying to convince people
that people should not have abortions because the fetus is a baby? Yes or no?
Glen
|
| 20.3103 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Nov 06 1995 13:11 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.3100 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "RIP Amos, you will be missed" >>>
| I can't speak for John, but I can speak to the fact that when my wife lost a
| baby, she was very upset as have been countless women I have known who have
| lost a pregnancy. So, I guess you tell them no big deal, it wasn't a real kid,
| eh Glen?
Where did this come from, Mike? I want to see the extent of what John
does. If there is a difference between the two or not for him.
Glen
|
| 20.3104 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Nov 06 1995 13:12 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.3101 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "RIP Amos, you will be missed" >>>
| Actually, I'm sure you don't Glen, but I think you see my point with regards
| to your example.
Mike, I would not say that. But I think you took my example out of
context.
Glen
|
| 20.3105 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 06 1995 13:15 | 15 |
| re .3102
Glen,
There is no comparison. In one case, the child is already dead, through
no fault (usually) of the mother, and its body is now no longer of any
use to it. The remains may be disposed of in any legal matter, just
like the remains of an adult. (There is no requirement for a "decent
burial" for an adult.)
In the other case, the child is still alive, and I have an obligation,
as a fellow human being, to try to protect those humans weaker than
myself.
/john
|
| 20.3106 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Mon Nov 06 1995 13:30 | 19 |
| re: .3105
Glen has a good point and it is worth some discussion. A
miscarriage is a terrible thing to weather, especially for a
couple who desires children. Believe me, my mother had five
and I saw the toll it took on her. However, society, as well
as social and much *religious* custom, does NOT equate a
miscarriage with the death of a child. Miscarriage is usually
a very private agony that only the parents themselves can
fully participate in. The death of a child involves the
entire extended family. Miscarriages rarely have full funerals
and burials unless they are late term or still born. Miscarriages
are rarely named (again unless they are late term or still
born). Society itself sees a difference between a miscarriage
and the death of a child. With that kind of dichotomy, it
becomes much easier to see how people can fall on either side
of the abortion debate.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3107 | So what ? a mere rathole | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Nov 06 1995 14:15 | 20 |
|
In ecology there's nothing pejorative about parasitism. In the
rainforest, the most beautiful flowers are virtually all parasitic on
the trees. In certain deepsea anglerfishes, the seemingly impossible
hunting/mating problems of cold, benthic darkness are solved because
the tiny males latch parasitically on the huge carnivorous females
early in life during the planktonic surface adolescent stage. The
resulting combination then sinks miles deep to become the dominant
predator species. The advantage of the placental mammals in complex
development is obvious, a pattern similar to oviviparous fish like sharks.
Under the endangered species act, you can be jailed for killing a
threatened parasite just as well as a host.
Nor, in either law or morals, do guardians have life-and-death rights
over dependents. In fact, dependents probably have more state power
over their fiduciaries than the reverse. So even if you grant that the
interuterine are parasitic, so what ? It's not as if that means you
have any right to kill them.
bb
|
| 20.3108 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 06 1995 14:22 | 6 |
| re .3107
Then the claim that something is a parasite (whether true or not) can
hardly be a justification for killing it, can it?
/john
|
| 20.3109 | You agree that doctors COULD be prosecuted for saving wn's lives... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Nov 06 1995 15:19 | 54 |
| RE: .3093 Joe Oppelt
// Joe, someone asked what objections people could have to this bill,
// so I explained. [insert explanation here.]
//
// This is an objection to the bill.
/ Do you object to the bill because of this explanation?
/
/ If so, you are defending the procedure.
As stated earlier, one good reason to be against the bill is because
it makes it illegal to use the procedure in question to save a pregnant
woman's life. Some here asked how anyone could be against the bill,
so I explained.
// If the woman is about to die unless this procedure is performed
// to save her life, there's no choice but to perform it or watch
// her die (along with the fetus, probably.)
/ Come back and tell me "I told you so" if under such a
/ circumstance the abortionist faces trial.
A doctor who uses this procedure to save a pregnant woman's life
would be faced by those who view it as you do:
"Doctor, I can't understand why you see it important to defend
this hideous, gruesome practice of partial birth abortions."
Doctors usually have a great deal invested in their lives, careers
and families. Expecting a doctor to break the law to save a pregnant
woman's life with this procedure puts the woman at grave risk here,
especially if the doctor works in a conservative community and believes
that no jury in that area will consider the procedure to be defendable
in any situation.
/ I have enough faith in the process that this will never happen,
Why go to the trouble to make it illegal to save a pregnant woman's
life if no one intends to prosecute someone for saving the woman's
life in this situation? The bill could have been written to allow
the procedure to be legal in such a situation, but it wasn't.
/ ...and I've already labeled your claims to the contrary as
/ hysterics.
As I said to you earlier, the problem with making a procedure illegal
is that some individuals will get the weird impression that it is
against the law.
/ Continuing to use them in argument with me is meaningless.
We aren't engaged in an argument here. Someone asked how anyone could
object to the bill - so I explained a major problem with it.
|
| 20.3110 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Nov 06 1995 16:01 | 11 |
|
John, thanks for the info. How you described the 1st part of it is how
many view abortion. So you should at least be able to see the comparrison. Once
the fetus is removed, it's dead. Whether it gets removed by an abortion, or by
a misscarriage. So I can see where the others are coming from. Can you?
Remember, no one says you have to agree with it, but can you see it?
Glen
|
| 20.3111 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Nov 06 1995 16:05 | 6 |
| Glen:
I see it as man usurping the right that is only reserved to the
Almighty...but of course it's just an opinion.
-Jack
|
| 20.3112 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend, will you be ready? | Mon Nov 06 1995 16:11 | 11 |
|
comparison
miscarriage
hth/nnttm
|
| 20.3113 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Nov 06 1995 16:24 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.3111 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| I see it as man usurping the right that is only reserved to the Almighty...but
| of course it's just an opinion.
Jack, take off your blinders for a minute. Just compare what John has
said to what many women have said about abortion. See if it matches. If you see
that, then you can SEE where some are coming from. It's really clear.
Glen
|
| 20.3114 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 06 1995 18:30 | 8 |
| re .3113
If you think it matches then so does shooting an adult in cold blood.
The murderer of Nicole Brown Simpson did no wrong; all we have here is
some dead tissue lying on the lawn at Bundy.
/john
|
| 20.3115 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 07 1995 12:31 | 72 |
| The Electronic Telegraph Tuesday 7 November 1995 Home News
Down's mix-up led woman to abort healthy baby
By Celia Hall, Medical Editor
A WOMAN who had an abortion when she was told that the baby she was
carrying had Down's syndrome discovered after the operation that the
child was normal and perfectly healthy.
The mistake arose after results were mixed up in the laboratory which
processed amniocentesis tests.
A second woman, who had been delighted to hear that her child was
healthy despite a known risk of Down's syndrome, terminated her
pregnancy at 20 weeks after the error came to light.
Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, where the laboratory tests were
carried out, has given "unqualified" apologies to both families and
says that staff are devastated by the mistake which happened when
labels on samples from the two women were switched.
After an amniocentesis test for Down's syndrome, the first woman was
mistakenly told that she was carrying a severely-affected baby girl.
She decided to have an abortion. The woman has not been named.
The mistake was discovered when testing after the termination showed
that her baby was a normal male.
Doctors then had to inform the second woman, Michelle Woods, 28, of
Thetford, Norfolk, that her baby was a Down's baby girl.
Miss Woods and her boyfriend, Russell Barnard, reluctantly chose to
have an abortion, since the baby also had a hole in the heart.
"We have offered an unqualified apology to these two families"
After the operation, Mrs Woods was able to hold the baby. The couple
named their daughter Amelia. Prof Martin Bobrow, clinical director of
medical genetics at Addenbrooke's, said: "We have offered an
unqualified apology to these two families. My staff are devastated that
such a mistake, which has never happened here before, could have
occurred."
The hospital confirmed that it had been informed that both women were
considering legal action.
Addenbrooke's held an internal and an external inquiry. Laboratory
procedures have been tightened and an extra check added.
The hospital said the mistake was confirmed on Sept 4. "An error in
labelling samples led to one of these patients being incorrectly
informed that her baby had Down's syndrome and she terminated her
pregnancy.
"The mislabelling was discovered when the terminated foetus was
routinely tested to confirm abnormalities in the cytogenetics
laboratory and found not to have Down's syndrome.
"A subsequent internal inquiry revealed that the two patients' samples
had interchanged labels and human error was found to be the cause of
this mistake."
An external inquiry then found that there were no flaws in the
laboratory's protocol and confirmed that human error was the cause.
Owen Lloyd, Miss Woods's solicitor, said it was likely that there would
be an out-of-court settlement.
Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc
|
| 20.3116 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 14:18 | 5 |
| Yes, and I hope this woman sues this facility out of business. At the
same time, oh, forget it. I'm not supposed to have an opinion on these
types of things!
-Jack
|
| 20.3117 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 14:19 | 8 |
| Oh alright, I'll try to make this sound as diplomatic as I possibly
can.
This woman who terminated her pregnancy should have counted the cost to
available methods of birth control, such as abortion. Was that
sensitive enough?
-Jack
|
| 20.3118 | | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DIGITAL=DEC; Reclaim the Name&Glory! | Tue Nov 07 1995 14:21 | 2 |
| Sensitive 'way past the point of incomprehensibility, if ya ask me.
|
| 20.3119 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 07 1995 14:30 | 74 |
| Senate set to debate bill banning some abortions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service
WASHINGTON (Nov 6, 1995 - 16:30 EST) - Signalling a new willingness in
Congress to limit abortion rights, the Senate on Tuesday takes up
legislation to outlaw certain late-term abortions.
Lawmakers and lobbyists on both sides of the aisle say there is significant
support for the measure but debate is likely to be longer and more
contentious than the 288-139 House of Representatives vote for the bill last
week -- the first time Congress has ever voted to ban a specific abortion
procedure.
The bill would outlaw "partial birth abortions," an apparently rare
procedure used in late-term abortions in which a fetus is partly extracted
from the womb feet-first, scissors inserted in the base of the skull and the
brains suctioned out while the head is still in the birth canal.
The National Abortion Federation estimates about 450 abortions are performed
each year using the technique. Two doctors have said publicly that they use
the contested procedure but the federation says more may use it.
"This bill is a long way from being enacted into law," said Douglas Johnson,
legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "Surely we
would hope that as Americans come to understand how the partial birth
abortion is performed they would feel compassion for the baby."
The bill was debated in the House under tight procedures barring amendments
and limiting debate. In the more open Senate, it faces amendments from
opponents who call it a first step towards outlawing abortion and say
Congress does not have the expertise to make decisions about medical
procedures.
"They are stopping an emergency medical procedure, with terrifying results
if they get their way," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. "I
thought I was elected to be a senator, not a doctor. These guys think
they're doctors. Beyond that, they think they're God."
Boxer and other opponents plan to request the legislation be sent back to
committee, complaining that the Senate has not held a single hearing on the
issue. If that fails, they hope to amend the bill to allow exceptions for
the life or health of the mother -- a move Johnson says would essentially
gut the bill, allowing the abortions to continue being performed.
The White House has said it cannot support the bill in its current form
because it does not include adequate protections for the life or health of
the mother. But the decision by Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole to schedule
a quick vote on the House bill underscores the growing strength of abortion
opponents, who made broad gains in the 1994 elections that brought
Republicans to power in Congress.
By focusing on the emotional issue of later-term abortions, when a fetus
could be viable outside the womb, the bill's sponsors seem to be hitting a
nerve with lawmakers -- including some abortion rights supporters in the
House who supported the bill -- and with the public.
"This is already affecting the real world," said an official who works with
abortion clinics. "We have reports of numerous patients coming into the
clinic in the frst trimester and saying, 'Is this the way you're going to do
this?"'
A September Gallup poll found 54 percent of Americans believed abortion
should be legal under any circumstancs, 31 percent under some circumstances
and 12 percent thought it should be illegal in all instances.
About 90 percent of the 1.5 million abortions performed each year occur in
the first trimester and 13,000 at mid-term or later.
While the bill's sponsors say it would outlaw one specific procedure, the
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League charges the bill is
so broadly worded it would outlaw other abortion techniques as well.
|
| 20.3120 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 07 1995 14:34 | 118 |
| Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 (Placed in the Senate)
HR 1833 PCS
Calendar No. 224
104th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1833
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 2, 1995
Received; read the first time
November 3, 1995
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AN ACT
To amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions .
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS .
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after chapter 73 the following:
`CHAPTER 74--PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
`Sec.
`1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited.
`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
`(a) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly
performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or
both.
`(b) As used in this section, the term `partial-birth abortion ' means
an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially
vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and
completing the delivery.
`(c)(1) The father, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18
years at the time of the abortion , the maternal grandparents of the
fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the
pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the
plaintiff consented to the abortion .
`(2) Such relief shall include--
`(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical,
occasioned by the violation of this section; and
`(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the
partial-birth abortion .
`(d) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be
prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this
section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based
on a violation of this section.
`(e) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution or a civil action
under this section, which must be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the partial-birth abortion was performed by a physician
who reasonably believed--
`(1) the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the life of
the mother; and
`(2) no other procedure would suffice for that purpose.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to
chapter 73 the following new item:
1531'.
Passed the House of Representatives November 1, 1995.
Attest:
ROBIN H. CARLE,
Clerk.
Calendar No. 224
104th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1833
AN ACT
To amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 3, 1995
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
|
| 20.3121 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | No Compromise on Freedom | Tue Nov 07 1995 14:40 | 9 |
|
Looks like a good piece of legislation on the first read. So what's
the problem ?
Running for a nearby fox hole...
;-)
|
| 20.3122 | Stated Calmly | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 14:51 | 21 |
| Dan:
Okay, I'll spell it out insensitively since I don't have the art of
diplomacy.
The woman had an abortion because she felt the baby would be better off
dead than live a life with downs syndrome. I find this to be the
epitomy of meanness, bigotry, and disregard for another person. We
can oouuu and aaaah all we want and shower ourselves with disingenuous
compassion; however, I find anybody who uses abortion for this purpose
is nothing less than being a sucker for the eugenicists of the world.
Eugenicist - One who subscribes to the hereditary improvement of a
breed or race. Esp. of human beings.
On the other hand, I hope she sues the pants off the facility!
Sorry, I'm no good at beating around the bush!
-Jack
|
| 20.3123 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Nov 07 1995 14:53 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 20.3120 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
> `(c)(1) The father, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18
> years at the time of the abortion , the maternal grandparents of the
> fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the
> pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the
> plaintiff consented to the abortion .
"unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct"?
maybe it's me, but that seems a bit vague.
|
| 20.3124 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Tue Nov 07 1995 15:00 | 5 |
| .3123
> "unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct"?
Translation: "unless the pregnancy resulted from a rape"
|
| 20.3125 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Nov 07 1995 15:04 | 6 |
|
>> Translation: "unless the pregnancy resulted from a rape"
well yes, clearly that's the main idea, but i still think it's
vague. if they just meant rape, they should have said so, no?
|
| 20.3126 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Nov 07 1995 15:08 | 16 |
| RE: .3120
This makes it very clear that the doctor can be subject to a
criminal prosecution - and possible civil suits - even if the
procedure was done to save the life of the pregnant woman:
`(e) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution or a civil action
******************************************
under this section, which must be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the partial-birth abortion was performed by a physician
who reasonably believed--
`(1) the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the life of
the mother; and
`(2) no other procedure would suffice for that purpose.'.
|
| 20.3127 | before/during/after | DPE1::ARMSTRONG | | Tue Nov 07 1995 15:14 | 12 |
| > `(b) As used in this section, the term `partial-birth abortion ' means
> an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially
> vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and
> completing the delivery.
So the procedure now has to be ammended so that the fetus
is killed prior to any delivery? Is that the central theme?
The delivery cannot begin until after the fetus has been killed?
I have no idea what the benefits of 'before', 'during' or 'after'
might be. But it certainly doesn't seem like this is an area
where the Government needs to specify the order of the steps.
|
| 20.3128 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 15:18 | 65 |
| <<< Note 20.3109 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> -< You agree that doctors COULD be prosecuted for saving wn's lives >-
Yes. And so COULD a mother for killing someone who was threatening
the life of her child. But when self-defense or others'-defense is
clearly the reason, prosecution is rarely pursued.
The same would rightly hold in the use of partial-birth abortions.
> / Do you object to the bill because of this explanation?
> /
> / If so, you are defending the procedure.
>
> As stated earlier, one good reason to be against the bill ...
You walk a tightrope, Suzanne, but it is clear that you defend
the procedure.
> it makes it illegal to use the procedure in question to save a pregnant
> woman's life.
This is absolutely untrue. The truth is that the procedure is
illegal, but :
.3120> `(e) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution or a civil action
> under this section, which must be proved by a preponderance of the
> evidence, that the partial-birth abortion was performed by a physician
> who reasonably believed--
>
> `(1) the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the life of
> the mother; and
>
> `(2) no other procedure would suffice for that purpose.'.
It is legal under certain circumstances, just as killing someone
else is legal under certain circumstances.
Continuing to say that it is illegal to use it to save the mother's
life is nothing but a lie.
> A doctor who uses this procedure to save a pregnant woman's life
> would be faced by those who view it as you do:
>
> "Doctor, I can't understand why you see it important to defend
> this hideous, gruesome practice of partial birth abortions."
More hysterics.
> Doctors usually have a great deal invested in their lives, careers
> and families. Expecting a doctor to break the law to save a pregnant
> woman's life with this procedure puts the woman at grave risk here,
> especially if the doctor works in a conservative community and believes
> that no jury in that area will consider the procedure to be defendable
> in any situation.
And to further point out your reliance on hysterics, you make the
issue of the mother's life to be the sole reason for this type
of abortion. In reality that argument is the extreme exception.
> As I said to you earlier, the problem with making a procedure illegal
> is that some individuals will get the weird impression that it is
> against the law.
And it should be against the law for most cases.
|
| 20.3129 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 07 1995 15:28 | 23 |
| Joe,
You seem to be saying women who have carried a child for over 6 months
decide on whims not to carry to term, with the statement around the
threat to life of the mother being an extreme reason for this
procedure. Since you seem to know more on this subject, prehaps you
can get precise reasons for the 451 Late term abortion procedures
which purportedly this method last year, and tell us how many were for
reasons other than serious defect or risk to the mother's life or
health.
Why is it a problem to make the exception in the law for risk to the
mother's life and health for you, insted of forcing a Dr. to call an
attorney should he or she medically believe a woman's life is at stake,
before deciding to use this procedure, or another more risky to the
mother procedure?
In this state if you are in your home or on your property you are NOT
prosecuted for shooting someone who is threatening you or yours with
bodily harm. We have a law that protects you from being prosecuted
in this case.
meg
|
| 20.3130 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Antisocial | Tue Nov 07 1995 15:28 | 4 |
|
So, Jack, I would have figured you to respond that "she got what
she deserved" by having the abortion.
|
| 20.3131 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 15:39 | 12 |
| ZZ So, Jack, I would have figured you to respond that "she got
ZZ what she deserved" by having the abortion.
Heck no. I find the whole ghastly practice a travesty, and contrary
to what you would believe, I feel sorry for the woman. I feel sorry
that our society suckered her into believing that one cluster of
individuals somehow holds higher merit than another. Kind of like the
"Animal Farm" analogy I've had thrown at me in the past. All fetuses
are equal but some fetuses are more equal than others.
-Jack
|
| 20.3132 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Tue Nov 07 1995 15:46 | 12 |
| > I feel sorry that our society suckered her into believing...
How condescending, repugnant, and likely misogynistic that Our
Jack concludes that the woman was unable to think and reason for
herself.
Not everyone is an ignorant toad like yourself, Jack, never giving
birth to a thought of your own and always relying on someone else
for ideas. Perhaps she thought for herself. Can you not accept
such a foreign concept?
--Mr Topaz
|
| 20.3133 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Nov 07 1995 15:49 | 3 |
|
Meg, do you think he will actually have the details for the whole 451?
|
| 20.3134 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 07 1995 16:20 | 8 |
| glen,
Since Joe "knows" most of the 451 late-term procedures must have been
for reasons other than severe deformity and/or threat to the mother's life,
I would imagine he has the figures and explanations for same at his
fingertips.
meg
|
| 20.3135 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 16:35 | 14 |
| Topes:
I have no doubt she thought for herself...just as a sold is taught to
die for his/her country. Just as a Kamakazi is taught to die for his
country. Just as an Islamic is taught to die for their faith. It's
all conditioning man. Our culture has conditioned women and men into
believing it is valid to snuff out somebody because of their mental
disposition.
So Topes, before YOU spew out any more of your self righteous diatribes
toward me, just keep in mind that it is YOU who defend the eugenicists,
not me!
-Jack
|
| 20.3136 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 16:36 | 18 |
| re .3133, .3134:
You two sit there as a tag team trying to force me into a corner
"proving" that the 451 (reported) late-term abortions are not for
medical necessity.
Certainly I can't -- just as you can't show that EVEN ONE OF THEM
was such a case. But the eyewitness accounts ehtered here and
presented before congress in the hearings so far lead me to believe
that I am not taking the wrong stand here.
All I've been saying here is that this is a repugnant procedure.
Neither of you have been able to admit that, but instead defend
it on split-hair wordings and possibilities.
Let me amend that. Glen hasn't been defending or standing for
anything here. He's just interested in taking pot-shots and
dropping bathroom-humor 'jokes'.
|
| 20.3137 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Tue Nov 07 1995 16:41 | 16 |
| > just keep in mind that it is YOU who defend the eugenicists
Prove it. Show it.
And be sure not to make things up, nor to do your famous trick of
concluding that because it's raining in Singapore, it must be
cloudy in Brazil.
Prove it, Jack, that I have defended those who, according to your
own definition [frankly, I'd never heard the word before],
"subscribe to the hereditary improvement of a breed or race."
Show it, Jack, or it'll be time for the Prevarication Penalty yet
again.
--Mr Topaz
|
| 20.3138 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 16:41 | 4 |
| Which is exactly why I smugly asked Glen the question as to what
position he took on abortion!!
-Jack
|
| 20.3139 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Tue Nov 07 1995 16:42 | 12 |
| .3128
> A doctor who uses this procedure to save a pregnant woman's life
> would be faced by those who view it as you do:
> "Doctor, I can't understand why you see it important to defend
> this hideous, gruesome practice of partial birth abortions."
More hysterics.
Why hysterics, Joe? Doesn't sound too hysterical to me. This
is the same tactic that the anti-choice nutters use on doctors
regardless of the time length of the pregnancy.
|
| 20.3140 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 16:49 | 5 |
| re .3139
Well of course it doesn't look that way from your side of the
fence. Big deal. And you are welcome to say the same thing
about my entries.
|
| 20.3141 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Tue Nov 07 1995 16:51 | 4 |
|
A note like .3135, where Our Jack assumes that a woman can't make
an informed decision and then makes up a lie about this noter,
makes me feel like I need to take a shower after reading it.
|
| 20.3142 | Eugenics: the foundation of Planned Parenthood | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 07 1995 16:59 | 15 |
| Margaret Sanger was the direction-setter and first president of Planned
Parenthood, the world's largest abortion promoter and provider.
Sanger believed "Negroes and Southern Europeans" were "mentally inferior
to native born Americans." She said such people, as well as Jews and
other minorities, were "feeble-minded," "human weeds," and a "menace
to society."
Sanger dreamed of creating a "race of thoroughbreds," in contrast to
those she called "genetically inferior." The latter, she argued, should
be "segregated" and "sterilized." "More children from the fit, less from
the unfit--that is the chief issue."
--Margeret Sanger, "Birth Control Review", May 1919, April 1933
"Pivot of Civilization", 1922
|
| 20.3143 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 16:59 | 26 |
| Topes statement about me...
ZZ How condescending, repugnant, and likely misogynistic that Our
Misogyny means the hatred of women. I was referred to as misogynistic
because I stated...
ZZ > I feel sorry that our society suckered her into believing...
Normally one would think by my statement that it is our society I hate
and not the woman. The woman is the poor victim in this case so why
would I be a hater of women?
Topes has this nasty habit of countermanding my message...constantly.
Whenever I clearly point out that it is societies fault, or governments
fault, or the fault of faulty policies, Topes consistently makes it a..
Jack against the blacks issue, or Jack against women issue as we have
seen above.
So in this case, I hate women and notice how society, my real target
was ignored. I see Topes here as catering to the emotional whims of
prochoice women in this conference. In other words Topes, you are a
sympathizer to the system. This in my book makes YOU Misogynistic.
You just package it up and make it look pretty and compassionate.
-Jack
|
| 20.3144 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:01 | 3 |
| What's your point, John? The founder of the Lutheran Church was a
virulent anti-Semite; does that mean that Lutherans are
anti-Semites in your eyes?
|
| 20.3145 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:02 | 3 |
|
I say we lock Don and Jack in a room together until they learn to play
nicely.
|
| 20.3146 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:04 | 9 |
| Topes:
One more thing. You need to discern the difference between a lie and a
misperception. Based on your logic, misogynism is contrary to my
personhood and is therefore a lie. Happily married 9.5 years, have
alot of female friends, and no plans to abuse, cheat, or divorce my
spouse.
-Jack
|
| 20.3148 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:06 | 87 |
| RE: .3128 Joe Oppelt
// -< You agree that doctors COULD be prosecuted for saving wn's lives >-
/ Yes. And so COULD a mother for killing someone who was threatening
/ the life of her child. But when self-defense or others'-defense is
/ clearly the reason, prosecution is rarely pursued.
/ The same would rightly hold in the use of partial-birth abortions.
As long as prosecution *can* be pursued for a doctor who uses this
procedure to save a woman's life, it will be a deterrent for the
doctor to save the woman's life. Remember, we're talking about
doctors here, not illegal abortionists who conduct their businesses
outside the law anyway. Doctors make huge personal, familial and
financial investments in their professions and they can be ruined
by being arrested and prosecuted, even if they are acquitted.
This bill would put doctors in the position of having to choose
between saving a woman's life and obeying the law, in certain
situations. This puts the woman's life at risk.
// As stated earlier, one good reason to be against the bill ...
/ You walk a tightrope, Suzanne, but it is clear that you defend
/ the procedure.
If you don't defend the procedure to save a pregnant woman's life,
then why suggest that doctors who perform it for this reason won't
actually be prosecuted by those who also hold your view?
// it makes it illegal to use the procedure in question to save a pregnant
// woman's life.
/ This is absolutely untrue. The truth is that the procedure is
/ illegal,
If the bill goes through, the procedure would be illegal. Period.
A possible defense is offered for the prosecution and civil suits,
but that's not enough to protect a doctor from being arrested and
prosecuted and possibly sued for saving a woman's life. This puts
the woman at risk if her life is in danger and no other procedure
can save her.
// A doctor who uses this procedure to save a pregnant woman's life
// would be faced by those who view it as you do:
//
// "Doctor, I can't understand why you see it important to defend
// this hideous, gruesome practice of partial birth abortions."
/ More hysterics.
These are *your words* - quoted exactly from one of your notes - now
addressed to any doctor who might try to address this issue from the
same perspective I've used in this discussion: the life of the woman.
Any doctor who saves a woman's life with this procedure would face
objections - and possible arrest, prosecution and imprisonment - from
those who don't regard the procedure as worthy of defending for any
reason.
/ And to further point out your reliance on hysterics, you make the
/ issue of the mother's life to be the sole reason for this type
/ of abortion. In reality that argument is the extreme exception.
My discussion has been about possible objections to the proposed bill.
The objection I've heard most often is that the bill doesn't protect
doctors from being prosecuted for using the procedure to save the life
of a woman. This is still a valid objection.
// As I said to you earlier, the problem with making a procedure illegal
// is that some individuals will get the weird impression that it is
// against the law.
/ And it should be against the law for most cases.
It would be against the law in all cases, even if a possible 'defense'
against the criminal prosecution is offered for situations involving
saving the life of the woman.
The bill makes it clear that doctors can still be prosecuted for saving
a woman's life with this procedure.
The bill could have stated that doctors would be protected from being
prosecuted in this situation, but it wasn't written that way.
This is an objection to the bill.
|
| 20.3149 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:09 | 3 |
|
Jack, you lied about me in 20.3135. You made it up.
|
| 20.3150 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:13 | 11 |
| The purpose of the Lutheran Church was not anti-Semitism; in fact, Martin
Luther only became an anti-Semite in his later years.
The purpose of Planned Parenthood remains, to a great degree, eugenics.
Abortion is overwhelmingly likely to be chosen by those groups that
Margaret Sanger targetted.
Fully 1/3rd of the current potential non-white population of the United
States has been put to death on the abortion tables.
/john
|
| 20.3151 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:16 | 8 |
| The purpose of Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with eugenics.
But you knew that, John. You simply wanted to make one of your
famous provocative statements that you know not to be true but
that would, if they were true, buttress your position.
Maybe you can take Jack Martin aside and teach him what
disingenuous actually means.
|
| 20.3152 | Eugenics permeates the whole concept of late abortions. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:25 | 18 |
|
Well, if you follow the logic of it, and you leave out rarities,
there's only three real reasons women abort :
(1) They never wanted any baby.
(2) They wanted one, but changed their minds and now they don't.
(3) They don't want THIS baby, because modern medicine can tell
it has what they consider undesirable attributes.
Case (1) is an early abortion, not a late one. So you are left
with cases (2) and (3). Case (3) is indeed eugenics. "Oops, I wanted
the opposite sex," or "oops I wanted a healthy baby". Case (2) is
very human, but is cowardice, nonetheless.
So there exists a basis for a position for allowing early term
abortions but not late ones, on purely policy grounds.
bb
|
| 20.3153 | Thanks, Meg. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:27 | 24 |
| RE: .3129 Meg Evans
/ Why is it a problem to make the exception in the law for risk to the
/ mother's life and health for you, insted of forcing a Dr. to call an
/ attorney should he or she medically believe a woman's life is at stake,
/ before deciding to use this procedure, or another more risky to the
/ mother procedure?
The bill, as written, puts a legal wedge between pregnant women and
qualified doctors who could use this procedure to save women's lives,
as you indicated in your note.
If doctors face possible prosecution to use a particular treatment or
procedure to save a woman's life, the woman is at risk of losing her
life by losing access to this life-saving treatment in this situation.
/ In this state if you are in your home or on your property you are NOT
/ prosecuted for shooting someone who is threatening you or yours with
/ bodily harm. We have a law that protects you from being prosecuted
/ in this case.
Excellent point! If the writers of the bill had wanted to protect
doctors from prosecution after saving a woman's life, they could
have written the bill that way. But they didn't.
|
| 20.3154 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:35 | 2 |
| Okay, so we both lie about each other. I mean, is there a referee
available for pissing contests in Soapbox?!
|
| 20.3155 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Baroque: when you're out of Monet | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:37 | 4 |
|
Just buy a tape measure and go from toe to where the pavement
starts to look dry.
|
| 20.3156 | Needs careful wording. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:41 | 9 |
|
As to the "save a life" thing, there is this possibility : the doctor
SAYS he was trying to save her life, but he is lying, and is really
a paid eugenicist. It seems obvious to me the authors of the bill
put in the "use as a defense" wording to show the doctor that some
sort of evidence that she was in danger will prove necessary. And
note that reasonable doubt goes to him.
bb
|
| 20.3157 | P.S. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:41 | 6 |
| Meg,
On the other hand, someone earlier was correct in stating that this
particular procedure would be legal - even if this bill passes - by
performing the stated steps of the procedure AFTER ending the life
of the fetus.
|
| 20.3158 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | alliaskofmyselfisthatiholdtogether | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:42 | 16 |
| So, in a nation that believes that welfare, Medicaid, Medicare
and most types of public assistance programs are far too
expensive and wasteful already, a nation which believes
that public education costs are too high and require too
many of our tax dollars as it is, would someone mind telling me where
the public assistance funding for all these new parents of
Downs Syndrome children is coming from?
Or are people insisting that couples who have a chance of
having Downs Syndrome babies shouldn't reproduce unless
they can provide the governement with an affidavit of
financial responsibility?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3159 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:44 | 9 |
|
re: .3154
>Okay, so we both lie about each other. I mean, is there a referee
>available for pissing contests in Soapbox?!
Jack... maybe you and he can have lunch sometime... perhaps after he
gets laid??
|
| 20.3160 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:45 | 1 |
| Krawiecki needs a hug.
|
| 20.3161 | Smooooooooooooch!!! | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:49 | 7 |
|
Awwwwwwwww.... now Donny Wonny wants to hug Andy Wandy...
How sweet....
|
| 20.3162 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:50 | 3 |
| Have you ever stepped back and read your notes as if someone else were
writing them and considered what sort of image the author was
projecting? You might want to think about it.
|
| 20.3163 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:51 | 6 |
| Well, Suzanne, you can split hairs and twist definitions and
magnify the exceptions all you want. I fail to convince you
and you fail to convince me.
End result is that you are due for the agita because this
will become law.
|
| 20.3164 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Baroque: when you're out of Monet | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:52 | 8 |
|
Mind you, most of the entries here are hardly resume material,
so it doesn't seem overly important, IMO.
But if you ever wind up going to prison, I'd suggest NOT using
words like "Donny Wonny" or "huggy wuggy". Definitely asking
for trouble.
|
| 20.3165 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:53 | 3 |
| I notice there is no provision for the survivors of a dead woman to sue
the Dr, or the idjits who made this law when women die because a Dr.
refuses to perform life-saving surgery.
|
| 20.3166 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:54 | 7 |
| > But if you ever wind up going to prison, I'd suggest NOT using
> words like "Donny Wonny" or "huggy wuggy". Definitely asking
> for trouble.
Is this advice based on personal experience?
-b
|
| 20.3167 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:55 | 16 |
|
re: .3162
Me?
Sure I have!!!
I'm having a rollicking good time, and could care less what others
think about me...
I would ask that of those who your entry might be directed at who are
"DEAD SERIOUS" about their entries!! Want some examples? Naaah...
you've read them already...
As was stated about "notes personna" before... if people take that at
face value, then... what can I say???
|
| 20.3168 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:55 | 7 |
| Also,
I thopught the repub's are in favor of "states rights." Since SCOTUS
has already given states the right to regulate 3rd trimester abortions,
why the push to take this out of the state's hands?
meg
|
| 20.3169 | Downs is one of many... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:56 | 11 |
|
Mary-Michael - now we get to the crux of the late-term abortion
argument, namely, should we allow some form of eugenics, however
mild ? It will not be many years before scientists/doctors will
be able to predict a lot about the person about to be born. Should
we start having designer babies ? And if the mix of characteristics
in the next generation is to be regulated, why should individual
pregnant women be making such decisions ? Why not society ? Why
not science ?
bb
|
| 20.3170 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:56 | 11 |
|
re: .3164
>But if you ever wind up going to prison, I'd suggest NOT using
>words like "Donny Wonny" or "huggy wuggy". Definitely asking
>for trouble.
Context is everything!!!!
:) :)
|
| 20.3171 | Knock me over with a feather... | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 17:57 | 2 |
| Are you suggesting that the states SHOULD have state's rights
to regulate 3rd trimester abortions, Meg?
|
| 20.3172 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok | Tue Nov 07 1995 18:02 | 17 |
| >I notice there is no provision for the survivors of a dead woman to sue
>the Dr, or the idjits who made this law when women die because a Dr.
>refuses to perform life-saving surgery.
There's nothing "life saving" about this surgery that does not remain
legal. There's nothing life "saving" about a surgery whose point is to
avoid the inevitable murder charges involved in performing the same
acts once the fetus has finished being born. You don't have to kill a
fetus to save the mother; I challenge you to concoct a scenario in
which the mother's life is endangered to a greater degree by pulling
the child out of the womb without hacking into its skull and sucking
the brain tissue out with a vacuum than it is by performing this
surgery. Claiming this surgery is necessary to save the life of the
mother is utterly illogical. The sole possible positive spin one could
put on this surgery is in the case where the child has a severe
abnormality, in which case it is a clear case of playing God, but I can
at least see actual reasoning being involved.
|
| 20.3173 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 07 1995 18:03 | 20 |
| re .3169
One more reason not to let the feds get any further into the business of
reproductive freedoms. Right now they only appear to be trying to tell
women and Doctors what procedures can be used in a late-term abortion.
One can only wonder when the next step will be forced amnio's for all
women of certain ages, genetic backgrounds, or other suspect risk
factors and mandated genetic counseling and sterilization for all who
carry undesirable genes.
The miricle of reproduction and the choices made around it should be left
to those reproducing and their chosen caregivers, not 500+ strange
people, mostly removed from the lives the rest of us live.
Look, they are setting up near-mandatory contraception and/or
sterilization on a specific group already, should some of the more
radical AFDC refors happen. In NJ women are being counseled to abort
by their caseworkers if they are on AFDC.
meg
|
| 20.3174 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 07 1995 18:08 | 20 |
| Joe
SCOTUS already gave states the right to regulate 3rd timester
reproductive decisions in a small court ruling, that many know as Roe v
Wade.
1st trimester abortions decided only between a woman and her
care-provider
2nd trimester abortions may be regulated as far as safety issues
surrounding the woman
3rd timester abortion may be regulated, and in many states are illegal,
except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of gross deformity.
2. there are only 3 providers in this country who perform late-trim
abortions. But we hve been down tht arguement before in this and other
incarnations of this string.
meg
|
| 20.3175 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Nov 07 1995 18:09 | 3 |
| re .3154, .3155:
Men have an unfair advantage.
|
| 20.3176 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Nov 07 1995 18:13 | 17 |
| RE: .3163 Joe Oppelt
/ Well, Suzanne, you can split hairs and twist definitions and
/ magnify the exceptions all you want. I fail to convince you
/ and you fail to convince me.
I wasn't trying to convince you of anything, Joe. Someone asked
about the objections to this bill, so I explained the main problem
with it.
/ End result is that you are due for the agita because this
/ will become law.
Actually, I hadn't noticed the loophole in the bill until someone
else here mentioned it. The bill only makes it illegal to perform
the procedure if the fetus is still alive. The procedure only
needs to be altered a bit to become legal again if the bill passes.
|
| 20.3177 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Basket Case | Tue Nov 07 1995 18:21 | 6 |
|
RE: Personal experience
Ummm, no ... but I have seen prison storylines on TV and there
are some guys in there who would consider that an invitation.
|
| 20.3178 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Nov 07 1995 18:58 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.3138 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| Which is exactly why I smugly asked Glen the question as to what
| position he took on abortion!!
Why do you keep dragging me into your discussions???? :-)
|
| 20.3179 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:05 | 8 |
| <<< Note 20.3173 by CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors" >>>
> One can only wonder when the next step will be forced amnio's for all
> women of certain ages, genetic backgrounds, or other suspect risk
> factors and mandated genetic counseling and sterilization for all who
> carry undesirable genes.
Give it a rest, Meg.
|
| 20.3180 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:13 | 10 |
| No Joe,
I won't. Historically when the government gets into the reproduction
business, they tend to bungle it as much, if not more so than
individuals. I am sure all of the governments who got into this mess
started out with good intentions, including those countries where
babies are abandoned to the streets when the parents have too many to
feed.
|
| 20.3181 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:21 | 13 |
| .3180
|governments who got into this mess
|started out with good intentions, including those countries where
|babies are abandoned to the streets when the parents have too many
|to feed.
oh, but life is so precious, all babies have the right to starve
to death and go to heaven. and besides, if there weren't any poor
children, how would all the charities stay in existence? it would
be a very sad day for mother teresa and her crowd.
|
| 20.3182 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:23 | 12 |
| Cross posted from Gay Issues Topic.
ZZ By the way...I understand that University Of Colorado cancer
ZZ researchers announced last week that they had positively identified
ZZ a gene that (they believe) causes homosexuality.
I will be EXTREMELY Interested how Meg, Suzanne, Topes et al remark on
this one.
I anticipate that some genetic disorders will be more Politically
Correct than others. In other words, if you have Downs Syndrome, you
can be rubbed out. If you are gay, then how DARE YOU devalue a person!
|
| 20.3183 | This oughtta be good... | TROOA::COLLINS | Working for paper and iron... | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:27 | 5 |
|
.3182:
Jack...in *what* way is homosexuality equivalent to Down's syndrome?
|
| 20.3184 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:29 | 1 |
| let's get down!!
|
| 20.3185 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:29 | 14 |
| jack,
I will put the shoe on the other foot.
having horrible chromosonal anomolies that will lead to a short life is
a blessing, but what would you do if you found that your wife was
carrying a child that would have a 90% chance of being gay?
I don't ask people why they abort, if they abort, or much else about
their reproductive choices. That is between them, their Doctor, and
their creator. I can't judge someone for have 24 kids, or having none,
or whatever she did to prevent them.
meg
|
| 20.3186 | But look at the diff in society's treatment of them! | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:38 | 8 |
| .3183
> Jack...in *what* way is homosexuality equivalent to Down's syndrome?
I'm not Jack, but there is a growing body of evidence indicating that
both Down Syndrome and homosexuality are determined by the particular
arrangement of the individual's genes. Both are rolls of the genetic
dice.
|
| 20.3187 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:42 | 7 |
| Dick,
Minor nit. Downs syndrome is a chromosonal anomoly, that comes from
damaged eggs and/or sperm. There is no inherited component. The
homosexual gene is apparently inherited.
meg
|
| 20.3188 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:46 | 5 |
| re .3183
(If homosexuality truly *IS* genetic) then both can be detected
while in the womb. What Jack is asking is: will it be OK for
parents to abort genetically gay fetuses?
|
| 20.3189 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:47 | 9 |
| ZZ oh, but life is so precious, all babies have the right to starve
ZZ to death and go to heaven. and besides, if there weren't any poor
ZZ children, how would all the charities stay in existence?
Bonnie, HOW DARE YOU decide who has the right to fight for their life.
Consider the hopeless demise of those in the holocaust. What kept alot
of those people alive..."If We can just survive today..."
How dare you snidely take this hope away!
|
| 20.3190 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:47 | 3 |
| Minor nit notwithstanding, Meg, both are genetic traits. They are not
the fault or responsibility of the individual who is dealt the genetic
poker hand containing them.
|
| 20.3191 | When is this procedure used? | DPE1::ARMSTRONG | | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:48 | 24 |
| > You don't have to kill a fetus to save the mother;
Does anyone have any real data on the circumstances for when
this procedure gets used? My assumption is that this is 'the'
standard method for late term abortions. So the intent of
this bill would be to outlaw late term abortions. my assumption....
There are plenty of reasons for terminating a pregnancy
late in the term. One alternative would be to do an early C-Section
and try to save the premature child. Perhaps the intent of this bill
is to mandate this.
I raise sheep and have delivered a LOT of lambs. And occasionally
I have to force delivery early to save the life of the ewe. I've
used C-Section but the lambs almost never live if they are even
a few weeks early. I would much prefer optimizing the life
of the mother and sacrificing the life of the lambs since they
are most likely going to die anyway, after a lot of expensive
medical treatment.
Do the Republicans who are voting for this bill have a big slush
fund somewhere to pay for the medical treatment cost it is going
to force.?
bob
|
| 20.3192 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:49 | 3 |
| .3181
What a sad entry.
|
| 20.3193 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:54 | 12 |
| ZZ but what would you do if you found that your wife was
ZZ carrying a child that would have a 90% chance of being gay?
No question, I would bring the child into the world and love him...and
would gladly give my life for him should it ever be necessary.
This may sound like lip service but I would also do the same if my
child was severely retarded. This is why I have a hard time
empathizing with women who abort for this. I try to relate as a
parent.
-Jack
|
| 20.3194 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend, will you be ready? | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:58 | 12 |
|
re .3192/re .3181
Sad indeed. I'd like to know the difference between that entry, and the
entries posted by Nancy in whatever that other topic was..
Jim
|
| 20.3195 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Tue Nov 07 1995 19:59 | 13 |
| .3193
> No question, I would bring the child into the world and love him...and
> would gladly give my life for him should it ever be necessary.
>
> This may sound like lip service...
It sounds astonishingly like what "pro-life" women have said, in a
documented growing number of cases, when they were asked why they chose
to have abortions.
The fact is, Jack, that you don't REALLY know what you WILL do until
you are actually faced with the situation.
|
| 20.3196 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Be gone - you have no powers here | Tue Nov 07 1995 20:01 | 7 |
|
I'm surprised no one jumped on the "homosexuality is a genetic
disorder" statement.
Binder came closest when he correctly phrased it as a "genetic
trait".
|
| 20.3197 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 20:05 | 13 |
| <<< Note 20.3195 by SMURF::BINDER "Eis qui nos doment uescimur." >>>
> It sounds astonishingly like what "pro-life" women have said, in a
> documented growing number of cases, when they were asked why they chose
> to have abortions.
Documentation, please.
> The fact is, Jack, that you don't REALLY know what you WILL do until
> you are actually faced with the situation.
I don't know about Jack (though I do not doubt what he said) but
the fact is that I really do.
|
| 20.3198 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 07 1995 20:07 | 23 |
| Joe,
What I said is it is not my place to tell another to or not to abort.
That is a decision only she can come to.
I personally wouldn't abort a gay child. I turned down the amnio,
because of its inherent risks to the fetus and to me, when I was 36.
(1 in 500 chance that the fetus will spontaneously abort just from the
disturbance of the uterus, potential other risks as well.
Now that I am approaching 40, the decision might or might not be
different if I had another pregnancy. I am not on that bridge.
what I approve of for me, may be different from what another may
approve of for her. Good grief there are people having babies to
provide stem cells and possibly other organs to save an older child
now. How I feel about using a new child as a potential living organ
donation is another story to, but there again, I haven't had a child
with a serious problem requiring transplants either.
I say, let parents decide how they will deal with their potential
offspring and leave it to them and g-d.
meg
|
| 20.3199 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Tue Nov 07 1995 20:10 | 11 |
| .3197
The documentation is here in the box somewhere, Joe. I don't know
where, probably in the abortion topic. Consider this a pointer similar
to what you get when someone sends you to your local public library.
I admire your conviction that you know what you would do, but I doubt
the validity of it. NOBODY knows with absolute certainty what he or
she will do in a specific stressful situation until faced with that
exact situation. Any person who really DID know would be nothing less
than a god. You're not a god, I'm sure of that.
|
| 20.3200 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Nov 07 1995 20:23 | 1 |
| <---you're pretty damn close, though!
|
| 20.3201 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 20:39 | 2 |
| Well doubt away, Dick. I'm sorry you don't have the same faith
in your own convictions.
|
| 20.3202 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 07 1995 20:51 | 19 |
| <<< Note 20.3199 by SMURF::BINDER "Eis qui nos doment uescimur." >>>
.3195> It sounds astonishingly like what "pro-life" women have said, in a
> documented growing number of cases, when they were asked why they chose
> to have abortions.
>
.3197> Documentation, please.
>
.3199> The documentation is here in the box somewhere, Joe.
I recall one such story being discussed here.
So I suppose that you could argue that a growth from zero to
one qualifies as "documented growing number", but it sure is
sloppy...
I have no doubt that such things occur at some regular pace,
but you make it sound like it is some sort of growing trend.
I reject that notion.
|
| 20.3203 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Working for paper and iron... | Tue Nov 07 1995 20:52 | 8 |
|
.3186, Dick:
Oh dear, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to sound as though I didn't know
the answer!
{{{blush}}} %^}
|
| 20.3204 | Certainly not I... | TROOA::COLLINS | Working for paper and iron... | Wed Nov 08 1995 01:06 | 9 |
|
.3188
>What Jack is asking is: will it be OK for
>parents to abort genetically gay fetuses?
You tell us. What kind of parent is likely to have a problem with the
fact that their kid might grow up gay?
|
| 20.3205 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Nov 08 1995 10:48 | 16 |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE Note 20.3198 Abortion
CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors" 23 lines 7-NOV-1995 17:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I say, let parents decide how they will deal with their potential
> offspring and leave it to them and g-d.
>
> meg
Do you have such a 'libertarian' view of the parent's right to decide
after the child is born; i.e. 'other values' forced upon the child
against the parents wishes in school for example?
Steve
|
| 20.3206 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Nov 08 1995 11:58 | 12 |
|
re: .3204
>Certainly not I...
Of course not.... but you tell me... how many bigots do you think there
are around the world??
If they can leave baby girls in the streets and alleys all over China
because they were born girls, do you think others won't cease the
process sooner because their child might not be "normal"??
|
| 20.3207 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sick of the dealer's grin... | Wed Nov 08 1995 12:07 | 15 |
|
.3206,
Andy, unless I'm missing the point here, you're arguing against the
abortion of Down's Syndrome children because the same justification
could be used to abort gay children. Do I have that right?
Why does homosexuality (as a genetic trait) *have* to be compared
to, say, violence (as a genetic trait) or Down's Syndrome?
Why can't it be compared to lefthandedness, or...wow...heterosexuality?
I'm sorry, but Down's Syndrome and homosexuality cannot be equated,
any more than Down's Syndrome and blue eyes.
|
| 20.3208 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 08 1995 12:22 | 1 |
| <-----very, very good note!
|
| 20.3209 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 08 1995 12:29 | 11 |
| re .3207:
There's a large class of people who would be very upset if their child had
Down syndrome.
There's a large class of people who would be very upset if their child were
homosexual.
There's a small class of people who'd be upset if their child were left-handed.
There's a small class of people who'd be upset if their child were blue-eyed.
|
| 20.3210 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sick of the dealer's grin... | Wed Nov 08 1995 12:33 | 5 |
|
.3209
And of those four classes, which are reasonable?
|
| 20.3211 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Nov 08 1995 12:46 | 15 |
|
!Joan...
That was not my point... It was that the "mindset" is there and always
will be...
You tell me about the possible scenario below:
In the future, it'll cost about 50 bucks to run a test and ensure
that, with a slight genetic manipulation, people can be sure their
child will not be <gay>, <Down's>, <alcoholic>, <whatever>...
What will most people do???
|
| 20.3212 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sick of the dealer's grin... | Wed Nov 08 1995 12:58 | 9 |
|
.3211
Yeah, tell me all about "mindsets"...
Like the kind that constantly reject the increasingly demonstrated
fact that homosexuality is a normal occurrence in humans, and no less
morally neutral than heterosexuality.
|
| 20.3213 | If you say so... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:00 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.3215 | Right now, we have no rules at all. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:01 | 17 |
|
And anyway, as it stands, there is absolutely no requirement that
eugenics be "reasonable". A parent could abort because the child
DIDN'T have Downs. "Gee, I was hoping for a vegetable." Neither
the other parent (who might be legally required to support the child),
nor the society, nor medical science, have anything to say in the
matter.
The question before us is simply one of power. Power questions
are decided, when they are decided peacefully, by politics, otherwise
by war. Even the higher standard of the Constitution is subject to
politics, by design - our system allows "rights" to be redefined.
So it comes to this : are we faced with eugenics in any case ? If
so, who should have the power ?
bb
|
| 20.3216 | | ACIS04::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:02 | 8 |
| re: .3212
No one is saying that homosexuality, the trait/condition is
morally wrong.
-steve
|
| 20.3217 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:04 | 12 |
| > Like the kind that constantly reject the increasingly demonstrated
> fact that homosexuality is a normal occurrence in humans,
But so is schizophrenia. In the sense you've used it above, "normal"
doesn't mean "good".
> and no less morally neutral than heterosexuality.
Schizophrenia is morally neutral as well. But certain behaviours associated
with these disorders are detrimental to society.
/john
|
| 20.3218 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:06 | 9 |
| .3203
.3199> The documentation is here in the box somewhere, Joe.
> I recall one such story being discussed here.
Along with your other inadequacies, your memory is failing you. The
article posted here cited THREE such women and said that they were
examples taken from a caselist of many more.
|
| 20.3219 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sick of the dealer's grin... | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:06 | 7 |
|
.3216
Oh yeah, I forgot, it's the *behaviour* that's wrong!
I visited *that* store, but found nothing worth buying.
|
| 20.3220 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:06 | 9 |
|
re: .3212
!Joan...
You didn't comment on my scenario...
What will most people do?
|
| 20.3221 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:13 | 23 |
| .3189
|Bonnie, HOW DARE YOU decide who has the right to fight for their life.
oh, jack (et.al), spare me your puffed-up righteous indignation.
the fact of the matter is, there would be less suffering in this
world if every child born into it was a wanted child; a child
who could depend on at least minimal financial backup from its
parents. all your braying to the contrary won't change this fact.
famine, overpopulation and other quaint forms of human tragedy
may be the status quo for you, jack, but on my better days i still
hope that maybe, just maybe these horrendous problems will be
eradicated someday, despite the likes of people who think as
you do. and the change will start with women - through education
about birth control and then the _use_ of birth control. and
jack, guess what happens in the countries where birth control
education is allowed? Women use it.
|Consider the hopeless demise of those in the holocaust. What kept
|alot of those people alive..."If We can just survive today..."
this example does not apply. please don't trivialize the Holocaust.
|
| 20.3222 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sick of the dealer's grin... | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:18 | 17 |
|
.3217
>But so is schizophrenia. In the sense you've used it above, "normal"
>doesn't mean "good".
This is why I don't take your position seriously, John. You pile
schizophrenia, alcoholism, violence and homosexuality into the same
sordid mound.
>Schizophrenia is morally neutral as well. But certain behaviours associated
>with these disorders are detrimental to society.
Certain behaviours associated with heterosexuality are detrimental to
society. So what? That issue is more one of careless or unrestrained
sexuality than it is of homo- or heterosexuality.
|
| 20.3223 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sick of the dealer's grin... | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:23 | 12 |
|
.3220:
>In the future, it'll cost about 50 bucks to run a test and ensure
>that, with a slight genetic manipulation, people can be sure their
>child will not be <gay>, <Down's>, <alcoholic>, <whatever>...
>What will most people do???
How should I know, Andy? But gays and alcoholics can grow up to
take care of themselves, and Down's children cannot. I therefore
reject the idea that they are part of the same issue.
|
| 20.3224 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:35 | 10 |
| > How should I know, Andy? But gays and alcoholics can grow up to
> take care of themselves, and Down's children cannot.
Not entirely true. Homosexuals and alcoholics _can_ grow up to take
care of themselves, but many don't (either "grow up" or "take care of
themselves").
There are many people with Down syndrome who can take care of themselves.
I believe it's [currently] impossible to tell from amniocentesis how severe
Down syndrome will be.
|
| 20.3225 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sick of the dealer's grin... | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:39 | 10 |
|
Dammit!! I've been tricked into an abortion debate, when I swore
I wouldn't.
Nevermind. I'll be over in topic 56 if you want to talk.
Outta here...
jc
|
| 20.3226 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:50 | 27 |
| Bonnie:
Every Child a Wanted Child...what an elitist attitude toward humanity.
Personally, if I were given the choice as an unborn child, I would
much rather face the high possibility of starvation than being rubbed
out by a mother or a father.
I want to touch on this holocaust matter again. I continually get
annoyed with people who somehow feel the holocaust is trivialized when
used as a comparison to abortion. The holocaust happened, and it was
horrible. Some 6 million individuals had their rights stripped away
from them. They didn't have a say in where they were going, how they
were going to die, how they were going to suffer. The only thing these
people had to cling on to is hope...hope that they could just get
through the day.
No Bonnie. I don't see a difference. The only difference is you
people just market it, package it, and make it look nice and
compassionate. You wield it under a flag of women's rights and
situational ethics. Same thing Bonnie, no different. Only difference
I see is that the baby is too young and lacks the intellect to
understand it's own demise. Other than that, I find your attitude
about trivializing the holocaust elitist at best. Who are you to say
whose genocide is more important? Who are you?!
-Jack
|
| 20.3227 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | In spite of my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage. | Wed Nov 08 1995 13:58 | 17 |
| re: .3224
I have a lot of very normal friends who didn't "grow up and
take care of themselves". Are we talking about a genetic
test for personal responsibility? :-)
Even if they grow up and take care of themselves, people with
Downs cannot often support themselves, and they are subject
to some degree of emotional instability. While the homosexual
people and alcoholics in your experience have not grown
up and taken care of themselves, they are certainly capable
of doing so, which makes them no different from the remainder
of the population. Most of the homosexuals I know personally
are much better off financially than I am, so I think you and I
may be looking at this from different ends of the spectrum.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3228 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Wed Nov 08 1995 14:05 | 15 |
| .3226
|Personally, if I were given the choice as an unborn child, I would
|much rather face the high possibility of starvation than being rubbed
|out by a mother or a father.
jack, i am at a loss for the logic behind this statement. Is it supposed
to be some sort of emotional appeal?
|I want to touch on this holocaust matter again. I continually get
|annoyed with people...
jack, getting annoyed with people could be our one and only piece
common ground. i won't discuss the Holocaust with you - i guess i'm
just an elitist that way.
|
| 20.3229 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 08 1995 14:25 | 8 |
| > While the homosexual
> people and alcoholics in your experience have not grown
> up and taken care of themselves, they are certainly capable
> of doing so, which makes them no different from the remainder
> of the population.
What if they say they engage in risky behavior because they feel
compelled to do so?
|
| 20.3230 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 08 1995 14:26 | 20 |
| Mary Michael,
If I could address this. I believe parenting is one of the greatest
responsibilities one can take upon themselves. I believe one must go
into it soberly. My wife and I had three children and they were all
considered high risk. After four miscarriages, the doctor at the 6th
month or so stated abortionas a viable (no pun intended) option should
the need arise.
I can't make an argument against 16 year olds who get pregnant. I can
however make a case against married individuals who want to start a
family. If potential parents take the risk of starting a family, then
aborting a baby because of retardation in my opinion is the equivalent
of cheating on your spouse or being a traitor to your country. Perhaps
there is validity to my need to walk in somebody elses shoes; however,
I am a parent, and as a parent I have recociled in my mind the awesome
responsibility of parenthood and I get annoyed with adults who can't do
the same.
-Jack
|
| 20.3231 | | CLYDE::KOWALEWICZ_M | red roads... | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:05 | 10 |
|
> <<< Note 20.3228 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>
Bonnie,
I think it may be easier to understand if you take into
account that some people think that suffering is good, since
of course we were all born sinners. I have difficulty with
people who think it is good to make others suffer.
kb
|
| 20.3232 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:13 | 10 |
| Nobody thinks suffering is good...that's absurd.
Let's ask it this way, if you were in a concentration camp and you had
the choice of trying to survive, or taking a cyanide capsule, which one
would you choose?
I for one find my life to be precious, and I just happen to believe it
is arrogant for anybody else to make that decision for me.
-Jack
|
| 20.3233 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:15 | 27 |
| | <<< Note 20.3209 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
| There's a large class of people who would be very upset if their child had
| Down syndrome.
I agree with this. And different people would have different reasons.
| There's a large class of people who would be very upset if their child were
| homosexual.
Same as above.
In both cases, though, the reasons should be looked at to see if they
are realistic, or based on fear. Both can be upset for the wrong reasons.
| There's a small class of people who'd be upset if their child were left-handed
In todays society, you don't have people correcting their children from
lefthandedness at the same rate you did 40 years ago. What is the main reason
for it? Because the fears they had were not based on reality.
| There's a small class of people who'd be upset if their child were blue-eyed.
Only fake blue eyes... ;-)
Glen
|
| 20.3234 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:18 | 6 |
| Glen:
Mentally retarded people are a viable part of our culture. Therefore,
rubbing a child out because he/she MIGHT be retarded is based on fear.
-Jack
|
| 20.3235 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:18 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.3216 by ACIS04::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>
| No one is saying that homosexuality, the trait/condition is morally wrong.
What part is?
|
| 20.3236 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:20 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.3217 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| Schizophrenia is morally neutral as well. But certain behaviours associated
| with these disorders are detrimental to society.
Do you think there are behaviours with homosexuality that are
detrimental to society?
|
| 20.3237 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:24 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.3234 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| Mentally retarded people are a viable part of our culture. Therefore,
| rubbing a child out because he/she MIGHT be retarded is based on fear.
Who said anything about rubbing the child out?
Glen
|
| 20.3238 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:28 | 3 |
| > Who said anything about rubbing the child out?
Duh! What topic is this?
|
| 20.3239 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:28 | 4 |
| Glen, this is in the context of late term abortions and abortion for
downs syndrome.
-Jack
|
| 20.3240 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:29 | 13 |
| <<< Note 20.3218 by SMURF::BINDER "Eis qui nos doment uescimur." >>>
> Along with your other inadequacies, your memory is failing you. The
> article posted here cited THREE such women and said that they were
> examples taken from a caselist of many more.
So again I ask you, is a story about THREE such women a
"documented growing number" of cases? You should know as
well as anyone that individual anecdotal evidence -- even
a "caselist" -- does not a trend make.
Insults from you will not mask your sloppy reliance on
exaggeration.
|
| 20.3241 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:48 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.3238 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
| > Who said anything about rubbing the child out?
| Duh! What topic is this?
Gerald, I was refering to your note back in .3209. You talked about
people being upset. Jack steped in and brought up rubbing out of people. I did
not get that you were looking at the rubbing out aspect, just pointing out that
groups will get upset if a child is <insert whatever>. That was why I did not
associate it with rubbing out a child.
Glen
|
| 20.3242 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 08 1995 15:50 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.3240 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| So again I ask you, is a story about THREE such women a "documented growing
| number" of cases? You should know as well as anyone that individual anecdotal
| evidence -- even a "caselist" -- does not a trend make.
This coming from someone who calls a person's opinion one of the most
extensive studies.....
| Insults from you will not mask your sloppy reliance on exaggeration.
Hmmm......pot and kettle material.....
|
| 20.3243 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Wed Nov 08 1995 16:51 | 16 |
| .3231
|I think it may be easier to understand if you take into
|account that some people think that suffering is good, since
|of course we were all born sinners.
this is true. because mass-scale suffering and poverty have
been around for so long many believe that it's just part of
the package of being human. and besides, we're sinful and
no good anyway, so what should we expect?
maybe things will be different 200 or 300 years from now in
terms of people recognizing human worth as opposed to outdated
religious beliefs. and there will be no more starving babies.
imo, religion plays not a small role in holding progress at bay.
|
| 20.3244 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 08 1995 16:55 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.3242 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
>| Insults from you will not mask your sloppy reliance on exaggeration.
>
> Hmmm......pot and kettle material.....
This coming from YOU?
Show me where I insult anyone.
|
| 20.3245 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 08 1995 16:57 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.3244 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| This coming from YOU?
I believe so.....
| Show me where I insult anyone.
Anyone in here besides me want to raise their hands?
Btw, I did notice how you passed over the book thing.
Glen
|
| 20.3246 | He'll just put people on the 'yer hysterical'-goround, for keeps. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 17:08 | 5 |
| RE: .3245 Glen
/ Anyone in here besides me want to raise their hands?
Glen, that's like asking people to put their hands on fly paper. :/
|
| 20.3247 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Wed Nov 08 1995 17:50 | 6 |
| No glen,
I am to "emotional and hysterical" so I must take offense at anything,
right?
meg
|
| 20.3248 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 08 1995 17:52 | 1 |
| Say what, Suzanne? Care to show where I've insulted you?
|
| 20.3249 | [Putting my other hand on the fly paper to free my hand.] | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 17:58 | 4 |
| Gee, Joe. You must have misunderstood.
You're on the Good List, so no matter what you say, it must be OK.
|
| 20.3250 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 08 1995 17:58 | 10 |
| Where did I say that either of you were hysterical?
Certainly I've said that you rely on hysterics to make your point,
which means that you rely on "excessive or uncontrollable emotion".
I stand by my use of the term pertaining to certain the things
you've written.
I do not attack the person. I attack the statement.
As it should be.
|
| 20.3251 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:00 | 9 |
|
re: .3246
Why don't you ask Glen Silva about his little tirade against Jack
Martin?? Then we can decide who should go in the P&K topic... deal?
Feel free to write me off-line and I can send you an example...
|
| 20.3252 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:03 | 16 |
| RE: .3250 Joe Oppelt
/ Certainly I've said that you rely on hysterics to make your point,
/ which means that you rely on "excessive or uncontrollable emotion".
/ I stand by my use of the term pertaining to certain the things
/ you've written.
You wrote this in response to a direct quote of your own words
(which were apparently 'excessive or uncontrollable emotion[s]'
coming from you.)
/ I do not attack the person. I attack the statement.
If you weren't attacking your own quoted statement in the case
mentioned above, then I guess you were just attacking the
quotation marks, eh? :/
|
| 20.3253 | No matter how you twist it... | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:06 | 1 |
| Then how does that show that I insulted you, Suzanne?
|
| 20.3254 | [Putting first hand back on flypaper to free 2nd hand.] | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:17 | 6 |
| Joe, when you tell someone that the PERSON 'relies on hysterics',
it's not a statement about a statement. It's a characterization
about the person.
Of course, you're on the Good List, so it must be OK for you to
do this, even if you claim you don't - right?
|
| 20.3255 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:22 | 5 |
| By the way, Joe, your characterization is incorrect - not that
it matters, of course.
You're on the Good List, so whatever you say must be right.
Right?
|
| 20.3256 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:28 | 1 |
| suzanne, what the heck is this Good List?
|
| 20.3257 | | ACIS04::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:29 | 1 |
| <--- I was wondering the same thing, meself.
|
| 20.3258 | 'I'm good, so if you disagree with me, then you're bad.' | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:30 | 1 |
| Bonnie, it's akin to the "I'm Holier Than Thou" List. :/
|
| 20.3259 | where ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:32 | 4 |
|
how can I apply ?
bb
|
| 20.3260 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:32 | 1 |
| then, why not call it God's List :-)
|
| 20.3261 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:34 | 5 |
|
RE: bb
Green Day fans are not welcome on the "Good list".
|
| 20.3262 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:35 | 8 |
| RE: .3260 Bonnie
/ then, why not call it God's List :-)
Actually, I'll bet that the real "God's List" has sincere faithful
people on it who don't consider themselves to be holier than others.
I'll stick with the Good List. :/
|
| 20.3263 | uh oh | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:37 | 4 |
|
well, if there's a Manilow concert requirement, i'm not up to it
bb
|
| 20.3264 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:44 | 3 |
| |well, if there's a Manilow concert requirement, i'm not up to it
pssst! i really doubt it. he's as queer as a $2 bill ya know.
|
| 20.3265 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:47 | 3 |
|
Mind you, a $2 bill isn't extremely queer.
|
| 20.3266 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:48 | 4 |
|
Now, a $2.95 bill, _that's_ queer!
-b
|
| 20.3267 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:48 | 2 |
| $2 bills are, however, extremely lonely. Very few are available,
regardless of their sexual orientation.
|
| 20.3268 | Carson cow... | ACIS04::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:48 | 10 |
|
(__)
(oo)
/-------\/
/ | || \
* ||W---|| I did not now that.
~~ ~~
|
| 20.3269 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:49 | 6 |
|
RE: .3267
I hope the $2 bills don't start trying to convert $1 bills or
something.
|
| 20.3270 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:50 | 11 |
| RE: .3268 Steve Leech
(__)
(oo)
/-------\/
/ | || \
* ||W---|| I did not now that.
~~ ~~ ***
HOW now, Carson cow? :/
|
| 20.3271 | | ACIS04::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:57 | 1 |
| What do you expect from a brown cow? 8^)
|
| 20.3272 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:58 | 16 |
| .3254
Actually, Suzanne, I didn't even say that to you (except in
that last reply.)
In each case I clearly pointed out what part of your argument
seemed hysterical (ie, using excessive emotion.)
But I disagree with your last statement all the same. Saying
that someone relies on hysterics is not different than saying
that they rely on exaggeration, for example. Are we no longer
entitled to speak our minds about what others say?
Surely you know what real personal insults are, Suzanne. I
suggest that you revisit your entries to Percival and edp in
the Simpson topic if you need some examples.
|
| 20.3273 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Wed Nov 08 1995 18:59 | 2 |
| i meant no harm by my .3264. it was just a play off the
"good list" thingy. just so everyone knows.
|
| 20.3274 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Wed Nov 08 1995 19:00 | 5 |
|
Yeah, you say that now to cover your tracks.
We're on to you, sweetie.
|
| 20.3275 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Wed Nov 08 1995 19:02 | 1 |
| don't crack wise wid me, you.
|
| 20.3276 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Erin go braghless | Wed Nov 08 1995 19:05 | 3 |
|
You don't scare me with those idol threats.
|
| 20.3277 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Wed Nov 08 1995 19:07 | 1 |
| nice day for a white wedding. (or else)
|
| 20.3278 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Nov 08 1995 19:09 | 7 |
|
Bonnie's getting married!!!!!!
Now she can throw that book away!!!!!!
|
| 20.3279 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 19:18 | 57 |
| RE: .3272 Joe Oppelt
/ Actually, Suzanne, I didn't even say that to you (except in
/ that last reply.)
Not true. You made another specious reference to 'reliance on
hysterics' in one of your earlier notes.
/ In each case I clearly pointed out what part of your argument
/ seemed hysterical (ie, using excessive emotion.)
No, you didn't. You just screamed 'Hysterics!', as if that
constituted some sort of argument. It didn't.
For example, you screamed 'Hysterics' after I pointed out that
doctors would be worried about being arrested and prosecuted
for using the procedure under discussion to save a woman's life,
if the bill passes.
You seem to think that it's an emotional argument to point out
that doctors would have no protection from being prosecuted even
if they used this procedure to save a woman's life, yet a quote
from the National Right to Life Committee actually supports
my theory on this: [Excerpt from a recent news article.]
"Last week, White House press secretary Mike McCurry said the White
House was in discussions with members of Congress about the late-term
abortion bill and thought any legislative language should protect the
life and health of the mother.
"... California Democrat Barbara Boxer and other senators plan
amendments carving out exceptions to protect the health and life
of the mother.
"Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life
Committee, said amendments protecting the health of the mother or
*************************************************
allowing medically necessary abortions would effectively gut the bill.
*********************************************************************
"Johnson said such exceptions 'would have the actual legal effect of
*************************************
permitting abortionists to continue to employ the partial-birth
***************************************************************
abortion procedure whenever they wish'.
*************************************
It's pretty obvious that the bill is MEANT to make doctors worry about
being prosecuted for this procedure whether the mother's life and
health are at risk or not.
Thus, it is hardly 'hysterics' to acknowledge that doctors would
have concerns about using this procedure in ANY situation without
being protected from prosecution.
Labeling someone's words as 'hysterics' is not the same thing as
forming an argument, Joe.
|
| 20.3280 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 08 1995 19:37 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.3279 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> Labeling someone's words as 'hysterics' is not the same thing as
> forming an argument, Joe.
Perhaps. My intention in pointing out your hysterical statements
wasn't to argue with you, but rather to show you why I think you
don't have a valid argument at all.
And the same holds for:
> It's pretty obvious that the bill is MEANT to make doctors worry about
> being prosecuted for this procedure whether the mother's life and
> health are at risk or not.
It's not so obvious except from your side of the fence, I guess.
|
| 20.3281 | Shall we discuss a 'reliance on labeling' next? Hmmm? | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 19:58 | 37 |
| RE: .3280 Joe Oppelt
// Labeling someone's words as 'hysterics' is not the same thing as
// forming an argument, Joe.
/ Perhaps. My intention in pointing out your hysterical statements
/ wasn't to argue with you, but rather to show you why I think you
/ don't have a valid argument at all.
In most cases, you simply screamed 'Hysterics,' though.
Your reasons don't measure up, of course, so your labeling's
invalid anyway. What else is new, eh? :/
// It's pretty obvious that the bill is MEANT to make doctors worry about
// being prosecuted for this procedure whether the mother's life and
// health are at risk or not.
/ It's not so obvious except from your side of the fence, I guess.
The National Right to Life Committee spokesperson confirmed this
for me by saying:
"Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life
Committee, said amendments protecting the health of the mother or
allowing medically necessary abortions would effectively gut the bill.
"Johnson said such exceptions 'would have the actual legal effect of
permitting abortionists to continue to employ the partial-birth
abortion procedure whenever they wish'."
If doctors were protected from prosecution for using the procedure
to 'protect the health of the mother', etc., it would effectively
'gut' the bill. The bill was written to put doctors in danger of
being prosecuted for using this procedure in any situation, because
otherwise, the procedure would continue to be used for saving women's
lives, etc.
|
| 20.3282 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Wed Nov 08 1995 20:00 | 10 |
| .3279
|amendments protecting the health of the mother or
|allowing medically necessary abortions would effectively gut
|the bill.
well, well. and now we get to the real issue. well, i'm
not surprised. disgusted? yes. surprised? no.
gut the women, not the bill.
|
| 20.3283 | Anyone missing the requisite blinder to RTLs stmnt is hysterical. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 20:16 | 15 |
| RE: .3282 Bonnie
|amendments protecting the health of the mother or
|allowing medically necessary abortions would effectively gut
|the bill.
/ well, well. and now we get to the real issue. well, i'm
/ not surprised. disgusted? yes. surprised? no.
One has to be hysterical to parse the National Right to Life
Committee's statements such as the one above, though.
Otherwise, it's translated as 'Hey, the bill makes provisions
for the health and the life of the mother, so what's the
problem??'
|
| 20.3284 | What's good for the goose...etc... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Wed Nov 08 1995 20:22 | 15 |
|
>gut the women, not the bill.
Right ladies... this isn't hysterical??
If it was said by, oh.. say, a thumper circa Roe vs. Wade and went
something like:
"gut the women, but not the Supreme Court decision", the sayer would be
labeled a "hysterical, rabid right-winger"... no matter the context.
Mind you, I haven't read the text of the bill, but plan to. My reply is
in reference to your reaction... nothing more...
|
| 20.3285 | [Actually, this notesfile *is* pretty hysterical at times. :/] | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 20:38 | 14 |
| RE: .3284 Krawiecki
// gut the women, not the bill.
/ Right ladies... this isn't hysterical??
I'd call Bonnie's statement 'sarcasm', myself. [By the way, Bonnie
happens to be an individual woman, not a group of 'ladies'. hth ]
Is any sarcastic statement considered to be 'hysterical' in Soapbox?
If so, this is one hysterical notesfile, since sarcasm seems to be
the predominant tone here at times.
Or does the h-word tend to be reserved for women in particular?
|
| 20.3286 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Erotic Nightmares | Wed Nov 08 1995 20:45 | 8 |
|
It was pointed out that "hysterical" is feminine in nature due
to its being derived from whatever that feminine word starting
with "hyster" is.
IMO, regardless of derivation, it can be used as an adjective
for a male or a female.
|
| 20.3287 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sick of the dealer's grin... | Wed Nov 08 1995 20:51 | 3 |
|
"Hyster" is a brand of forklift.
|
| 20.3288 | It's the gender equivalent of using the n-word prior to the '60s. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 21:02 | 9 |
| RE: .3286 Shawn
/ It was pointed out that "hysterical" is feminine in nature due
/ to its being derived from whatever that feminine word starting
/ with "hyster" is.
It's usually addressed to women, though - regardless of the tone
of the women's remarks. It isn't seen as a 'bad thing to say',
even so, but then neither was the n-word a few decades ago.
|
| 20.3289 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Wed Nov 08 1995 21:18 | 18 |
|
re .3288:
Saying that `hysterical' is "the gender equivalent of using
the n-word prior to the '60s" really cheapens the experience of
the black American. Now, you might well perceive hysterical to be
demeaning to women, and someone who uses the word might or might
not intend it that way, but it's not remotely, remotely close to
the pre-60s concept of `nigger'.
To various degrees, women today come face-to-face with economic,
psychological, and physical ills that you would see represented by
`hysterical' when used disparagingly; however, those ills don't
begin to approach the black man and woman who dealt with Apartheid
every day in the southern US until the mid-60s. Please don't
cheapen their experience.
--Mr Topaz
|
| 20.3290 | Black American WOMEN are still called 'hysterical', too. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 21:35 | 24 |
| RE: .3289 Topaz
/ Saying that `hysterical' is "the gender equivalent of using
/ the n-word prior to the '60s" really cheapens the experience of
/ the black American.
Don, I did give the context for this comparison:
"It's usually addressed to women, though - regardless of the tone
of the women's remarks. It isn't seen as a 'bad thing to say',
even so, but then neither was the n-word a few decades ago."
Prior to the 1960s, the n-word was regarded by most Americans as
being no more harmful than a 'nickname' - like the name 'Donny'.
Today we see it as part of a very harmful and destructive attitude
towards African Americans.
A very harmful and destructive attitude towards women of all colors
existed back then - and still exists today - but using the word
'hysterical' to describe women's remarks, regardless of the tone of
these remarks, is still seen by many as being no more significant
than any other adjective.
This situation is certainly worth mentioning.
|
| 20.3291 | A more timely comparison, anyway. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Nov 08 1995 21:58 | 6 |
| Perhaps a more apt comparison of the use of insulting 'nicknames'
and/or insulting stereotypes would be the parallel between Farrakhan's
use of the word 'bloodsuckers' to describe certain groups and the way
some people use the word 'hysterical' to describe women.
Both are still occurring these days.
|
| 20.3292 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 08 1995 22:18 | 65 |
| <<< Note 20.3281 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> / Perhaps. My intention in pointing out your hysterical statements
> / wasn't to argue with you, but rather to show you why I think you
> / don't have a valid argument at all.
>
> In most cases, you simply screamed 'Hysterics,' though.
While I wouldn't use the word 'scream', I have to ask you,
Suzanne, what more there is to do if one intends to identify
something as hysterics? My point was made. End of statement.
> Your reasons don't measure up, of course, so your labeling's
> invalid anyway. What else is new, eh? :/
The sentiment is mutual.
Impasse. What else is new?
> The National Right to Life Committee spokesperson confirmed this
> for me by saying:
>
> "Johnson said such exceptions 'would have the actual legal effect of
> permitting abortionists to continue to employ the partial-birth
> abortion procedure whenever they wish'."
What Johnson is politically unable to say, I can say. I'll bet
he believes like I do that by the very nature of the business that
abortionists are in, and by the very belief systems that they hold
which allows them to terminate those lives, I can't trust them to
weigh the value of the life they are terminating against what they
are claiming to be true risk to the mother's life. I would not
be surprised to find them claiming frivolous reasons as sufficient
grounds to do this procedure.
So Johnson's statement is a concern for an open-ended exception
clause, and that's why the current bill spells out:
.3120> (1) the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the life
of the mother; and
(2) no other procedure would suffice for that purpose.'.
---------------------
Let me ask you, Suzanne. If instead of:
(e) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution or a civil action
under this section, which must be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the partial-birth abortion was performed by a
physician who reasonably believed--
the bill were to say:
(e) There will be no prosecution or a civil action under this
section if it can be proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that the partial-birth abortion was performed by a
physician who reasonably believed--
... would you no longer have an objection to the bill?
I personally see the two as practically and morally equivalent,
though I admit there is a definite legal difference. I could
live with either one. Of course I'm in no position to change
anything about it...
|
| 20.3293 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Wed Nov 08 1995 22:37 | 19 |
| Suzanne, I don't know if your comment that `nigger' "was regarded
by most Americans as being no more harmful than a nickname" comes
from stultifying ignorance or from insultingly profound hubris
that drives you to justify anything that sploshes from your
keyboard.
Suzanne, I grew up in the 50s, I was in the South when public
bathrooms were identified not just by `men' and `women' but also
by `white' and `colored', when it was illegal for a black woman to
marry a white man, when a man could stand outside his restaurant
brandishing an axe to ward off black patrons and then be elected
Governor of Georgia. And `nigger' was not a nickname, not in any
sense. It was an appellation of contempt and denigration, a word
that meant "I'm better than you, and you damned well better know
your place." And while Apartheid was institutionalized by law
only in the South, `nigger' had the same connotations throughout
the country.
Don't rewrite history, Suzanne, to suit your own ego.
|
| 20.3294 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Wed Nov 08 1995 23:18 | 17 |
| Mr Topaz,
And some of us who are women find the "hysterics" crappola to be one
and the same. It is a way to pretend women don't count, that we think
only from emotions, and that we are not fit to work in any job that
requires an iq of over 50 and a steady hand in any crisis worse than a
cake burning.
While we come from different places, hearing "hysterical" from men
who keep their own wives at home, cry back for the "mores" of the '50's
and deplore ANYTING that may give women an equal shot in the world is
just as miserable to me as it may have been to be a person of color
growing up at a time when they could be denied a place at the same
lunch counter that they cooked in in the back.
meg
meg
|
| 20.3295 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 00:05 | 83 |
| RE: .3292 Joe Oppelt
// In most cases, you simply screamed 'Hysterics,' though.
/ While I wouldn't use the word 'scream',
Not about yourself, at least...
/ I have to ask you, Suzanne, what more there is to do if one intends
/ to identify something as hysterics? My point was made. End of
/ statement.
Now your screaming of the word 'Hysterics' has been identified as
a sexist slur. My point has been made. End of statement.
// The National Right to Life Committee spokesperson confirmed this
// for me by saying:
//
// "Johnson said such exceptions 'would have the actual legal effect of
// permitting abortionists to continue to employ the partial-birth
// abortion procedure whenever they wish'."
/ What Johnson is politically unable to say, I can say. I'll bet
/ he believes like I do that by the very nature of the business that
/ abortionists are in, and by the very belief systems that they hold
/ which allows them to terminate those lives, I can't trust them to
/ weigh the value of the life they are terminating against what they
/ are claiming to be true risk to the mother's life.
Stop right there. We aren't talking about abortionists here. We're
talking about doctors. Physicians. Medical professionals. People
with M.D. after their names because they went through Medical School,
internship, residency and a medical practice at a hospital or under
their own medical shingle.
Doctors.
/ I would not be surprised to find them claiming frivolous reasons as
/ sufficient grounds to do this procedure.
So women should be denied access to a life-saving treatment because
of the Right to Life belief that anyone who would be willing to perform
this treatment would probably be willing to lie about why they are
willing to do it - is that the idea?
Sounds very much like a Catch-22 for a pregnant woman whose life is
danger due to complications in her pregnancy.
/ So Johnson's statement is a concern for an open-ended exception
/ clause, and that's why the current bill spells out:
The current bill puts the doctor who uses this procedure to save a
pregnant woman's life at risk of being arrested and prosecuted for it,
and it also puts the pregnant women's life at risk for being at the
business end of the doctor's decision to save her life OR obey the law.
/ Let me ask you, Suzanne. If instead of:
/ the bill were to say:
/ (e) There will be no prosecution or a civil action under this
/ section if it can be proven by a preponderance of the
/ evidence that the partial-birth abortion was performed by a
/ physician who reasonably believed--
/ ... would you no longer have an objection to the bill?
This situation is already covered under Roe vs. Wade, but if
Congress must pass this bill in some form, I'd prefer to have
the doctor protected from being prosecuted (as your new version
states.)
/ I personally see the two as practically and morally equivalent,
/ though I admit there is a definite legal difference.
The legal difference is enough to stop some law-abiding doctors
from saving women's lives. This makes it a huge practical
difference.
/ I could live with either one.
Well, the National Right to Life Committee can't, evidently.
We'll see what the Senate decides to do, though.
|
| 20.3297 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 00:36 | 14 |
| One more thing, Don...
/ And `nigger' was not a nickname, not in any sense. It was an
/ appellation of contempt and denigration, a word that meant "I'm
/ better than you, and you damned well better know your place."
You may be interested to know that some African Americans find
the word 'denigration' itself to be a racial slur because the
word's derivation suggests that people can be made to be 'less'
than other people by being 'blackened'.
Perhaps it never occurred to you that this word could be considered
insulting. That's another example of the insidious nature of racial/
ethnic/gender/etc slurs.
|
| 20.3298 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Thu Nov 09 1995 00:37 | 39 |
| > While we come from different places, hearing "hysterical" from men
> who keep their own wives at home, cry back for the "mores" of the '50's
> and deplore ANYTING that may give women an equal shot in the world is
> just as miserable to me as it may have been to be a person of color
> growing up at a time when they could be denied a place at the same
> lunch counter that they cooked in in the back.
Aaaaaaarrrrrrrggggghhhhh.
Let me be frank... Some of the things you have said above are
exactly why some of us do not take the women's movement
seriously. Note that I did not say that we do not take women
seriously. I specifically said the women's movement. And when
I say "us", I will have you know that this "us" includes a
fair amount of women. My wife among them.
Since my 2nd was born, my wife has been at home. Our first-born
went through three years of working mom mode. Everyday, rain
or shine, she was packed off to day care and picked up when
the work day ended. Today, she is a nervous and rather uptight
youngster. On the other hand, our son, who has been at home
with his mother during this time, seems better adjusted to me.
I wish we had let my daughter grow up the same way.
My wife chose to be at home. She is just now creeping back into
the job market as our son is in school "full time" now. In order
for our family to have this "luxury" I have worked two and
sometimes three jobs. My wife made sacrifices and I made
sacrifices. It was not always easy. She stayed at home and
I worked because, even though she has more formal education
(degrees) than I have, I am trained in a higher paying field.
Those "mores of the 50s" that you seem to find so contemptable
have done well by us. When people realize the value of having
at least one full time parent, and when people stop accusing
husbands (like myself) of keeping our wives at home, then
we will be far more interested in "woman's issues".
-b
|
| 20.3299 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 00:58 | 55 |
| RE: .3298 Markey
/ Let me be frank... Some of the things you have said above are
/ exactly why some of us do not take the women's movement
/ seriously.
Before you go any farther, let me remind you that you're speaking
to a breadwinner - Meg Evans - with a partner who is a fulltime
homemaker. And the homemaker's name *is* Frank.
Of anyone I know, Meg definitely knows the worth and immeasurable
value of the occupation of fulltime homemaking. Even if her
partner hadn't chosen to become a fulltime homemaker, she'd know
it anyway because the woman's movement was the first outspoken
group to start putting a HIGH dollar value on the many jobs performed
by fulltime homemakers. Before the reappearance of the women's
movement in the 1960s - the women's movement actually started in
the late 1700s in Europe and the early 1800s in the U.S. - many
women in America used to call themselves 'just a housewife'. The
women's movement put an end to this.
/ Note that I did not say that we do not take women
/ seriously. I specifically said the women's movement. And when
/ I say "us", I will have you know that this "us" includes a
/ fair amount of women. My wife among them.
The nice thing about being full-fledged human beings on this planet
is that the women's movement doesn't need your validation, or even
the validation of every single woman on the planet. As long as ONE
WOMAN exists who wants to achieve the goals of the women's rights
movement, it's worth doing.
If only ONE WOMAN in this country had wanted to vote, the entire
women's suffrage movement would have been worth doing - all 72 years
of the movement that it took to get the women's right to vote would
have been well worth it.
/ My wife chose to be at home...When people realize the value of having
/ at least one full time parent, and when people stop accusing husbands
/ (like myself) of keeping our wives at home,
If your wife chose to be at home, then you're in the same position
as Meg whose partner named Frank chose to stay at home. If the
shoe doesn't fit, don't strap it onto your foot anyway.
/ Those "mores of the 50s" that you seem to find so contemptable
/ have done well by us.
Meg has a fulltime partner at home herself, so obviously you have
misread her concerns about the "mores of the 50s".
/ ...then we will be far more interested in "woman's issues".
It doesn't particularly matter if you're interested in these issues
or not. The issues are progressing without you.
|
| 20.3296 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 01:02 | 23 |
| RE: .3293 Topaz
/ Suzanne, I don't know if your comment that `nigger' "was regarded
/ by most Americans as being no more harmful than a nickname" comes
/ from ... [the garbage characters in the rest of your statement were
/ incomprehensible to my Alpha system.]
Don, I'm fairly certain that you are intelligent enough to comprehend
that the insidious nature of racial/ethnic/gender slurs is that those
who use them often fail to see the targets of their slurs as being
human beings who are worthy of better treatment than this. Thus,
words like 'nigger' become mere 'nicknames' that the users regard as
harmless to those they have already dehumanized.
/ And `nigger' was not a nickname, not in any sense. It was an
/ appellation of contempt and denigration, a word that meant "I'm
/ better than you, and you damned well better know your place."
The point is that the users took it for granted that they WERE
better than black Americans, so they didn't see themselves as
evil for using such a slur in this situation.
The same holds true for you, in your note to me.
|
| 20.3300 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 01:20 | 15 |
| B. Markey - perhaps it would be clearer to you if you understood
that the women's movement is about choice.
It's not good or bad to be one occupation or another - the main
thing is for women to have the opportunities to choose without
being held back by ignorance and bigotry about women not being
'suited' or 'capable' of certain occupations or professions.
Anyone who doesn't WANT the opportunity to make such a choice
is certainly free to refuse it.
As long as ONE WOMAN wants this opportunity, though, it's worth
it to make sure it's available.
If you can't parse this, never mind.
|
| 20.3301 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 01:41 | 24 |
| RE: .3294 Meg Evans
/ And some of us who are women find the "hysterics" crappola to be one
/ and the same. It is a way to pretend women don't count, that we think
/ only from emotions, and that we are not fit to work in any job that
/ requires an iq of over 50 and a steady hand in any crisis worse than a
/ cake burning.
Agreed - and now we find that women are so low in cultural status
that OTHER minorities can be insulted by having sexist slurs described
as being similar to racist/ethic/etc slurs. Geeesh. :/
The hell of it is that half the African Americans in this country
- and half the Africans who faced Apartheid in South Africa - also
face sexism against women. Half of the Jewish people who face
anti-Semitism also face sexism against women. Half of the Hispanic
people who face bigotry also face sexism against women. Half of
the Asians who face bigotry also face sexism against women. Half
of the gay people who face homophobia also face sexism against women.
Approximately half of the entire human race faces the possibility
of being subject to misogynistic sexism.
I guess it's easy to miss anyway. :|
|
| 20.3302 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Nov 09 1995 10:40 | 10 |
| RE .3301
And ALL white males can LEGALLY be discriminated against for jobs
Been there, so has my nephew, so have many others...
What is YOUR point?
Steve
|
| 20.3303 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 09 1995 10:49 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.3250 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| I do not attack the person. I attack the statement.
Joe, when you make false claims about people:
| which means that you rely on "excessive or uncontrollable emotion".
you have insulted them.
|
| 20.3304 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 09 1995 10:50 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.3251 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>
| Why don't you ask Glen Silva about his little tirade against Jack
| Martin?? Then we can decide who should go in the P&K topic... deal?
Ahhh yeas....lets compare something that happened on one day, to
something that is done constantly. That makes perfect sense. You're really
stretching here....
Glen
|
| 20.3305 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 09 1995 10:52 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.3260 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>
| then, why not call it God's List :-)
Cuz that would be a lie. It ain't God's list.
|
| 20.3306 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 09 1995 10:54 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.3265 by BUSY::SLABOUNTY "Duster :== idiot driver magnet" >>>
| Mind you, a $2 bill isn't extremely queer.
Maybe Jefferson was queer? He was definitely a control queen!
|
| 20.3307 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 09 1995 10:57 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.3272 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| Saying that someone relies on hysterics is not different than saying that
| they rely on exaggeration, for example. Are we no longer entitled to speak
| our minds about what others say?
Errr..... if you say someone is relying on hysterics, you go from
commenting on what they are saying to giving us a reason for them to say what
they did. Big difference.
| Surely you know what real personal insults are, Suzanne.
Nice to know that Joe is only handing out fake insults....
|
| 20.3308 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Nov 09 1995 11:34 | 6 |
|
re: .3304
Nixon was a crook only "once"....
Bush only lied "once"...
|
| 20.3309 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Nov 09 1995 11:38 | 10 |
|
re: .3285
I noticed you skirted around the rest of the my reply in .3284
You've graduated from the Glen Silva School of noting I see...
His school's motto?
"Concentrate on that which can/will deflect, ignore the rest."
|
| 20.3310 | | ACIS04::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 11:44 | 28 |
| re: .3294
...and of course, the use of the word, 'hysterics', couldn't possibly
be an accurate term for a particular argument you brought up. Nah,
couldn't be that.
Let's try to separate the difference between what you see and reality.
Joe called a particular snippet (not the whole note and not you
personally) an argument of hysterics, to make a point. You
extrapolate that Joe is calling you 'hysterical', and that he is doing
this to denigrate you because you are a woman. Bzzzt. Wrong.
I've seen Joe use the word when responding to arguments from...<gasp>
MALE noters. Though I'm sure they didn't appreciate it, they also
didn't imply that Joe was calling them "women-like", either, by using
this term. You see, there are applications for this term that may
actually be useful for something other than putting women in their
place.
If you would let down your feminist deflector screens long enough to
see clearly, perhaps one day you may realize that folks are not always
purposely trying to denigrate you because you are a woman- that folks
are NOT trying to "put you in your place" with certain words, and
perhaps the terms used are ACCURATE every now and then.
Just a thought. (and I'm sure it will go over like a lead balloon 8^))
-steve
|
| 20.3311 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Thu Nov 09 1995 12:16 | 21 |
| Steve,
Since you are also a person who uses this term to describe women,
particularly when you are getting backed into a corner, I have no
respect for your use of this term, other than as a perjorative either.
Talk to me when you are old enough to deal with women on a rational
basis, and realize that women's deaths are something to be emotional
about.
There are two alternatives to the "partial Birth" abortion, according
to a pro-life writer in the Gazzette. 1. D&E where the cervix is
dialated and the fetus removed in pieces, 2. Where the fetus is killed
by injection and then labor is induced, not something you necessarily
want to do when there is full-blown ecampsia, and the liver and kidneys
of the women may fail within minutes, or the fetus is already
effectively dead. yeah, you could do a hysterotomy (C-section of the
dead fetus), but that entails additional risks to the woman, is major
surgery, and can cause problems with future births.
meg
|
| 20.3312 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 09 1995 12:29 | 2 |
| I got a great Irish joke if anybody wants to hear it. It involves two
men named Pat and Mike.
|
| 20.3313 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Thu Nov 09 1995 12:34 | 2 |
|
I always enjoy a good joke.
|
| 20.3314 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Me, fail English? Unpossible! | Thu Nov 09 1995 12:37 | 7 |
|
.3312:
HEY HEY HEY...*I'm* of Irish descent!!
;^)
|
| 20.3315 | | ACIS04::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 12:53 | 33 |
| re: Meg (.3311)
> Since you are also a person who uses this term to describe women,
No, I don't. I've rarely used this term, and when I do, it matters
not to whom I am responding. This is the very point I was trying to
make with Suzanne. You seem to suffer from the same lack of perception
that she does, seeing everything as an attack on women, rather than an
honest response to a NOTE/argument (not the individual).
> particularly when you are getting backed into a corner, I have no
> respect for your use of this term, other than as a perjorative either.
Well, we already know that you will think what you like- truth be
damned.
> Talk to me when you are old enough to deal with women on a rational
> basis, and realize that women's deaths are something to be emotional
> about.
Excuse me? Where in the world did this come from? You go from false
assertion to insult, now suggesting that I am irrational and too
immature to deal with women. I suggest you open your eyes and read my
last note again. It wasn't about me, it was about Joe's use of the
term "hysterics". Your wrongful impression of me and my notes is
irrelevant in this string.
If you want to continue to insult me, though, then by all means feel
free to continue. It's your credibility that will suffer, not mine.
-steve
|
| 20.3316 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Thu Nov 09 1995 13:11 | 7 |
| .3310
|I've seen Joe use the word when responding to arguments from...<gasp>
|MALE noters.
steve, were there any recent incidents? could you show me just
one? thanks.
|
| 20.3318 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | CPU Cycler | Thu Nov 09 1995 13:56 | 1 |
| I wheeel note buy theese abortion, eet is scratched.
|
| 20.3319 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 14:06 | 27 |
| Awhile back, someone here asked how anyone could possibly object to
the bill under discussion, so I described the wording of the bill and
explained why it was regarded by opponents as not having enough
provisions for the lives of women.
We now have the wording of the bill itself which confirms my claims
that doctors could still be prosecuted - and also states that they
could be sued - for using the procedure to save the life of a woman.
We have statements from the White House and members of Congress which
confirm that opponents of the bill are stating that the bill does not
provide adequate provisions for the lives of women.
We have a statement from a representative of the National Right to
Life Committee which explains why they intend to oppose any amendments
which would provide adequate provisions in the bill for the lives of
women: such provisions would 'gut the bill'.
So my original statement explaining how someone could be opposed to
this bill has been supported by prominent individual(s) from both
sides of the issue now.
Perhaps it would help if I found someone with a Y chromosome to post
any additional information I discover about this issue, so that those
who keep short-circuiting to the 'woman == hysterical' parts of their
brains can begin functioning again. Repeatedly short circuiting can't
be very healthy for these guys.
|
| 20.3320 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Thu Nov 09 1995 14:09 | 40 |
| >Awhile back, someone here asked how anyone could possibly object to
>the bill being discussed, so I described the wording of the bill and
>explained why it was regarded by opponents as not having enough
>provisions for the lives of women.
That's a non sequitur designed to emotionalize the issue; there is no
condition that _requires_ the killing of a late term fetus to save the
mother's life. Any condition that threatens the life of the mother to
the point that continuing the pregnancy represents an unacceptable
health risk can be addressed as completely as by this particular
procedure without forcibly terminating the fetus' life. Thus the claim
that women's lives are at risk if this bill is passed is a lie- they
can deliver the baby without killing it and the mother's life will be
just as saved. So obviously this isn't about saving women's lives.
It must be about something else.
>We have statements from the White House and members of Congress which
>confirm that opponents of the bill are stating that the bill does not
>provide adequate provisions for the lives of women.
This is meaningless, of course. These same people are trying to make
senior citizens believe that republicans are trying to outlaw them.
>We have a statement from a representative of the National Right to
>Life Committee which explains why they intend to oppose any amendments
>which would provide adequate provisions in the bill for the lives of
>women: such provisions would 'gut the bill'.
Doctors who would perform this procedure in the first place will
happily justify it by claiming the life of the mother was in jeopardy.
It would indeed gut the bill.
> So my original statement explaining how someone could be opposed to
>this bill has been supported by prominent individual(s) from both
>sides of the issue now.
BFD. Prominent politicians frequently use non sequiturs to bolster
their arguments; that doesn't make the arguments intrinsically any more
relevant or meritorious.
|
| 20.3321 | resistance is futile...you will be feminized | ACIS04::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 14:29 | 5 |
| <----EEk! You said "emotionalize"! Prepare to be feminized! You
shouldn't aught to defame women by using such abusive verbiage. Shame
on you, Doctah.
8^)
|
| 20.3322 | Not true, Mark. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 14:33 | 29 |
| RE: .3320 Mark Levesque
/ That's a non sequitur designed to emotionalize the issue; there is no
/ condition that _requires_ the killing of a late term fetus to save the
/ mother's life.
This simply isn't true.
Meg mentioned just such a condition and set of circumstances several
notes back.
/ Any condition that threatens the life of the mother to the point that
/ continuing the pregnancy represents an unacceptable health risk can be
/ addressed as completely as by this particular procedure without forcibly
/ terminating the fetus' life.
Women can be put in danger of death during childbirth in a matter of
minutes. I almost died in childbirth myself - and so did my son -
after an extremely healthy pregnancy. Things can go sour very quickly.
/ Thus the claim that women's lives are at risk if this bill is passed
/ is a lie- they can deliver the baby without killing it and the mother's
/ life will be just as saved. So obviously this isn't about saving women's
/ lives. It must be about something else.
Women still die during childbirth, Mark. In some situations, emergency
procedures which terminate the fetus are necessary as a last resort to
save the mother. Sometimes even these procedures are not enough and
the woman dies anyway.
|
| 20.3323 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Thu Nov 09 1995 14:38 | 2 |
| steve, just one example of joe using the word hysterical in
reference to a guy's writing in here?
|
| 20.3324 | I think this is hysterical! | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 09 1995 14:39 | 10 |
| BTW, it appears that a push is now under way to use the so-called right
of control over one's own body invented in Roe v. Wade in another way:
If women have a right to pay someone to take something
out of their body...
Then they also have the right to have someone pay them to
put something in...
/john
|
| 20.3325 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Thu Nov 09 1995 14:48 | 3 |
| john, why don't you run off and do some more bottom-fishing
for lies about Sanger or the fisting phenomenon...you do it
so well.
|
| 20.3326 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Thu Nov 09 1995 14:49 | 24 |
| > Meg mentioned just such a condition and set of circumstances several
>notes back.
Where? In .3311?
>Women can be put in danger of death during childbirth in a matter of
>minutes. I almost died in childbirth myself - and so did my son -
>after an extremely healthy pregnancy. Things can go sour very quickly.
All the more reason not to waste time by hacking into a child's
cranium so you can suck the brains out instead of just pulling the
child the rest of the way out.
>Women still die during childbirth, Mark.
No kidding, Suzanne. The sun comes up in the east. The moon is not
made of green cheese. Any other enlightening tidbits you'd care to
share?
>In some situations, emergency
>procedures which terminate the fetus are necessary as a last resort to
>save the mother.
Name one.
|
| 20.3327 | You would do well to be truthful yourself | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 09 1995 14:57 | 9 |
| >lies about Sanger
Document one lie I've ever told about Sanger.
Prove that it's a lie.
Likewise on the other subject.
/john
|
| 20.3328 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Thu Nov 09 1995 15:07 | 8 |
| .3327
most people know, john, that when you paint Sanger as a
eugenicist it is an outright lie. no matter what "sources"
you use. that's why you received such a tiny response when
you posted that hysterical hogwash. no one wants to legitimize
a lie by discussing it as though it had some foundation in
reality. /hth
|
| 20.3329 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 15:09 | 35 |
| RE: .3326 Mark Levesque
// Meg mentioned just such a condition and set of circumstances several
// notes back.
/ Where? In .3311?
Yes.
// Women can be put in danger of death during childbirth in a matter of
// minutes. I almost died in childbirth myself - and so did my son -
// after an extremely healthy pregnancy. Things can go sour very quickly.
/ All the more reason not to waste time by hacking into a child's
/ cranium so you can suck the brains out instead of just pulling the
/ child the rest of the way out.
The woman is not usually fully dilated when this procedure is done.
The brains are removed so that the skull can be reduced in size.
Otherwise, simply pulling the fetus the rest of the way out
could involve ripping open blood vessels inside the woman's body
which could kill her within minutes. Ripping the fetus head
through the mother's body would also kill or permanently damage
the fetus.
// In some situations, emergency
// procedures which terminate the fetus are necessary as a last resort to
// save the mother.
/ Name one.
Imminent liver and kidney failure can occur before the woman is dilated
enough to deliver a fetus. If c-section is considered too dangerous
for the woman at this point, the fetus can be removed by reducing the
size of the fetus skull.
|
| 20.3330 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 09 1995 15:10 | 10 |
| ZZ more bottom-fishing
ZZ for lies about Sanger
John, you lose here. Bonnie said no matter what sources you use. In
other words, Bonnie is doing what my 75 year old mother n law is
notorious for. Truth is too ghastly to accept; therefore she goes into
sheer denial.
-Jack
|
| 20.3331 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Thu Nov 09 1995 15:13 | 4 |
| 20.3330
jack, if I had sources that "proved" that jesus was a
a flamboyant homosexual, would you believe them?
|
| 20.3332 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Thu Nov 09 1995 15:22 | 15 |
| No, Suzanne, she did not cite any specific condition that required the
termination of an otherwise healthy fetus to ensure the life of the
mother. She made claims about alternatives to partial birth abortions
(all of which required the termination of the fetus) but she made not a
single reference to a specific condition that required such a
termination.
>Imminent liver and kidney failure can occur before the woman is dilated
>enough to deliver a fetus. If c-section is considered too dangerous
>for the woman at this point, the fetus can be removed by reducing the
>size of the fetus skull.
Whole lotta handwaving going on, and still nothing that requires the
termination of the fetus (even doing so doesn't ensure that the mother
will live.)
|
| 20.3333 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 09 1995 15:25 | 11 |
| Bonnie:
Most likely not because being flamboyant would go against his sinless
nature. It wouldn't be in harmony with his personhood.
Bonnie, comparing the knowledge of a man 2000 years ago to a woman who
lived 60 years ago is a bit of a stretch. I would tend to think
biographical data on Sanger would be accurate if it corroberated with
other sources of data. This would be the case in Sangers case.
-Jack
|
| 20.3334 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 09 1995 15:28 | 1 |
| What do they call that, primary historical evidence? None on JC, lots on MS.
|
| 20.3335 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Thu Nov 09 1995 15:28 | 19 |
| > most people know, john, that when you paint Sanger as a
> eugenicist it is an outright lie. no matter what "sources"
> you use. that's why you received such a tiny response when
> you posted that hysterical hogwash. no one wants to legitimize
> a lie by discussing it as though it had some foundation in
> reality. /hth
Yo, Oph;
Are you saying:
a) the quotes John posted are a lie (Sanger never said them)?
b) Sanger said those things but the context was intentionally
shifted?
Just curious.
-b
|
| 20.3336 | Sanger was a racist, bigoted eugenicist | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 09 1995 15:36 | 17 |
| Let's repeat what Sanger wrote, with the references from her own writings,
and then demand that Bonnie either go to the library, obtain the articles,
and prove that this is a lie or admit her error:
Sanger believed "Negroes and Southern Europeans" were "mentally inferior
to native born Americans." She said such people, as well as Jews and
other minorities, were "feeble-minded," "human weeds," and a "menace
to society."
Sanger dreamed of creating a "race of thoroughbreds," in contrast to
those she called "genetically inferior." The latter, she argued, should
be "segregated" and "sterilized." "More children from the fit, less from
the unfit--that is the chief issue."
--Margeret Sanger, "Birth Control Review", May 1919, April 1933
"Pivot of Civilization", 1922
|
| 20.3337 | the proverbial needle in a haystack | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 15:59 | 5 |
| re: .3323
I'm afraid I don't have at my disposal the amount of time required to
go through all of Joe's notes. Sorry. I think he used it against
DougO, though, if memory serves (maybe not).
|
| 20.3338 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:02 | 25 |
| <<< Note 20.3295 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> Stop right there. We aren't talking about abortionists here. We're
> talking about doctors. Physicians. Medical professionals. People
> with M.D. after their names because they went through Medical School,
> internship, residency and a medical practice at a hospital or under
> their own medical shingle.
Sure, doctors who perform abortions. Only a small percentage
of them do this -- especially to late term pregnancies -- and
I rejoice that the number is shrinking!
Doctors who perform abortions are abortionists.
And just because they have M.D. after their name doesn't mean
that their values cannot be suspect. Kevorkian has M.D. after
his name too.
> So women should be denied access to a life-saving treatment because
> of the Right to Life belief that anyone who would be willing to perform
> this treatment would probably be willing to lie about why they are
> willing to do it - is that the idea?
*ANYONE* willing to perform? Hardly. Dare I say that your
use of exaggeration could be construed as hysterics? :^)
|
| 20.3339 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:09 | 3 |
| re .3323
the SEARCH utility might work for you...
|
| 20.3340 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:12 | 4 |
| 20.3336
john, looks like i jumped the gun. but you will not get
a full apology from me until i do some research on this.
|
| 20.3341 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:15 | 55 |
| RE: .3332 Mark Levesque
/ No, Suzanne, she did not cite any specific condition that required the
/ termination of an otherwise healthy fetus to ensure the life of the
/ mother. She made claims about alternatives to partial birth abortions
/ (all of which required the termination of the fetus) but she made not a
******************
/ single reference to a specific condition that required such a
*************************************************************
/ termination.
***********
Here's where you are caught in a direct lie:
"There are two alternatives to the "partial Birth" abortion, according
to a pro-life writer in the Gazzette. 1. D&E where the cervix is
dialated and the fetus removed in pieces, 2. Where the fetus is
killed by injection and then labor is induced, not something you
necessarily want to do when there is full-blown ecampsia, and the
*******************
liver and kidneys of the women may fail within minutes, or the fetus
is already effectively dead. yeah, you could do a hysterotomy
(C-section of the dead fetus), but that entails additional risks to
the woman, is major surgery, and can cause problems with future
births."
/ Whole lotta handwaving going on, and still nothing that requires the
/ termination of the fetus (even doing so doesn't ensure that the mother
/ will live.)
The procedure under discussion is not completely new or unique.
It was well known enough to be mentioned in at least one movie
by the 1960s.
In the early 1960s, a movie called 'The Cardinal' portrayed a
situation where an abortion was needed to 'crush the skull' of
the fetus in order to save the mother's life. The fetus was
lodged in the birth canal and a c-section was no longer an option.
In the movie, the person making the decision about his sister was
a priest who later became 'The Cardinal' and he opted to let his
sister die rather than terminate the fetus. The sister did die.
When my son was born, his head was stuck in the birth canal for
three hours. He broke one of my blood vessels and I nearly bled
to death a short time later - but luckily, he had broken free
by then. If he had still been stuck when the hospital staff
realized I was in danger of dying, they may have elected to perform
a last-resort abortion to save my life.
By the way, I notice that you had no comment to make about the
problems raised with your suggest to pull the fetus out of the
woman's body after I explained that the woman would not be
fully dilated and that the 'pulling' would really involve
'ripping' the bodies of the mother and the fetus.
|
| 20.3342 | BLUURRRGGGGHHH! | TROOA::trp669.tro.dec.com::Chris | bad spellers UNTIE! | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:16 | 1 |
| all of a sudden, I really don't feel like any lunch today...
|
| 20.3343 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:29 | 34 |
| RE: .3338 Joe Oppelt
/ Sure, doctors who perform abortions. Only a small percentage
/ of them do this -- especially to late term pregnancies -- and
/ I rejoice that the number is shrinking!
Only a very small number of doctors 'regularly' perform late term
abortions for the cases where the fetus has severe abnormalities.
Any Ob/Gyn who is willing to perform an abortion to save a woman's
life can be faced with the prospect of deciding to do so.
/ Doctors who perform abortions are abortionists.
Any Ob/Gyn can be put in the position of needing to perform a
last-resort abortion to save a woman's life. And that is what
we are talking about here.
// So women should be denied access to a life-saving treatment because
// of the Right to Life belief that anyone who would be willing to perform
// this treatment would probably be willing to lie about why they are
// willing to do it - is that the idea?
/ *ANYONE* willing to perform? Hardly.
So you don't think that any doctor who would be willing to perform
this procedure might be willing to lie about why they are willing
to do it? Good.
/ Dare I say that your use of exaggeration could be construed as
/ hysterics? :^)
Joe, you are addicted to the use of the word 'hysterics' when speaking
to women, so the only justification you need to use it is to wake up
in the morning.
|
| 20.3344 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:32 | 28 |
| >Here's where you are caught in a direct lie:
I point you to key modifiers: "an otherwise healthy baby" and
"required." I posit that when "the fetus is already effectively dead"
it does not meet this condition. She also spoke about alternative
methods to remove a dead fetus from a woman's body; this is not "an
otherwise healthy baby."
>When my son was born, his head was stuck in the birth canal for
>three hours. He broke one of my blood vessels and I nearly bled
>to death a short time later - but luckily, he had broken free
>by then. If he had still been stuck when the hospital staff
>realized I was in danger of dying, they may have elected to perform
>a last-resort abortion to save my life.
Fortunately that was not necessary.
If this procedure is outlawed, how long do you think it will be before
a new procedure is devised which solves the "stuck in birth canal"
problem without simply crushing the baby's skull?
I guess what this argumnent really boils down to is that to you it is
more worth killing an otherwise viable fetus in order to simply
improve the odds of saving the mother rather than trying to save both.
Best case of your choice is the mother lives; worst is she dies (and
with the baby, of course, who dies either way.) At least the opposite
camp has a better best case scenario.
|
| 20.3345 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:32 | 7 |
| re: .3338
Uh-oh, here we go again. He used the "H"-word.
Hey, Joe...try using "illogical" instead. <he says innocently>
|
| 20.3346 | As you well know, Steve. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:33 | 4 |
| When some people find out that a particular word is a racial or ethnic
slur, they go out of their way to use it again.
The same thing sometimes happens with sexist slurs.
|
| 20.3347 | Just curious... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:35 | 6 |
|
<------
Do you always go so far out of your way to get offended???
|
| 20.3348 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:48 | 50 |
| RE: .3344 Mark Levesque
// Here's where you are caught in a direct lie:
/ I point you to key modifiers: "an otherwise healthy baby" and
/ "required." I posit that when "the fetus is already effectively dead"
/ it does not meet this condition.
Allow me to point you to a key conjunction:
"There are two alternatives to the "partial Birth" abortion, according
to a pro-life writer in the Gazzette. 1. D&E where the cervix is
dialated and the fetus removed in pieces, 2. Where the fetus is killed
by injection and then labor is induced, not something you necessarily
want to do when there is full-blown ecampsia, and the liver and kidneys
of the women may fail within minutes, or the fetus is already
effectively dead." **
The fetus may have been healthy before being killed by injection above.
/ She also spoke about alternative methods to remove a dead fetus from a
/ woman's body; this is not "an otherwise healthy baby."
Again, the fetus may have been healthy before being killed by injection.
/ If this procedure is outlawed, how long do you think it will be before
/ a new procedure is devised which solves the "stuck in birth canal"
/ problem without simply crushing the baby's skull?
The bill already contains a loophole. The procedure would be legal
if the fetus were killed before cutting into the skull to collapse it.
/ I guess what this argumnent really boils down to is that to you it is
/ more worth killing an otherwise viable fetus in order to simply
/ improve the odds of saving the mother rather than trying to save both.
I want the doctor to be free to make this decision on a case-by-case
basis when faced with a real woman who faces a real risk of imminent
death.
/ Best case of your choice is the mother lives; worst is she dies (and
/ with the baby, of course, who dies either way.) At least the opposite
/ camp has a better best case scenario.
I don't think it's appropriate for women and their doctors to be
limited in their access to life-saving procedures by hundreds or
millions of strangers who made their choice based on the general
idea of the situation. The woman and the doctor should be allowed
access to whatever procedure they choose to use to save the woman's
life.
|
| 20.3349 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:48 | 1 |
| Eclampsia. NNTTM.
|
| 20.3350 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:50 | 1 |
| <--- He's good.
|
| 20.3351 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:50 | 6 |
| RE: .3347 Krawiecki
/ Do you always go so far out of your way to get offended???
Do you require some sort of justification for comments against racial
or ethnic slurs, or just the sexist slurs?
|
| 20.3352 | And I told him so. | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:51 | 4 |
| Steve John used to go out of his way to get offended too --
reading into words much more than intended.
And then he would get hysterical too.
|
| 20.3353 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:56 | 12 |
|
re: .3351 Conlon
If I dig deep enough, long enough and waste a lot of time and energy, I
can probably "justify" almost anything...
But I won't.... I've always thought that I have sorta/some kind of
life...
|
| 20.3354 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:56 | 7 |
| Joe, you specifically asked me *repeatedly* to cite instances where
you had insulted. So I did.
Now it's 'Gee, you sure go out of your way to get offended...'
You went out of your way to get this information from me. If you didn't
want to know, you shouldn't have asked.
|
| 20.3355 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Got into a war with reality ... | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:58 | 10 |
|
OK, who wanted to see Joe calling a male "hysterical"?
Check out 20.3352:
>Steve John used to go out of his way to get offended too --
>reading into words much more than intended.
>
>And then he would get hysterical too.
|
| 20.3356 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:58 | 5 |
| "hysterics"
"illogical"
Real sexist, those.
|
| 20.3357 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 16:59 | 9 |
| RE: .3355 Shawn
/ OK, who wanted to see Joe calling a male "hysterical"?
"And then he would get hysterical too."
***
This doesn't count - he just did it so he could launch the original
sexist slur *yet again* without being cited for it. :/
|
| 20.3358 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:01 | 31 |
|
Oh, I'm just so full of questions today:
Is the following true:
1. The proponents of this bill support it because it ends late-term
abortions, where the reason for the abortion is only that the woman
does not want to give birth to the baby.. and, they feel that
sufficient language exists in the bill to handle the cases where
there is medical necessity?
2. The main argument against the bill is that the language
is not sufficient to allow for any and all procedures
in truly life threatening circumstances?
If both are true, it seems to me that that compromise measures
could be reached.
However, let me express my skepticism that more government
regulation is the answer. Part of the problem in our government
today is that there are simply too many regulations, many of
which trip over one another. It would seem to me that we need
to settle the abortion issue completely. Either abortion as
birth control is legal, or it is not. By chipping away at the
problem one bill at a time, all we do is exacerbate the problems
we have with our legal system, particularly in the area of
litigation. For this reason, although the practice described
is truly repugnant to me (if used only for birth control
reasons) the legislation itself is bad.
-b
|
| 20.3359 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:01 | 9 |
| RE: .3356 Steve Leech
/ "hysterics"
/ "illogical"
/ Real sexist, those.
Now tell us that it wouldn't be racist to bring up watermelons
repeatedly in discussions with African Americans.
|
| 20.3360 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:03 | 4 |
|
How many Polacks does it take to eat a watermelon???
|
| 20.3361 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:03 | 9 |
| RE: .3353 Krawiecki
/ If I dig deep enough, long enough and waste a lot of time and energy, I
/ can probably "justify" almost anything...
Try to keep up. The question was whether you *require* justifications
for statements against racist and ethnic slurs, or just sexist slurs.
Apparently, you do.
|
| 20.3362 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:06 | 7 |
|
>Apparently, you do.
I guess this says it all... and I rest my case...
|
| 20.3363 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Got into a war with reality ... | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:08 | 4 |
|
And does the prosecution have anything further, or will you
rest also?
|
| 20.3364 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:09 | 7 |
| .3357
/ OK, who wanted to see Joe calling a male "hysterical"?
/"And then he would get hysterical too."
Nope. Doesn't count. No cigar.
|
| 20.3365 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:10 | 1 |
| Tried that SEARCH utility yet?
|
| 20.3366 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:12 | 11 |
| RE: .3358 B. Markey
/ If both are true, it seems to me that that compromise measures
/ could be reached.
A compromise would be to stipulate in the bill that doctors cannot
be prosecuted - or sued - for using this procedure to save the life
of the mother.
The National Right to Life Committee rejects such amendments, though,
saying that they would 'gut' the bill.
|
| 20.3367 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:14 | 6 |
| RE: .3363 Shawn
/ And does the prosecution have anything further, or will you
/ rest also?
We'll get back to you on that, Shawn Ito. :/:/
|
| 20.3368 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:14 | 5 |
| >The bill already contains a loophole. The procedure would be legal
>if the fetus were killed before cutting into the skull to collapse it.
Then you're really just upset about the principal of the thing, since
by your own admission the proposed law is trivial to circumvent.
|
| 20.3369 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:16 | 1 |
| Is 'upset' safe to say?
|
| 20.3370 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:19 | 17 |
| RE: .3368 Mark Levesque
// The bill already contains a loophole. The procedure would be legal
// if the fetus were killed before cutting into the skull to collapse it.
/ Then you're really just upset about the principal of the thing, since
/ by your own admission the proposed law is trivial to circumvent.
I do consider it dangerous when the government legislates which medical
procedures can be used to save a pregnant woman's life - I guess you
trust the government a lot more than I do to make such important
decisions outside their fields of expertise.
While the loophole does exist, a woman's life can be lost within
minutes in the kinds of situations we're discussing. I don't want
the doctor to have to fuss with legal technicalities while a woman
faces possibly imminent death.
|
| 20.3371 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:19 | 3 |
| It depends on who says it. When it comes to a disagreement with
Suzanne, the only things that are safe to say are, "How silly of me;
you're absolutely 100% correct, and I am wrong."
|
| 20.3372 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:22 | 1 |
| Now, that is funny, Mark. :/
|
| 20.3373 | ;-) | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:36 | 3 |
| suzanne, not only are you hysterical, but you are also
tenacious in your arguments. i simply don't know which
is worse.
|
| 20.3374 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:37 | 11 |
|
>tenacious
Oooooooooo.... now how can we use that word so as to offend somebody in
our reading audience????
Everyone put on their thinking caps, now!!
|
| 20.3375 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:40 | 5 |
| > Steve John
Steve Jong.
Nnttm.
|
| 20.3376 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 17:56 | 6 |
| re: .3364
Thanks to a kind fellow noter, I was pointed towards a note that should
fit the bill.
See 37.779.
|
| 20.3377 | Some aspects of sexism against women had JUST been raised... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:10 | 19 |
| RE: .3376 Steve Leech
/ Thanks to a kind fellow noter, I was pointed towards a note that should
/ fit the bill.
/ See 37.779.
It's interesting to see the comments which were greeted with the
use of this word, though.
37.778> Tell me about the moral advantages of people who hold their
37.778> women in bondage, buying and selling their daughters as
37.778> wives based on the suitors' ability to pay.
37.778> And learn some real history while you're at it.
Joe> If I were to learn it from your entries, it would be more
Joe> like "learning some real hysterics". You don't usually resort
Joe> to such things, Dick. I'm surprised at you.
|
| 20.3378 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:15 | 2 |
| imagine oppelt calling binder's entries "hysterics"?
that's downright hysterical in itself.
|
| 20.3379 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:15 | 2 |
| 37.778 is not particularly about sexism. There are six parallel sentences in
that note, and you quote only the one that deals with it.
|
| 20.3380 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:17 | 9 |
| Thanks, Steve!
Give it rest, Suzanne. There were more of what I considered
hysterics than just the few you extracted, and you certainly
know it.
Your behavior here is doing very little to dispel certain
characterists that you claim are sexist. Sexist or not,
sometimes they still fit.
|
| 20.3381 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:20 | 7 |
| RE: .3379 Gerald
/ 37.778 is not particularly about sexism. There are six parallel
/ sentences in that note, and you quote only the one that deals with it.
I quoted the sentence which *immediately preceded* the statement which
was quoted in Joe's note.
|
| 20.3382 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:23 | 1 |
| So what? Joe didn't quote it.
|
| 20.3383 | re: .3381 | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:24 | 11 |
| Joe was calling Binder's argument "hysterics". What the subject was is
irrelevant.
Joe called one of your arguments "hysterics". Joe called one of
Binder's arguments "hysterics". Whether he is correct or not isn't the
issue, the issue is he uses the term when responding to either sex.
Let it drop. You sexism boogeyman has no clothes.
-steve
|
| 20.3384 | You can increase your vocabulary, Joe. I know you can. :/ | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:29 | 12 |
| RE: .3380 Joe Oppelt
/ Your behavior here is doing very little to dispel certain
/ characterists that you claim are sexist. Sexist or not,
/ sometimes they still fit.
You're short-circuiting again, Joe. <zzzzzt>
Human beings have a full range of tones in written and verbal
communications.
Expand your horizons and learn a new adjective.
|
| 20.3385 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:31 | 11 |
| > Steve John used to go out of his way to get offended too --
> reading into words much more than intended.
>
> And then he would get hysterical too.
I remember he once got offended at me (I think I said it...) when I used the
phrase "A chink in one's armor"...
it ended up w/ a very funny string of notes...
/scott
|
| 20.3386 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:34 | 5 |
|
Does anyone else in here think BSS::S_CONLON is starting to go out to
lunch... just raise your hand????
|
| 20.3387 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Great baby! Delicious!! | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:39 | 3 |
|
That's Steve Jong, not Steve John, BTW.
|
| 20.3388 | That's progress. :/ | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:44 | 12 |
| RE: .3383 Steve Leech
/ You sexism boogeyman has no clothes.
Actually, Webster's New World Dictionary confirms the sexist origin
of the word 'hysteria':
[<Gr hystera, uterus: orig. thought to occur more often
in women than in men.]
At least Joe has moved on to imply 'hysterics' more than say it
outright now. It's on its way to becoming the 'h-word' to him. :/
|
| 20.3389 | 8^} | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:52 | 2 |
| You must use the naked feminist boogeyman version. My Websters says
nothing of the sort (regarding hysteria being more common in women).
|
| 20.3390 | Be patient. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:53 | 3 |
| Krawiecki, if you're in search of additional sexist slurs, sit tight.
We'll see them all before much longer.
|
| 20.3391 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:55 | 13 |
|
No sweat Conlon...
See?? See?? I used "sweat"!!! Not "perspire".. nor "glisten".... but
SWEAT!!!
Can't accuse me of hysterics!!!!! No sir!!!!!!!!
BTW... aren't you the least bit interested in Polacks and
watermelons??
|
| 20.3392 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:55 | 9 |
| RE: .3389 Steve Leech
/ You must use the naked feminist boogeyman version. My Websters says
/ nothing of the sort (regarding hysteria being more common in women).
Neither does mine. As I indicated, it states that hysteria was
'originally THOUGHT to occur more often in women than in men.'
My Webster's Dictionary is from this century, of course. :/
|
| 20.3393 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:58 | 8 |
|
So... to carry the "logic" further....
"mass hysteria" must only involve peoples of the female persuasion...
Correct?
|
| 20.3394 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Thu Nov 09 1995 18:59 | 4 |
|
At Filene's Basement anyways...
-b
|
| 20.3395 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:02 | 1 |
| or at professional football games...
|
| 20.3396 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:03 | 15 |
| RE: .3393 Krawiecki
/ So... to carry the "logic" further....
/ "mass hysteria" must only involve peoples of the female persuasion...
/ Correct?
The sexist origin of the word was that it was 'orginally thought to
occur more often in women than in men.'
Webster's said nothing about it occurring only in men. It's just
used *more often* as a slur against women.
Look up the word 'stereotype' next.
|
| 20.3397 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:05 | 5 |
|
Keep pushing Conlon.... you're liable to convince somebody someplace
eventually...
|
| 20.3398 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:05 | 3 |
| > "mass hysteria" must only involve peoples of the female persuasion...
Catholics of the female persuasion.
|
| 20.3399 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:06 | 10 |
| RE: .3395 Bonnie
/ or at professional football games...
...or at soccer games in Europe where dozens of fans die when
excited males go on the rampage to support their country's
teams.
...or at gang wars where young males shoot it out on the streets
because someone wore the wrong color.
|
| 20.3400 | Steve is denied his snarf! | TROOA::COLLINS | Me, fail English? Unpossible! | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:06 | 6 |
|
Andy can be a real bitch sometimes!
<:^o
|
| 20.3401 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:08 | 10 |
|
(__)
(oo)
/-------\/
/ | || \
* ||W---|| You stole my snarf!
~~ ~~
|
| 20.3402 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:09 | 8 |
|
re: .3399
WHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| 20.3403 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:12 | 1 |
| Andy, excuse yourself when you do that. Please! :/
|
| 20.3404 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:16 | 13 |
|
>Andy, excuse yourself when you do that. Please! :/
No... no... dear.... that was the breeze as the reply went over your
head...
You're thinking of...
BBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!
|
| 20.3405 | No pun intended for your latest sound effect. :/ | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:26 | 1 |
| It was Bonnie's reply, honey bunch. Butt out.
|
| 20.3406 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:34 | 7 |
| and andy, one more thing. don't you think it should be:
BBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!
instead of:
BBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!
|
| 20.3407 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:53 | 13 |
|
Bonnie...
>BBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!
usually associated with the orifice located in the upper extremity, and
just below the nose..
> BBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!
usually associated with the another orifice...
|
| 20.3408 | 8^) | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:54 | 3 |
|
Oh, great. Now Andy's also obsessed with ANOTHER 'f' word.
|
| 20.3409 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:56 | 3 |
| > Oh, great. Now Andy's also obsessed with ANOTHER 'f' word.
Considering your personal name, this belongs in P&K.
|
| 20.3410 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:56 | 15 |
|
>It was Bonnie's reply, honey bunch.
I knew who's reply it was.... you failed to make the connection and
went off on your own little tangent... (or is it tirade?)
>Butt out.
yes, I usually do stick it out when "braaaaaaapppppping"...
Oh! You mean "keep out of things"??? Tsk... tsk... perhaps it's time
for a Midol??
|
| 20.3411 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:56 | 4 |
|
There's no 'f' in Little Chamber Of Wet Raspberries!
|
| 20.3412 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:57 | 4 |
|
And therein lies the problem... :-)
-b
|
| 20.3413 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:58 | 1 |
| Raspberry is Cockney rhyming slang. Raspberry tart = fart.
|
| 20.3414 | oh dear! | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries | Thu Nov 09 1995 19:58 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.3415 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 20:02 | 18 |
|
re: .3408
> Oh, great. Now Andy's also obsessed with ANOTHER 'f' word.
No fair!!!
I apologized... yet you persist in keeping alive this dastardly
rumor!!!
Next time you go into a snit, I'll be sure to remind you of this
incident...
(Oooops!! Can I say 'snit'?? Will the Offense Police cart me off to the
slammer??)
:) :)
|
| 20.3416 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 09 1995 20:34 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.3309 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>
| You've graduated from the Glen Silva School of noting I see...
You really love me, Andy... I know....
|
| 20.3417 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Thu Nov 09 1995 20:37 | 12 |
|
>You really love me, Andy... I know....
Pssssst!!! Free clue!!!
Your acting like the south end of a north bound horse isn't fooling
anyone anymore...
Hth...
|
| 20.3418 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Me, fail English? Unpossible! | Thu Nov 09 1995 20:40 | 5 |
|
I guess the thing I find *most* interesting about this debate is that,
back in the Connie Chung string, nobody *ever* jumped on the term
"bitch" with such vehemence as they do here with the term "hysterics".
|
| 20.3419 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 09 1995 20:40 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.3383 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>
| You sexism boogeyman has no clothes.
Is he cute?
|
| 20.3420 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 09 1995 20:43 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.3417 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf" >>>
| Your acting like the south end of a north bound horse isn't fooling
| anyone anymore...
Yes, I live in the South End...very nice neighborhood.
Glen
|
| 20.3421 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Me, fail English? Unpossible! | Thu Nov 09 1995 20:45 | 7 |
|
.3420:
You live in the South End, and you're a `northbound horse'?
<OOOOO-ERRRRRR!>
|
| 20.3422 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 09 1995 21:02 | 9 |
|
| <<< Note 20.3421 by TROOA::COLLINS "Me, fail English? Unpossible!" >>>
| You live in the South End, and you're a `northbound horse'?
Well...err.... yeah! :-)
|
| 20.3423 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 09 1995 21:25 | 26 |
| RE: .3410 Krawiecki
/ I knew who's reply it was.... you failed to make the connection...
I made the connection I intended to make, Andy. Don't worry your
little head about it.
// -< No pun intended for your latest sound effect. :/ >-
// Butt out.
/ yes, I usually do stick it out when "braaaaaaapppppping"...
Actually, the pun involved the sound that had already come out
of your butt. I don't recall reading your notes before, but
somehow I get the impression that bodily noises is one of your
favorite brands of humor. :/
Glen seems to know you from this file, so perhaps he can confirm
this for me.
/ Oh! You mean "keep out of things"??? Tsk... tsk... perhaps it's time
/ for a Midol??
You're still in search of sexist slurs, I see. Again - be patient.
They'll all be here soon enough.
|
| 20.3424 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Nov 09 1995 21:34 | 2 |
| Don't worry, Andy. She's out of ammo. And she's looking
to Glen for support.
|
| 20.3425 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Thu Nov 09 1995 21:37 | 4 |
| .3424
That's never stopped her before, Joe, she's the Energizer Bunny of
debate.
|
| 20.3427 | | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DIGITAL=DEC; Reclaim the Name&Glory! | Fri Nov 10 1995 11:08 | 5 |
| Ah. HERE's where Topaz's find comes from. I was sure hoping I'd not
NEXT UNSEENed past it...
ROTFL
|
| 20.3428 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 10 1995 11:18 | 7 |
| My computer can't spell and neither can I. So what
I take it that Mr Topaz is one... i.e gun control vs abortion
Steve
|
| 20.3429 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 11:43 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.3423 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
| Glen seems to know you from this file, so perhaps he can confirm this for me.
I wish I could. I only know that Andy follows me around, comes up with
insults, and continues on. I think deep down inside he really likes me, though.
I couldn't know what he means with you.....sorry...
Glen
|
| 20.3430 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Nov 10 1995 11:57 | 3 |
|
Thank you for confirming my short analysis in .3309
|
| 20.3431 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 10 1995 12:41 | 13 |
|
How many hypocrites in here believe in abortion on demand and in gun
control? Raise you hypocritical hands. If a woman's life is in danger
from NOT having an abortion and we all (according to some) must allow
(and according to some pay for) an abortion, then how in hell can
someone deny me, or you the right to protect myself/themselves? We ALL
know the police cannot protect us. Is not a man's life or a non-aborting
woman's life worthy of protection too?
Raise your hand...
Steve
|
| 20.3432 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 10 1995 12:42 | 6 |
| Like this better???
Now all raise their hands...
Steve
|
| 20.3433 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:17 | 9 |
| Steve,
Pro-choice on guns, reproductive decisions, and victemless crimes.
Hypocritical enough for you?
Been through this before, along with a NOW membership I am also an NRA
member, and also fight to get rid of idiotic laws on prohibition.
meg
|
| 20.3434 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:23 | 9 |
| I knew that with you Meg. Somewhat Libertarian.
What is the NOW consensus/position?
Steve (who is becoming more libertarian)
BTW anyone else care to define themselves as Pro-choice both ways...?
|
| 20.3435 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:27 | 49 |
|
With Powell out, Buchanan targets Dole on abortion
(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 Associated Press
MERRIMACK, N.H. (Nov 9, 1995 - 19:18 EST) -- Republican Pat Buchanan
criticized Bob Dole's stance on abortion Thursday, a sign that GOP
divisions on the issue won't fade away now that abortion-rights
supporter Colin Powell has ruled out joining the race.
Buchanan, who had been critical of Powell's views on abortion and other
social issues, said he plans to focus on Dole through the remaining 100
days before New Hampshire's lead-off primary in February.
Buchanan said Dole, who opposes abortion except in cases of rape,
incest or when a mother's life is in danger, has not been committed to
outlawing abortion.
Dole voted to confirm Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Stephen Breyer, both "pro-choice, pro-abortion" justices, Buchanan
said. Their presence on the Supreme Court will ensure that legalized
abortions remain "locked onto the books for many more years," he said.
There was no immediate response from the Dole camp.
Buchanan, a conservative TV commentator, said he would appoint an
anti-abortion running mate and make outlawing abortions one of his top
priorities.
He also spoke out against a late-term abortion procedure that would be
banned under Republican legislation. The bill has been sent to a Senate
committee for more hearings, a step Buchanan criticized.
Buchanan said conservatives' next step should be to hold congressional
hearings on when life begins.
Before Powell took himself out of the race, conservatives were divided
on whether his support for abortion rights should disqualify him as a
potential GOP nominee. Some stressed Powell's support for abstinence
programs and pushed him as a preferable -- and electable -- alternative
to President Clinton.
Buchanan, speaking before a friendly audience at Thomas More College,
said Powell's decision to remain on the sidelines "sets the field for
1996." He predicted the GOP nominee would be Bob Dole, Texas Sen. Phil
Gramm or himself.
|
| 20.3436 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:27 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.3434 by 43GMC::KEITH "Dr. Deuce" >>>
| BTW anyone else care to define themselves as Pro-choice both ways...?
Wouldn't that be, bi-choice? :-)
|
| 20.3437 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:28 | 8 |
| NOW the last I checked doesn't have a firm position on gun control
There are feminists who would like to see all guns banned, and
feminists who believe an armed society is a polite society. NOW has
more than enough to work on regarding domestic violence, reproductive
freedom, and equal rights before there needs to be a consensus on who
should or whould not own guns.
meg
|
| 20.3438 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:28 | 34 |
| re: .3423 Conlon (funny, every time I type that I think of Conan the
Barbarian)
>I made the connection I intended to make, Andy. Don't worry your
>little head about it.
No, your "connection" was oblique at best... more like a tirade..
BTW... I wear a size 7 1/2 hat, so my head's far from little...
>Actually, the pun involved the sound that had already come out
>of your butt. I don't recall reading your notes before, but
>somehow I get the impression that bodily noises is one of your
>favorite brands of humor. :/
You should study up on puns and their sounds... Something to, perhaps,
occupy your evenings??
BTW.. your "impression" is quite incorrect... My humor is more of the
"Midol" variety...
>Glen seems to know you from this file, so perhaps he can confirm
>this for me.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! Good one Conlon!!! Good one!!
>You're still in search of sexist slurs, I see. Again - be patient.
>They'll all be here soon enough.
You just don't get it do you? Oh well, maybe you and your box-pal
Silva can exchange notes...
|
| 20.3439 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:31 | 7 |
|
Steve...
I wouldn't worry too much about NOW... After all, their membership is
a very, very small percentage of women in this country... They're of
the "Squeaky Wheel" school...
|
| 20.3440 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:33 | 5 |
| Suzanne and I get it, we explained that a word is offensive, and why.
Trying to justify it reminds me of certain people I worked with in the
past trying to justify their use of several ethnic slurs.
meg
|
| 20.3441 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:34 | 7 |
|
| Buchanan said conservatives' next step should be to hold congressional
| hearings on when life begins.
Why would non-medical people hold hearings on when life begins?
|
| 20.3442 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:35 | 4 |
| Glen,
Of course, they know all, see all, and want to duplicate Romania and
Poland in the US.
|
| 20.3443 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:36 | 1 |
| Because it's not a medical question, it's a legal one.
|
| 20.3444 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:36 | 1 |
| Actually, it's a philosophical question.
|
| 20.3445 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:37 | 4 |
|
Mark, shouldn't the legal part be set to the medical one?
|
| 20.3446 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:38 | 3 |
| Well, there is a philosophical component to the issue, but the reason
it would be debated is to codify things for legal purposes, such as at
what point does the state have an interest in a developing life, etc.
|
| 20.3447 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:40 | 4 |
| > Mark, shouldn't the legal part be set to the medical one?
Which medical one? The creation of the zygote? The birth of a child?
Or does life really begin at 40?
|
| 20.3448 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:40 | 4 |
|
Did congress ever have hearings on when life ENDS, or is that left
up to medical experts?
|
| 20.3449 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:40 | 1 |
| <---good point, Deb.
|
| 20.3450 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:41 | 11 |
|
re: .3440
Okay meg...
Let's hear your explanation of "mass hysteria"????
BTW... are you of the "ilk" that would remove books like "Uncle Tom's
Cabin" from school libraries???
|
| 20.3451 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:42 | 4 |
| >Did congress ever have hearings on when life ENDS, or is that left
>up to medical experts?
No, but they should in the context of the right to die, etc.
|
| 20.3452 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:45 | 9 |
|
Not being a medical expert or anything (I didn't even play doctor as a
kid 8^)), correct me if I'm wrong - isn't the generally accepted
end-of-life the cessation of brain activity?
So, is it possible to measure brain activity of a fetus? This is a new
thought to me. Is it possible?
|
| 20.3453 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:47 | 9 |
| > Not being a medical expert or anything (I didn't even play doctor as a
> kid 8^)), correct me if I'm wrong - isn't the generally accepted
> end-of-life the cessation of brain activity?
Everywhere except congress and highways in Massachusetts.
HTH.
-b
|
| 20.3454 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:47 | 6 |
|
Deb, you're full of great questions today! See what happens when your
boss says you're being taken out to lunch??? :-)
Hopefully someone will have an answer....
|
| 20.3455 | Every bit of scientific evidence is _against_ abortion | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 10 1995 13:57 | 9 |
| >
> So, is it possible to measure brain activity of a fetus? This is a new
> thought to me. Is it possible?
>
Yes. It has been done. Brain waves can be detected and recorded at about
40 days.
/john
|
| 20.3456 | | EST::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Fri Nov 10 1995 14:06 | 6 |
| > <<< Note 20.3455 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
> -< Every bit of scientific evidence is _against_ abortion >-
>Yes. It has been done. Brain waves can be detected and recorded at about
>40 days.
Uh, so scientifically, abortion is ok for the first 40 days?
|
| 20.3457 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries | Fri Nov 10 1995 14:07 | 4 |
|
John, how is this done? Is it relatively easy and completely safe for
all parties involved?
|
| 20.3458 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Nov 10 1995 14:10 | 10 |
| John,
Primitives or actual cortex waves?
No I want "Uncle tom's Cabin" in the schools for historical
perspective, That does not justify current usage of ethnic slurs, nor
does it justify your remarks of earlier. You have been told something
is offensive and why several times.
meg
|
| 20.3459 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Nov 10 1995 14:19 | 5 |
| RE: .3434 Steve Keith
/ BTW anyone else care to define themselves as Pro-choice both ways...?
Like Meg, I'm a member of NOW *and* NRA.
|
| 20.3460 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Nov 10 1995 14:26 | 11 |
| RE: .3438 Krawiecki
// somehow I get the impression that bodily noises is one of your
// favorite brands of humor. :/
/ BTW.. your "impression" is quite incorrect... My humor is more of the
/ "Midol" variety...
I'm sure it is.
You must be a crackup at social gatherings. :/
|
| 20.3461 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 10 1995 14:55 | 13 |
| RE Meg and Suzzanne:
Congrats on you your pro-choice/pro-choice stance
Now how do we all (not just you two) feel about:
Public funding of abortions for low income individuals?
Public funding of gun purchases for low income individuals?
Steve
|
| 20.3462 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Nov 10 1995 14:59 | 8 |
| Abortion is a medical issue, if we fund bypass surgery or any other
medical procedure, abortion should be funded as well.
Guns, cars, clothing, etc. are personal choice items, not medical.
since none are subsidized (except for government contract CEO's) I see
no point in subsidizing weapon procural.
meg
|
| 20.3463 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 10 1995 15:17 | 31 |
| >Note 20.3462 Abortion
>CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors"
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Abortion is a medical issue, if we fund bypass surgery or any other
> medical procedure, abortion should be funded as well.
Technically correct. However, how many other 'procedures' generate the
heat that abortion does. It is a moral, political, ethical issue to
many, an abomination. Kinda like pigs in a temple (Jewish)
In addition, you have the bumper sticker:
"Don't believe in abortion, don't have one"
Just be forced to pay for them... This is my point. The bumper sticker
is a lie. And I know the argument about paying for the military.
However the Constitution specifically talks about providing money for
that purpose. Even if you read abortion into the Constitution, nowhere
does it say anything about paying for it out of tax $$.
> Guns, cars, clothing, etc. are personal choice items, not medical.
> since none are subsidized (except for government contract CEO's) I see
> no point in subsidizing weapon procural.
>
> meg
Guns and abortion are in the same caegory; extrememly offensive to
many.
Steve
|
| 20.3464 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Nov 10 1995 15:24 | 11 |
| re: .3460
>You must be a crackup at social gatherings. :/
Nyaaahh... nyaaaah...!!! I know you are but what am I???
You ASSume much, too much dear lady... and you still don't get it
(neither does meg)
|
| 20.3465 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Nov 10 1995 15:30 | 20 |
|
re: .3458
>nor does it justify your remarks of earlier.
Refresh my memory....
>You have been told something is offensive and why several times.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have been told, I'm sure, many times, that women should remain
barefoot and pregnant and/or to mind your own business and stay in the
kitchen...
I've been told many things in the past... what's your point?
BTW... you still haven't taken a crack at "mass hysteria"... I realize
you've "been told to" (explain the term, that is)... so it must not
count...
|
| 20.3466 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Fri Nov 10 1995 15:30 | 21 |
|
The 2nd Amendment outlaws gun control. The ownership of guns
is constitutionally protected.
The Constitution does not protect abortion. Abortion can be (and
is) legal without being constitutionally protected. Many activities
fall in this class.
Having the federal government pay for anything medical is NOT
constitutionally protected.
Further, claiming that because abortion is medical, it should
be funded is sheer bloody effing nonsense. Given this logic,
I think I'll have a few inches sucked out of my waistline
and butt, and I'll send the bill to Uncle Sam.
No, even better, I'll only do it for a constitutionally
protected activity. I'm gonna send the bill for that trigger
job I want Corky to do to the government...
-b
|
| 20.3467 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Nov 10 1995 15:31 | 7 |
| RE: .3464 Krawiecki
/ I know you are but what am I???
Quoting Pee Wee Herman now, I see.
Impressive. Most impressive. :/
|
| 20.3468 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Nov 10 1995 15:48 | 13 |
|
Great...
Next time you jump on some thumper's crap for doing what you're doing,
I'll be sure to let you know...
What's good for the goose... and all that...
Gee!! Maybe you can tell me where that's from??
Joe's correct.... you're firing blanks...
|
| 20.3469 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 15:54 | 1 |
| snarf
|
| 20.3470 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 15:55 | 3 |
|
How can someone who doesn't fire anything, fire blanks? :-)
|
| 20.3471 | (I really miss that 'Talk Hard' kid's movie lines...) | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:04 | 8 |
| RE: .3468 Krawiecki
Andy, you sound kinda torqued. And I thought we were having
so much fun.
/ Next time you ... I'll be sure to let you know...
Andy, this could be the start of a beautiful friendship. :/
|
| 20.3472 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:12 | 8 |
|
Me??? Tourqed???? Absolutely not!!!
Can't you tell meg and I are picking up where you and I left off???
The game's just getting to be fun!!!
|
| 20.3473 | [From the movie 'Raising Arizona'...] | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:19 | 2 |
|
Ok, then. :/
|
| 20.3474 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:29 | 5 |
| >Ok, then. :/
^
| you keep doing that to your face and
it'll stay like that.
|
| 20.3475 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:30 | 6 |
|
Sorta like Calvin's...
:)
|
| 20.3476 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:37 | 1 |
| That's the smiley equivalent for hysterics.
|
| 20.3477 | That was cute! | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:39 | 2 |
| Joe, you made a funny! I can't believe it! :)
|
| 20.3478 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:42 | 7 |
|
>> Joe, you made a funny! I can't believe it! :)
it happens every once in a while. you just have to
keep an eye peeled (eeeeuw).
|
| 20.3479 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:46 | 2 |
| Yup, Suzanne, even we fun-squelching religious types succumb
to temptation when such yankable chains are dangled before us!
|
| 20.3480 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:56 | 5 |
| RE: .3115 Amnio mix up
One way to avoid the problem of aborting the wrong fetus due to lab mix
ups would be to bring both fetus' (feti?) to term and retro-actively
abort the ones with Downs.
|
| 20.3481 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:57 | 5 |
| RE: .3479 Joe Oppelt
Well, I got a good chuckle from it, Joe.
And I know how you love to brighten my day. :)
|
| 20.3483 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 10 1995 16:57 | 14 |
| RE: .3456
>> <<< Note 20.3455 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>> -< Every bit of scientific evidence is _against_ abortion >-
>>Yes. It has been done. Brain waves can be detected and recorded at about
>>40 days.
>
>Uh, so scientifically, abortion is ok for the first 40 days?
Actually, "scientifically" abortion is always OK. When abortion is not
OK is a religious/philosophical/legal issue.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3484 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 10 1995 17:03 | 1 |
| Scientifically, killing you is ok.
|
| 20.3485 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries | Fri Nov 10 1995 17:06 | 3 |
|
John! John! The fetal brain waves thing, quick! How? Safe? Easy?
|
| 20.3486 | it's twue , it's twue! | CLYDE::KOWALEWICZ_M | red roads... | Fri Nov 10 1995 17:17 | 5 |
| 20.3487 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries | Fri Nov 10 1995 17:19 | 4 |
|
kbear, you trouble me 8^).
|
| 20.3488 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 10 1995 17:24 | 6 |
| RE: .3483
Yes. *Scientifically*, killing me is OK. Especially if you follow the
scientific method.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3489 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 10 1995 17:39 | 4 |
| For info on brain waves in fetuses, see the Newsweek Special Issue,
Summer 1991.
/john
|
| 20.3490 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 10 1995 17:45 | 6 |
| John,
Are brainwaves an actual issue here? Would you support abortions
before brain waves appear (e.g., RU486)?
-- Dave
|
| 20.3491 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Wet Raspberries | Fri Nov 10 1995 17:57 | 6 |
|
Thanks, John. I'll try to hit a library after this show is over.
Unless you know of it being on line somewhere 8^).
|
| 20.3492 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 10 1995 18:05 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.3490 by BREAKR::FLATMAN "Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund" >>>
> Are brainwaves an actual issue here? Would you support abortions
> before brain waves appear (e.g., RU486)?
I won't be so bold as to answer for John, though I suspect he'll
agree with me on this.
For *ME* the issue is not brainwaves, so for that reason RU486
is not acceptable. John was just pointing out how very early
in the whole process brainwaves are present and nothing more.
Now, if the choice were only between abortion as we have it
today, or unlimited abortion only until the presence of measurable
brainwaves, I would certainly opt to support the latter as the
lesser of two evils.
|
| 20.3493 | | EST::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Fri Nov 10 1995 18:20 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 20.3492 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
> For *ME* the issue is not brainwaves, so for that reason RU486
> is not acceptable. John was just pointing out how very early
> in the whole process brainwaves are present and nothing more.
Well, for *me*, the issue is essentially: lacking any unambiguous scientific
way of saying that life definitely begins at "X", the only choice we're left
with is to let everyone decide for themselves. To do otherwise is simply
tyranny.
If we eventually collect enough such data, I might change my view.
|
| 20.3494 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 10 1995 18:25 | 11 |
| <<< Note 20.3493 by EST::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>
>lacking any unambiguous scientific
>way of saying that life definitely begins at "X", the only choice we're left
>with is to let everyone decide for themselves.
See, the difference between us is that lacking unambiguous
scientific evidence, I'd rather err on the side of caution
and give "X" the benefit of the doubt. You way of looking
at it is akin to "guilty until proven innocent" (non-life
until proven living.)
|
| 20.3495 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 18:50 | 3 |
|
Is your caution realistic, though?
|
| 20.3496 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Nov 10 1995 19:11 | 2 |
| It's not realistic to err on the side of caution when you are dealing
with a human life?
|
| 20.3497 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend, will you be ready? | Fri Nov 10 1995 19:13 | 9 |
|
...and back we go to the "where does life begin" rathole.
|
| 20.3498 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Nov 10 1995 19:16 | 3 |
| Yeah, and who is more human, a born, breathing woman, or an embryo?
And so it goes......
|
| 20.3499 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Nov 10 1995 19:18 | 16 |
|
re: .3498
>Yeah, and who is more human, a born, breathing woman, or an embryo?
Don't much matter in China... does it???
> And so it goes......
It sure does...
|
| 20.3500 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Nov 10 1995 19:25 | 5 |
| > Buchanan, a conservative TV commentator, said he would appoint an
> anti-abortion running mate and make outlawing abortions one of his top
> priorities.
And then this idiot wonders why he can get votes, but he can't get elected.
|
| 20.3501 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 10 1995 19:52 | 3 |
|
Life begins at 40.
|
| 20.3502 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Nov 10 1995 20:08 | 5 |
| > Life begins at 40.
Then we shold legalize retroactive abortions until then. Actually, I
think retroactive abortions should be legal until a person is able to
support themselves.
|
| 20.3503 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend, will you be ready? | Fri Nov 10 1995 20:09 | 4 |
|
Well, at least we know where Buchanan stands
|
| 20.3504 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 20:16 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.3496 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>
| It's not realistic to err on the side of caution when you are dealing
| with a human life?
If caution = reality.
|
| 20.3505 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 10 1995 20:22 | 4 |
| I thought you were pro-life, Glen. Why are you arguing against
caution in believing when life begins?
What reality are you thinking of to argue against caution?
|
| 20.3506 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 20:27 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.3505 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| I thought you were pro-life, Glen. Why are you arguing against
| caution in believing when life begins?
I am arguing against your caution. I have seen your views. I question
them as you seem to give out a lot of misinformation. So that was why I said if
the caution = reality.
Glen
|
| 20.3507 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Nov 10 1995 20:29 | 4 |
| You're just hounding me. You're not arguing against anything
because you have presented no argument.
Stop squeaking.
|
| 20.3508 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Be gone - you have no powers here | Fri Nov 10 1995 20:32 | 5 |
|
> Stop squeaking.
Maybe he's asking you to "grease" him, in his own special way.
|
| 20.3509 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 10 1995 20:36 | 3 |
|
Euuuuuw.
|
| 20.3510 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Nov 10 1995 20:37 | 2 |
|
Ruff! Ruff!
|
| 20.3511 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Mon Nov 13 1995 12:54 | 6 |
|
>Maybe he's asking you to "grease" him, in his own special way.
Hmmmm..... how much Vaseline can you put in the end of a size 9 work
boot????
|
| 20.3512 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Nov 13 1995 12:57 | 9 |
|
I had a high school teacher who would always ask us, "How would you
like a size 14 up your ass???" Very big feet this guy had. But they did help
him stand considering he was close to 7' tall!
Glen
|
| 20.3513 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Nov 13 1995 13:01 | 1 |
| Glen, what was your answer?
|
| 20.3514 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Nov 13 1995 13:04 | 4 |
|
My answer was NO! A friend used you always call him queer. Might be one
of the many reasons why this guy got thrown out of school. :-)
|
| 20.3515 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Cracker | Mon Nov 13 1995 14:23 | 8 |
|
>Hmmmm..... how much Vaseline can you put in the end of a size 9 work
>boot????
Length isn't important, it's girth.
Whaddaya got, EE?
|
| 20.3516 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Mon Nov 13 1995 14:25 | 4 |
|
9 D
|
| 20.3517 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Mon Nov 13 1995 18:04 | 19 |
|
In today's FWIW department:
You may remember a few months ago my posting a note about a
friend who was pregnent, unmarried and had health problems.
The father is poor and also has health problems. And the
baby was thought to have Down Syndrome.
Well, I went to the "baby shower" yesterday. Baby is developing
fine (further tests showed him to be normal), Mom and Dad
got married, they still don't have a pot to piss in between
them, she has gestational diabetes and had to be brought in
to the shower in a wheel chair, they live with her parents,
and somehow they're making a go... and good luck to them!
No real point here, just a scene that I'm sure has been played
out thousands of time...
-b
|
| 20.3518 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Good idea Oh Lord! | Mon Nov 13 1995 18:09 | 7 |
|
Bri,
Was that the one who was planning on having an abortion?
She changed her mind?
|
| 20.3519 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Mon Nov 13 1995 18:18 | 22 |
|
Well, yes that is the one you are thinking of, but she was
never "planning" on having an abortion. If you recall, I
posted a note about it after she asked for our (Diane and I)
advice. I concluded the situation was hopeless and counseled
her to have an abortion. Diane, on the other hand, counseled
her to do what she felt was right. Which was, I guess, better
advice.
She did not take my advice. She's going ahead with it and
will raise the child herself. She has a tough row to hoe!
I do admire her courage. On the other hand, in her (Irish
Catholic) family, it might have taken more courage to have
an abortion. I sense that she was under a tremendous amount
of pressure from them (particularly from her mother).
Either way, I'm not editorializing. I'm just reporting the
outcome.
Would I change my advice? I don't know. Honestly, I don't know.
-b
|
| 20.3520 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 13 1995 18:27 | 6 |
| I wonder how many perfectly healthy babies are killed because they
are believed to have Down Syndrome.
As if that were a valid reason to kill a baby anyway.
/john
|
| 20.3521 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | CPU Cycler | Mon Nov 13 1995 18:30 | 1 |
| Read the book of Joshua for an apparent valid reason for baby killing.
|
| 20.3522 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Fluffy nutter | Mon Nov 13 1995 18:46 | 7 |
|
John,
Seven or so months ago, I ignored your opinion. The trend
continues...
-b
|
| 20.3523 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Nov 13 1995 20:18 | 4 |
|
Bri...we gotta get you two together at a box-bash.... it would give a
whole new meaning...hee hee...
|
| 20.3524 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Mon Nov 13 1995 21:53 | 26 |
| I became "very popular" (note the strong sarcasm) with my parents'
family when my sister was in a similar financial boat as the situation
described by B. Markey. My advice (since advising abortion would have
made me even more popular) was to put the kid(s) up for adoption.
It is utterly ridiculous that people are bringing kids into this world
when they have absolutely no means of taking care of them financially
(or emotionally). The four of them (my sister, her husband, and the
two kids she dropped in the last three years) moved in with my parents
and have sabatoged any hopes that my father ever had of retiring.
Why is it a real STUPID idea for my sister and her husband to try to
raise the kids:
1. He's a high school drop out and can't get a job for anything
above near minimum wage.
2. If he does get a job, he loses it within 2 months due to being
completely unreliable.
3. She does have a high school diploma but is only qualified for
near minimum wage jobs.
4. They have been negligent to the point of child abuse on at
least one occassion that I know of (causing their oldest to be
in ICU for 3 days).
Are they going to get pregnant again? I wouldn't bet against it.
Should permanent measures be taken by one, or the other, or both of
them? YES! (And that suggestion improved my popularity even more).
|
| 20.3525 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 14 1995 03:17 | 53 |
| Federal judge blocks Ohio's late-term abortion law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 Cox News Service
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Nov 13, 1995 - 22:12 EST) -- Six hours before it was to take
effect, a federal judge Monday temporarily blocked enforcement of the
nation's most restrictive late-term abortion bill.
The temporary order restraining enforcement of the Ohio law banning dilation
and extraction, a controversial abortion procedure, is scheduled to expire
in 10 days. But, U.S. District Judge Walter H. Rice said he will seek to get
it voluntarily extended until he rules on the constitutionality of the law.
Rice said he would issue such a ruling by Jan. 1 following another hearing
to be completed within 30 days.
The U.S. House passed legislation Nov. 1 outlawing the same procedure. The
vote marked the first time since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade
abortion ruling that Congress has moved to prohibit a specific abortion
procedure.
Noting that Dr. Martin Haskell didn't file his suit challenging the law
until Oct. 27 despite the law being passed on Aug. 16, Rice said that if it
were a "traditional lawsuit" he would conclude, "You filed the lawsuit too
late and you're out of luck."
But Rice found that Haskell also has standing on behalf of patients who are
scheduled to obtain his abortion services this week.
While two days of testimony from physicians failed to produce a sufficient
record on which to base an injunction, Rice noted that any law that
"impinges on a fundamental right secured by the constitution" must be
presumed to be unconstitutional.
The new law bans a procedure which involves partially delivering a fetus,
inserting scissors into its skull, and then collapsing the skull by
suctioning out the brains. Haskell testified Monday that this procedure is
done after the umbilical cord is severed and the fetus is dead - a point
disputed by the state.
Doctors who perform the D&X procedure would face up to five years in prison,
a $2,500 fine and civil liability under the law. It also would ban
post-viability abortions, but allows exceptions if the mother's health is in
danger. Noting that two doctors testifying Monday for the state contradicted
each other regarding their interpretations of abortion procedures, Rice
noted that Haskell demonstrated some likelihood of establishing that the law
is too vague.
Rice said that the law may also be fatally flawed because it fails to take
into account physicians seeking to use their best medical judgment to comply
with it.
|
| 20.3526 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 14 1995 11:24 | 20 |
| re .3524
I am going to take a Dear Abbyism here: No one can take advantage of
your parents unless your parents are willing to let them do it.
That having been said, you might suggest Job Corps to one or the other
parent of your nieces or nephews. While the drop out rate is higher
than I want to see, the program does do great things for some poeple
others would consider "losers." The jobs the program trains for pay
significantly better than minimum wage.
If they totally lack all motivation there is nothing you can do but
wait for your sister, or your parents to come to their senses.
Sometimes it is best to just shut up and "smile."
You can't force permanenet sterility on a person, nor should you or I
or anyone else be allowed to. However, good BC counseling is another
matter. Let them make the choice.
m,eg
|
| 20.3527 | context, context, context | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Tue Nov 14 1995 12:13 | 45 |
| .3336
|Let's repeat what Sanger wrote, with the references from her own
|writings, and then demand that Bonnie either go to the library, obtain
|the articles, and prove that this is a lie or admit her error...
I have been unable as yet to obtain the Sanger articles. Sanger's
words, taken out of context, are extremely damaging. So let's add
a little context.
"The birth control movement stalled during the long years of
Depression and World War II, stymied by the cost and complexity
of the task of reaching women most in need, engulfed in internal
dissension and overwhelmed by the barrage of opposition it provoked.
Timid politicians shied away from sexual controversy and refused to
reform anachronistic obscenity laws. Many women feared compromising
hard-won political gains, especially as birthrates plummeted in the
face of economic crisis, precipitating a backlash against their
increasing independence. In the social sciences, biological ex-
planations for human behavior lost favor. Eugenic ideas about
manipulating heredity, at first the province of progressive pro-
ponents of social reform, quickly deteriorated into an excuse for
the control of undesirables on the straightforward basis of race
and class. Margaret Sanger was never herself a racist, but she
lived in a profoundly bigoted society, and her failure to repudiate
prejudice unequivocally - especially when it was manifest among
proponents of her cause - has haunted her ever since. Intent in
her view of contraception as a tool of liberation, she always
carefully distinguished between voluntary and coercive applications
of her ideas, but this task proved no less daunting for her than
it has for advocates and policymakers since, who have struggled
to balance the rights of individuals against a larger vision of
the collective social good." (p.15)
"Knowing the reactionary and inhumane objectives that scientific
theories of human improvement have since served, it is difficult to
recapture this naive confidence in the possibilities of doing good
through the rational application of medical and scientific advances
to human life. The ugly and tragic link of eugenicism with the
intolerance and prejudice that produced Naziism has undermined it
earlier association with scientific progress meant to promote the
welfare of the individual and the public..." (p. 122)
From Ellen Chesler's "Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control
Movement in America"
|
| 20.3528 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 14 1995 12:20 | 3 |
| That's not context, that's whitewash.
/john
|
| 20.3529 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Nov 14 1995 12:23 | 1 |
| <----HOHO!!!!! TOO FUNNY!
|
| 20.3530 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Tue Nov 14 1995 12:36 | 7 |
|
<-----------
TTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHCCCCRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!
|
| 20.3531 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Nov 14 1995 12:51 | 3 |
|
Glad ya found it funny, Andy!
|
| 20.3532 | more context | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Tue Nov 14 1995 13:23 | 59 |
| "Indeed, as overall birthrates continued to drop during the
1920's, qualitative theories of racial improvement again gained
widespread public acceptance. As had happened briefly before
World War I, eugenics became a popular craze in this country -
promoted in newspapers and magazines as a kind of secular religion.
A national advocacy organization, the American Eugenics Society, was
founded in 1923 to foster broader public understanding of eugenic
principles through such public relations gimmickry as sermon contests
in churches and synagogues and "fitter family" contests at state
fairs and other public gatherings...
Remarkably enough, this enthusiasm for eugenics endured, even as
putative science began to provide the intellectual rationale for
socially conservative ends - for what became an unmitigated defense
of property, privelege, and race baiting in it most conventional
sense. By 1924, for example, an Immigration Act closed America's
doors to new waves of foreigners from eastern and southern Europe
and Asia. The motivation behind the legislation was primarily
economic...
What is more, nearly universal agreement was reached during the
1920's on the propriety of passing compulsory sterilization statutes
to govern the behavior of individuals carrying deficiences believed
inherited...Virginia's statute, authorizing the involuntary
sterilization of inmates in state institutions, was, in fact,
upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 1927, in the matter
of Buck v. Bell. The majority opinion...was written by Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr...[who] was willing in this instance to
sacrifice the rights of individuals who "sap the strength of the
state," as Holmes put it. Arguing that collective social interests
should take precedence in these circumstances, Holmes wrote without
equivocation, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough".
...Without any apparent concern for the potential of abuse, Sanger
supported these initiatives and argued for the compatibility of this
kind of eugenics and birth control. She deliberately courted the
power of eugenically inclined academics and scientists to blunt the
attacks of the religious conservatives against her. Her pricipal
intent remained, as it had earlier, to redress economic and gender
inequality and to promote healthier, happier families. Yet there is
no denying that she allowed herself to become caught up in the
eugenic zeal of the day and occasionally used language open to far
less laudable interpretations. At one point, for example, before
an audience of eugenicists, she bemoaned the burden of the "unfit"
on the productive members of the community and pledged to organize
the "thinking population of this country" around the issue of birth
control as a deterrent to poverty and human waste. She then committed
birth control to the creation of "a race of thoroughbreds," having
taken the phrase from an article in the popular "Literary Digest".
...However extreme some of her pronouncements may seem by contemporary
standards, Sanger continued to be identified popularly as a proponent
of women and of a deep sympathy and compassion toward the overburdened
poor".
Anne Chesler's "Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in
America" (pp.216-217)
|
| 20.3533 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but I can't make you think | Tue Nov 14 1995 13:26 | 2 |
| That's about the most positive spin you can put on her words, I guess.
They are still quite damning, IMO.
|
| 20.3534 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Tue Nov 14 1995 13:45 | 6 |
| I must thank John for pushing me to raise my consciousness
on the subject of Margaret Sanger. She was a fascinating and
tremendously flawed individual. She cultivated support for
her cause from the intellectual establishment of her time.
Some of those people touted eugenics. Some alliances are
worthwhile; others are hardly worth it in the long run.
|
| 20.3535 | Eugenics is scary. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Nov 14 1995 13:56 | 23 |
|
Well, actually, eugenics is no longer respectable because of
Hitler's use of it, etc. But if you consider the question in
the abstract, instead of by the horrendous example of what
was done with it, it is maddeningly difficult to show it is
immoral unless you accept a right-to-life. This was the basis
of the Roe/Wade last trimester distinction. The justices, in
effect, made a practical/technological decision - at the time
of the ruling, science could say very little about the adult
from a first-second trimester pregnancy. So their ruling gave
the woman absolute rights so long as she didn't know anything
about the baby, but started restricting her once she did. The
states were allowed to regulate late abortions precisely because
at that time late-term meant eugenics, with overtones of the
"master-race" ideology.
We've done it all along in breeding crops and livestock. But
manipulation of gene stocks is supervised by the state even there.
I don't think we want some group of wacko fanatics in Idaho breeding
a new strain of humans. At some level, society may have a stake in
reproductive decisions. For example, our survival.
bb
|
| 20.3536 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Nov 14 1995 14:00 | 4 |
| > I don't think we want some group of wacko fanatics in Idaho breeding
> a new strain of humans.
Mr. Potato Head?
|
| 20.3537 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend, will you be ready? | Tue Nov 14 1995 14:01 | 5 |
|
;-)
|
| 20.3538 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Tue Nov 14 1995 14:04 | 37 |
| RE: .3526
> No one can take advantage of
> your parents unless your parents are willing to let them do it.
...
> Sometimes it is best to just shut up and "smile."
Agreed. I finally dropped the debate with my younger sister and
parents after my older (and responsible) sister had a discussion about
kicking the leeches out on their ears (forcing them to become
responsible for their own actions). My father got a haunting
expression and with a voice full of emotion (which is rare for him)
said "If I do that, the grand kids will be dead in a year."
RE: Job core.
Interesting suggestion. Thanks.
> You can't force permanenet sterility on a person, nor should you or I
> or anyone else be allowed to.
While I agree with the principal which makes one say this as it applies
to society, I tend to disagree with it with specifics. When a person
or couple is dropping kids left and right and are completely unable to
afford or handle them and are merely foisting them off on the rest of
society, then the rest of society has a stake in their future
reproductive activities.
Taking the term "permanent" out (to make it less threatening), would
you agree/disagree that "you or I or anyone else" should be allowed to
force Norplant/non-permanent methods?
When I volunteered to pay for Norplant (which I think is a wonderful
solution to the problem) I was greated with all forms of lidicrous
responses as to why it wasn't a good idea.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3539 | | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | | Tue Nov 14 1995 14:34 | 25 |
| > <<< Note 20.3535 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
> -< Eugenics is scary. >-
> ...it is maddeningly difficult to show it is
> immoral unless you accept a right-to-life.
I think it would be at least as true to say that eugenics "is
maddeningly difficult to show to be immoral unless you accept a 'right
to reproductive choice.'"
"Eugenics" in the form that was respectable ~70 years ago seems to have
mainly meant the sterilizing of people that certain elite types felt were
genetically "inferior," for the good of society, and presumably against
their will. I think the immorality of this would have been less the
denial of a "right to life" to the potential children of victims of
this, than in the intrusion of the state into an area where it had no
business -- i.e. the personal decisions of people to have children or
not.
As far as I can see it's not directly related to the modern abortion
debate, which isn't about selective breeding or the old idea of
"eugenics" at all.
-Stephen
|
| 20.3540 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Nov 14 1995 14:38 | 4 |
| ZZ sterilizing of people that certain elite types felt were
ZZ genetically "inferior," for the good of society,
Kind of the same philosophy used to have the electoral college.
|
| 20.3541 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 14 1995 14:42 | 12 |
| Dave,
I don't believe in the government, bless its corrupt little head, in
having any say in who makes what reproductive choices. It isn't always
easy, as I agree that there are some people who shouldn't reproduce for
a host of reasons. but it might be a different reason on why some
should or shouldn;t reproduce to another.
Better to suffer some societal harm to glet people make their own
choices, than to lose the freedom of a country.
meg
|
| 20.3542 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Tue Nov 14 1995 14:51 | 12 |
| Meg,
I agree 100% that the government usually accomplishes the exact
opposite of what it sets out to do (and I won't go so far as to say
that one should always be distrustful of the government, but I won't
argue against those that do).
Perhaps it belongs in a welfare topic instead, but people living on the
dole (governemnt or otherwise) shouldn't expect every kid they drop to
be supported.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3543 | Not sure I agree... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Nov 14 1995 14:55 | 27 |
|
SB - I don't get it. If there's a right-to-life, there obviously
is no eugenics, no problem for them.
If you think there is a "right to reproductive choice", it's either
absolute, or the state has a say. If it's absolute, then it is only
a matter of time before technology will allow parents, within some
limits, to design their babies. Doing this through abortion is crude,
but that's most of what we have today. I envision drugs or selective
spermicides, etc for the future. Perhaps you'll design your child
on a Digital workstation, using shrink-wrapped software...
Is this "moral" ? To a religious person, the answer would be no.
To a nonreligious person, it depends what you think the proper
relationship between people and society is. I'm glad I won't be
around when human genetics is easily manipulated. No, it probably
won't be a Nazi-type program. But the concern of society in the
reproductive choices of its members seems obvious, since society
has costs and benefits arising out of genetic change, plus also
the practical fact that the state possesses adequate power to
control medicine of this kind. You could argue that uncontrolled
eugenics might be better or worse than controlled eugenics.
At any rate, we are no longer talking about control of your body,
but control of the resources of society, and of future genetics.
bb
|
| 20.3544 | Genetic Engineering has uses | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Tue Nov 14 1995 15:06 | 12 |
| RE: genetic engineering/pre-conception genetic selection
I can see an excellent application for such a technology. My 2nd
cousin had juvenile diabetes (it killed her at 30). Her brother also
has juvenile diabetes -- paralizing stroke at 31. All of her 1st
cousins have it.
She decided not to have children in her 20's because she didn't want to
pass on the disease. Now if she could have genetically engineered out
the diabetes ...
-- Dave
|
| 20.3545 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Nov 14 1995 15:14 | 6 |
| I don't know about juvenile diabetes, but it's possible today for carriers of
certain genetic diseases to have children who are assured to not be affected
by the disease. This is done by using IVF, testing the pre-embryos at
the 4-cell stage, and discarding those that test positive. This has been
done successfully for Tay-Sachs. Of course, this method isn't acceptable
for those who object to assisted reproduction (e.g. the Catholic Church).
|
| 20.3546 | | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | | Tue Nov 14 1995 15:19 | 15 |
| My understanding of "right-to-life" is that it means that the
development of a fetus, once conceived, must not be artificially
aborted; that once sperm and egg unite, a potential person exists which
has a "right" to come to term and be born.
If I've got this right, then many of the techniques of genetic
manipulation being discussed would not conflict with the
"right-to-life." I don't see that involuntary sterilization would
either (to get back to the "eugenics" of the 1920s and '30s.)
Involuntary sterilization would obviously interfere with a person's
"right of reproductive choice," as would any other involuntary,
state-mandated interference in the reproductive process, without the
consent of the individuals involved.
-Stephen
|
| 20.3547 | Previews of coming attractions... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Nov 14 1995 16:12 | 23 |
|
Crystal ball time....I won't live to see how far off I was...
(1) "Pregnancy" will be phased out over the next 100 years.
Compared to artificial hearts, kidneys, and livers, fetal development
chambers are relatively low-tech, since not so stringent size
and weight requirements. The grossly inefficient pregnancy
reproductive system in placental mammals is no longer reasonable.
(2) Cloning of humans will be a short-term phenomenon at most,
because totally artificial replacement parts are coming, and
will be cheaper and better.
(3) Over much longer term, there will be a decline in human
sexuality. Non-essential. Give it a few centuries.
(4) Using genetic techniques, "specialty humans", probably asexual,
will be constructed for specific purposes.
(5) Man-machine dualities will be developed, with some of the
peculiarities of both.
bb
|
| 20.3548 | ] | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | | Tue Nov 14 1995 16:15 | 8 |
| I don't think that stuff will happen, at least I hope not. People are
too conservative.
BTW, a book on future human evolution as seen from the '30s, that I
enjoyed very much when I read it in my early 20s, is Olaf Stapledon's
"Last and First Men."
-Stephen
|
| 20.3549 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 14 1995 17:00 | 9 |
| someone tried to write up a theoretical paper on an artificial uterus.
They started thinking there were 17 factors that had to be taken into
account, they stopped at over 176 factors, with more apparently going
to be needed.
A uterus is not just an incubator, and neither are the women who house
them.
meg
|
| 20.3550 | As long as it's Beatlemania Month on ABC... | NORX::RALTO | Clinto Barada Nikto | Tue Nov 14 1995 18:51 | 7 |
| re: .3514
>> A friend used you always call him queer.
This sounds like a line from "Strawberry Fields Forever".
Chris
|
| 20.3551 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Nov 17 1995 16:04 | 8 |
| Since there's no eugenics topic, and eugenics has been discussed here
(re Margaret Sanger), I'm entering this in the abortion topic.
I saw this on the net, and I'm interested to know if it's true.
>Alexander Graham Bell got his start by studying breeding for the
>cattlemen's association, then applied those principles (he thought) to the
>problem of eradicating the deaf race through eugenics.
|
| 20.3552 | Wasn't his wife deaf? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Nov 18 1995 03:55 | 3 |
| Well, I don't think he aborted all his children.
/john
|
| 20.3553 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Sat Nov 18 1995 11:33 | 4 |
| > -< Wasn't his wife deaf? >-
Yes - and his mother, as well. His wife taught at a Boston school for the
deaf.
|
| 20.3554 | Bell and Sheep | DPE1::ARMSTRONG | | Sat Nov 18 1995 11:39 | 13 |
| Not sure about cattle, but Bell did extensive work breeding
sheep.
A big problem with making money with sheep is that they usually
have only one or two lambs per year. Pigs on the other
hand can have 12 or so TWICE a year. Pigs are quite amazing.
People have selectively bred sheep (created breeds of sheep)
that often have 4 or 5 lambs at a time, but momma sheep
only have two nipples.
So what Bell worked on was creating a new breed of sheep with
more than two nipples (perhaps 4 or 6 or so) so that they could
feed all the lambs. he eventually gave it all up as a failure.
|
| 20.3555 | This is what is wrong with the legislation | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Sat Nov 18 1995 15:47 | 185 |
|
Tammy Watts
Testimony Before the Constitution Subcommittee
of the House Judiciary Committee
June 15, 1995
I'd like to thank the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to
testify today. I understand that this subcommittee is considering
legislation that would ban the kind of surgery that I had just this
past March. Apparently the people who wrote this legislation think this
type of abortion is horrible. Well, I don't consider what happened to
me an abortion, but not being able to have this surgery would have been
more than horrible.
We found out I was pregnant on October 10, 1994. It was a great day in
so many ways, because on the same day, my nephew, Tanner James, was
born. My husband and I ran through the whole variety of emotions --
scared, happy, excited, the whole thing. We immediately started making
our plans -- we talked about names, what kind of baby's room we wanted,
would it be a boy or girl. We told everyone we knew ... and I was only
three weeks pregnant!
It wasn't an easy pregnancy. Almost as soon as my pregnancy was
confirmed, I started getting really sick. I had severe morning
sickness, and so I took some time off work to get through that stage.
As the pregnancy progressed, I had some spotting, which is common, but
my doctor said to take disability leave from work and take things a
month at a time. During my leave, I had a chance to spend a lot of time
with my newborn nephew and his mom, my sister-in-law. I watched him
grow day by day, sharing all the news with my husband. We made our
plans, excited by watching [our nephew] grow, thinking "this is what
our baby's going to be like."
Then, I had more trouble in January. My husband and I had gone out to
dinner, came back and were watching TV, when I started having
contractions. They lasted for about half and hour and they stopped. But
then the doctor told me I should stay out of work for the rest of my
pregnancy. I was very disappointed that I couldn't share my pregnancy
with the people at work, let them watch me grow. But our excitement
just kept growing, and we made our normal plans, everything that
prospective parents do.
I had had a couple of earlier ultrasounds which turned out fine, and I
took the alphafetoprotein test, which is supposed to show fetal
anomalies -- anything like what we later found out we had. It came back
clean.
In March I went in for a routine 7-month ultrasound. They were saying
this looks good, this looks good, then suddenly they got really quiet.
The doctor said "This is something I didn't expect to see." My heart
just dropped.
He said he wasn't sure what it was, and after about an hour solid of
ultrasound, he and another doctor decided to send me to a
perinatalogist. That was also when they told us it was a girl. They
said "Don't worry, it's probably nothing, it could even be the
machine."
We got home and were a little bit frightened, so we called some family
members. My husband's parents were away and wanted to come home, but we
told them to wait. The next day, the perinatologist did the ultrasound
for about two hours, and he said he thought the ultrasound showed a
condition in which the intestines grow outside the body, something
that's easily corrected with surgery after birth. But just to make
sure, he made an appointment for me in San Francisco with a specialist.
After another intense ultrasound with the specialist, the doctors met
with us, along with a genetic counselor. They absolutely did not beat
around the bush. They told me "She has no eyes, six fingers and six
toes and enlarged kidneys which are already failing. The mass on the
outside of her stomach involves her bowel and bladder, and her heart
and other major organs are also affected." This is part of a syndrome
called trisomy-13, where on the 13th gene there's an extra chromosome.
They told me "Almost everything in life, if you've got more of it, it's
great. Except for this. This is one of the most devastating syndromes,
and your child will not live."
My mother-in-law just collapsed to her knees. What do you do? What do
you say? I remember just looking out the window... I couldn't look at
anybody. My mother-in-law asked "Do we go on, does she have to go on?"
The doctor said no, that there was a place in Los Angeles that could
help if we could not cope with carrying the pregnancy to term. The
genetic counselor explained exactly how the procedure would be done, if
we chose to end the pregnancy, and we made an appointment for the next
day.
I had a choice. I could have carried this pregnancy to term, knowing
everything that was wrong. I could have gone on for two more months,
doing everything that an expectant mother does, but knowing my baby was
going to die, and would probably suffer a great deal before dying. My
husband and I would have had to endure that knowledge, and watch that
suffering. We could never have survived that, and so we made the choice
together, my husband and I, to terminate this pregnancy.
We came home, packed, and called the rest of our families. At this
point there wasn't a person in the world who didn't know how excited we
were about the baby. My sister-in-law and best friend divided up the
phone book and called everyone... I didn't want to have to tell anyone.
I just wanted it to be over with.
On Thursday morning we started the procedure, and it was over about six
p.m. Friday night. The doctor, nurses and counselors were absolutely
wonderful. While I was going through the most horrible experience of my
life, they had more compassion than I've ever felt from anybody. We had
wanted this baby so much. We named her Mackenzie. Just because we had
to end the pregnancy didn't mean we didn't want to say goodbye. Thanks
to the type of procedure Dr. McMahon uses in terminating these
pregnancies, we got to hold her and eb with her and have pictures for a
couple of hours, which was wonderful and heartbreaking all at once.
They had her wrapped up in a blanket. We spent some time with her and
said our goodbyes and went back to the hotel. Before we went home, I
had a checkup with Dr. McMahon, and everything was fine. He said "I'm
going to tell you two things: first, I never want to see you again. I
mean that in a good way. And second, my job isn't done with you yet
until I get the news that you've hade a healthy baby." He gave me hope
that this tragedy wasn't the end, that we would have children just as
we'd planned.
I remember getting on the plane, and as soon as it took off we were
crying because we were leaving our child behind. The really hard part
started when I got home. I had to go through my milk coming in,
everything you go through if you have a child. I don't know how to
explain the heartache. There are no words. There's nothing I can tell
you, express or show you that would allow you to feel what I feel.
Think about the worst thing that's happened to you in your life and
multiply it times a million... maybe then you might be close. You do
what you can. I couldn't deal with anybody, couldn't see anybody --
especially my nephews. It was too heartbreaking. People came to see me
and I don't remember them being there.
Eventually I came around to being able to see and talk to people. I am
a whole new person, a whole different person. Things that used to be
important now seem silly. My family and friends are everything to me.
My belief in God has strengthened. I never blamed God for this, I'm a
good Christian woman... however I did questions. Through a lot of
prayer and talk with my pastor, I've come to realize that everything
happens for a reason, and Mackenzie's life had meaning. I knew it would
come to pass someday that I would find out why it happened, and I think
it's for this reason: I'm supposed to be here to talk to you, and say
"You can't take this away from women and families. You can't. It's so
important that we be able to make these decisions, because we're the
only ones who can."
We made another painful decision shortly after the abortion. Dr.
McMahon called and said "This will be very difficult, but I have to ask
you this. Given the anomalies she had, so vast and different, there is
a program at Cedars-Sinai which is trying to find out the causes for
why this happens. They would like to accept her into this program." I
said "I know what that means. Autopsies and the whole realm of
testing." But we decided, how can we not do this? If I can keep one
family from going through what we went through, it would make her life
have some meaning. So they're doing the testing now. And because Dr.
McMahon does the procedure the way he does, it made the testing
possible.
I can tell you one thing -- after our experience, I know more that ever
that there is no way to judge what someone else is going through. Until
you've walked a mile in my shoes, don't pretend to know what this was
like for me... and I don't pretend to know what someone else is going
through. Everybody's got a reason for what they have to do. Nobody
should be forced into having to make the wrong decision. That's what
you'll be doing if you pass this legislation. Let doctors be free to
treat their patients in the way they think is best, like my doctor did
for me.
I understand that this legislation would make my doctor a criminal. My
doctor is the furthest thing from a criminal in the world. Many times
I've called him my angel... they say there are angels walking around in
the world protecting us, and I know he is one. If I wasn't led to Dr.
McMahon, I don't know how I would have lived through this. I can't
imagine where we'd be without him. He saved my family, my mental
stability, and my life. I couldn't have made it through this without
him, and I know there are a great many women out there who feel the
same way.
I've still got my baby's room, and her memory cards from her memorial
service, her foot and handprints. Those are good things, good
memories... but she'd gone. The best thing that I can do for her is to
continue this fight. I know she would want me to. So, for her, I
respectfully ask you to reject this legislation.
|
| 20.3556 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 20 1995 00:01 | 95 |
| ON SOCIETY
BY JOHN LEO, U.S. News & World Report.
Harder hearts on abortion
"Partial birth" abortions are unsettling even to read about--the only
version of abortion in which fetuses, either viable or near viability, are
partly visible outside the body while alive and inches away from birth
before being dispatched.
They are typically performed at 20 to 24 weeks, but sometimes later. The
fetus is manipulated so that its feet and sometimes part of its body are
outside the mother. The head is left in the uterus. Then the skull is
pierced and the brain is suctioned out, causing skull collapse and death.
Why is the head of the fetus left inside the uterus when the removal of the
brain takes place? "Avoiding trauma to the cervix" is usually cited as the
reason, but the bottom line is really legal. Stopping the head just short
of birth is a legal fig leaf for a procedure that doesn't look like
abortion at all. It looks like infanticide.
Brenda Shafer, a registered nurse who supports abortion rights, says she
witnessed three of these operations during a brief assignment to assist Dr.
Martin Haskell at an Ohio abortion clinic in 1993. She says the three
fetuses, two normal and one with Down syndrome, all three 25 or more weeks
along, were alive when Dr. Haskell inserted scissors into their skulls. "I
still have nightmares about what I saw," she said in a letter to an
antiabortion congressman in urging passage of the Partial Birth Abortion
Ban Act.
Abortion-rights supporters have greeted the partial birth issue as the
beginning of a new crusade to undermine Roe v. Wade. For some abortion
opponents, it obviously is. But it also is true that a great many
Americans, on both sides and in the middle, are deeply troubled by the
brutality and questionable morality of this particular procedure. It
deserves to be judged on its own.
"Costly vote." In the House vote, a dozen pro-choice congressmen, including
Ted Kennedy's son Patrick, joined the lopsided majority and voted to ban
partial birth procedures. They did this knowing they face some aggressive
retribution from the abortion-rights lobby without gaining any support from
the antiabortion side. "It was a costly vote," said Rep. Jim Moran of
Virginia, an abortion-rights backer. "I'm not going to vote in such a way
that I have to put my conscience on the shelf."
It should be noted that the abortion lobby is having trouble getting its
facts straight. After Brenda Shafer made her statement, Dr. Haskell said he
didn't recall any such person working at his clinic. An employment card was
produced. Then Rep. Patricia Schroeder and others extracted a nondenial
denial from Dr. Haskell's head nurse, saying that Brenda Shafer "would not"
have been present at the three abortions she said she saw.
Kate Michelman and other abortion-rights lobbyists insisted that partial
birth abortion is "confined to extraordinary medical circumstances" and
that anesthesia "causes fetal demise ... prior to the procedure." Not true.
A 1993 interview with Dr. Haskell in an American Medical Association
newspaper quotes him as saying that 80 percent of these procedures are
elective and two thirds occur while the fetus is alive. Dr. Haskell wrote a
letter strongly implying he was misquoted. But an audiotape was produced
showing that he wasn't.
And Michelman said, "It's not only a myth, it's a lie" that partial birth
abortions are used to eliminate fetuses for minor defects such as cleft
palates. But abortion practitioner Dr. James McMahon already had told
Congress he had personally performed nine of these procedures solely
because of cleft palates. Compared with the abortion-rights lobby, the O.J.
defense looks obsessively ethical and tightly focused on verifiable truth.
In an article last month in the New Republic, feminist Naomi Wolf, an
abortion-rights advocate, wrote that "with the pro-choice rhetoric we use
now, we incur three destructive consequences: hardness of heart, lying and
political failure." She wrote: "By refusing to look at abortion within a
moral framework, we lose the millions of Americans who want to support
abortion as a legal right but still need to condemn it as a moral
iniquity."
The partial birth issue is a good time for abortion-rights supporters to
reclaim the moral framework that Wolf says they have relinquished. This
repellent procedure goes way too far. No other Western nation, to my
knowledge, allows it. It was unanimously condemned by the American Medical
Association's council on legislation. (The full association later decided
to duck the issue and take no position.)
Those who defend it reflexively because it may lead to other legislation
are in the exact position of gun lobbyists who shoot down bans on assault
weapons because those bans may one day lead to a roundup of everybody's
handguns. They refuse, on tactical grounds, to confront the moral issue
involved. More of the abstract hardness that Wolf writes about.
Killing a five-month or six-month fetus that's halfway down the birth canal
raises a moral issue way beyond that of ordinary abortion. It's perfectly
possible to support a woman's right to abort and still think that the
anything-goes ethic of this horrific procedure has no place in a culture
with any reverence left for life.
|
| 20.3557 | | SCASS1::EDITEX::MOORE | PerhapsTheDreamIsDreamingUs | Mon Nov 20 1995 03:14 | 4 |
|
<--- Hmmm, Covert, the last sentence strikes me
What reverence do "we" have for life ?
|
| 20.3558 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Mon Nov 20 1995 12:19 | 4 |
|
>What reverence do "we" have for life ?
What reverence did, Oh.. say, Native Americans have for life??
|
| 20.3559 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Nov 20 1995 13:40 | 6 |
| > So what Bell worked on was creating a new breed of sheep with
> more than two nipples (perhaps 4 or 6 or so) so that they could
> feed all the lambs. he eventually gave it all up as a failure.
Was he planning to open a chain of family restaurants to attract the
likes of Haag?
|
| 20.3560 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Mon Nov 20 1995 13:50 | 3 |
| ZZ So what Bell worked on was creating a new breed of sheep
I thought she loved the Beast. Ohhh...er...nevermind!
|
| 20.3561 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Nov 21 1995 18:37 | 54 |
| <<< Note 20.3555 by CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors" >>>
> -< This is what is wrong with the legislation >-
Nowhere in the posting did it say that a partial-birth abortion
was performed. Given the above title you gave it, I'll assume
that such an abortion was performed, and this posting was in
defense of the choice of that procedure.
> I had a choice. I could have carried this pregnancy to term, knowing
> everything that was wrong.
So, the mother's life was not at risk.
> I could have gone on for two more months,
> doing everything that an expectant mother does, but knowing my baby was
> going to die, and would probably suffer a great deal before dying. My
> husband and I would have had to endure that knowledge, and watch that
> suffering. We could never have survived that, and so we made the choice
> together, my husband and I, to terminate this pregnancy.
A tragic anecdote, to be sure, but do these circumstances warrant
a partial-birth abortion?
> Thanks to the type of procedure Dr. McMahon uses in terminating these
> pregnancies, we got to hold her and eb with her and have pictures for a
> couple of hours, which was wonderful and heartbreaking all at once.
> They had her wrapped up in a blanket. We spent some time with her and
> said our goodbyes and went back to the hotel.
This is the only reason I can see in the posting for doing a
partial-birth abortion -- so that the mother could cuddle and
say goodbye to a relatively intact baby. One that has not been
dismembered. One that is not burned by a saline injection. True,
after a partial-birth abortion its head will be collapsed, and
some fluid probably leaks from the incision at the back of the
skull, but with careful blanket positioning that can be masked.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the compassion in this. I guess I
simply can't come to grips with euthanasia, for that's what this
particular abortion served. If they carried to term, the baby
would have died, and the parents would have had their opportunity
to grieve then. Probably they would have also been inclined to
bury her instead of leave her behind. Instead they chose to
kill it early -- to spare them the pain of facing continued
anguish during the remainder of the pregnancy. Either way the
baby died a painful death. Surely having the base of one's skull
punctured and a suction tube shoved in to the brain has got to be
painful. Eyewitness partial-birth accounts of the limbs jerking
at the moment of penetration ought to attest to that...
Yes, the account was moving. To some it seems to be the most
compassionate thing to do. To me, I was moved to feel the
horror of it all.
|
| 20.3562 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | A few cards short of a full deck | Tue Nov 21 1995 19:39 | 3 |
|
well Joe, the baby was going to die anyway. You would rather prolong
the agony for all parties concerned?
|
| 20.3563 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 21 1995 19:49 | 3 |
| Of course, you never know when a miracle might happen.
|
| 20.3564 | | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Tue Nov 21 1995 19:55 | 5 |
| Well, I suppose another draw back is that you wouldn't be able to
harvest the (healthy) organs for transplants. Keep the little nipper
alive long enough to harvest out the heart, liver, kidneys, or whatever
else isn't malformed. Of course removing the heart, liver, ... will
shorten the little nippers life.
|
| 20.3565 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 21 1995 19:58 | 9 |
| From the description the only thing any parts were good for was
forresearch to possibly avoid another malformation of this sort from
happening. Of course some people don't want to know why such things
happen and that they might help another person.
For harvesting check certain hospitals with a high rate of neonatal
deaths, particularly from prolapsed cords.
meg
|
| 20.3566 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Nov 28 1995 19:27 | 9 |
|
Didn't the SC find that the group of people (I think it might have been
2 groups) who were protesting outside the abortion clinic were guilty as
charged, and they have to pay some fine for blocking the place? I only heard
bits and pieces of it because I was talking with my mom at the time.
Glen
|
| 20.3567 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Nov 28 1995 19:31 | 4 |
| Glen, SC declined to hear a case from CA where local protesters were
ordered to pay legal fees for the clinic I don't have all the details.
meg
|
| 20.3568 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 28 1995 19:41 | 14 |
| Basically the clinic went to civil court to sue several individuals and
Operation Rescue.
The individuals didn't show up, and thus lost by default.
The court awarded the clinics damages plus legal expenses: close to $100,000.
IMHO, the individuals probably spent less than they would have spent hiring
their own lawyers to defend themselves, even if they might have won.
But they decided to appeal, since there was no proof that they had even been
involved in any of the alleged activity. They lost the appeal.
/john
|
| 20.3569 | | USAT05::SANDERR | | Wed Nov 29 1995 01:44 | 9 |
| seeing a documentary over the weekend on a nurse who used to work in a
clinic and had to quit because of the suffering of so many failed
abortion babies...her story by itslef was sad enough, then to learn she
gotta a commission for each person she brought into the clinic..oh yea,
it AIN't a big business and THAT'S ***NOT*** the reason people are FOR
choice....
Notr Roger
|
| 20.3570 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Wed Nov 29 1995 11:12 | 6 |
| Not Roger,
Less than 6% of planned parenthood clients in Colorado come in for
abortion services. Tell me it is big business.
|
| 20.3571 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Nov 29 1995 13:46 | 1 |
| I guess CFV is doing a good job, then.
|
| 20.3572 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 29 1995 14:56 | 4 |
|
Gee, from their newsletter you'd think they were only interested in
gays.
|
| 20.3573 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Wed Nov 29 1995 15:14 | 10 |
| CFV states their ONLY interest is in preventing "special rights" for
lesbigays...
Unless their heightened "knowlege" of what gays do has caused
"recruitment" to a gay lifestyle to reduce the number of pregnancies
CFV has had little to nothing to do with this percentage. Rather it is
the title X money that subsidizes contraception and heightened use of
condoms for diesease prevention that has caused a drop in pregnancies.
meg
|
| 20.3574 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 29 1995 16:00 | 5 |
| Actually, Meg, it is 6% of VISITS (not clients) that were for
abortion.
If a girl shows up for a prelim visit, then has the abortion, then
has a follow-up visit, only 33% of those visits were for abortion.
|
| 20.3575 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Wed Nov 29 1995 16:08 | 14 |
| And if she shows up for an exam, and goes to "life Support" from a
referral from PP, what is that? Or if she finds out she does(n't) have
cancer, or isn't pregnant, and gets contraception, then what are they.
Hey do yuou realize Saturdays are the only days many women cn get to
the pharmacy at PP for their scripts. How many women do you think you
have run off who merely were coming in for a pill refill? think you
might just be interfering with prevention once in a while?
Oh, that's right you won't be out in front any more, because that would
be situational ethics for you, and it is wrong to stand up for what you
believe in, right?
meg
|
| 20.3576 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 29 1995 16:49 | 9 |
| Meg:
It seems Planned Parenthood has poor marketing people working for them.
Why don't they just do the sensible thing and offer they abortuary
services in another part of the building or another location where the
pill refill folks can go in without being harassed. This way the
picketers can find the appropriate office and harass the aborters
there?
|
| 20.3577 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment uescimur. | Wed Nov 29 1995 16:52 | 4 |
| .3576
Right, Jack. Let lawbreakers force them into changing the way they do
business? In a pig's eye.
|
| 20.3578 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Wed Nov 29 1995 16:53 | 3 |
| .3676
Jack, that reply was unbelievable. Even for you.
|
| 20.3579 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 29 1995 16:54 | 10 |
| <<< Note 20.3575 by CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors" >>>
> How many women do you think you
> have run off who merely were coming in for a pill refill?
Of course you know that we run nobody off. We don't block
the doors or even the driveway. We don't even say a word
to the people entering and leaving the building.
Your smear tactics are not becoming.
|
| 20.3580 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | hysterical elitist | Wed Nov 29 1995 16:55 | 1 |
| i meant .3576
|
| 20.3581 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 29 1995 16:55 | 9 |
| Dick:
My implication here is that Planned Parenthood is exposing the pill
refillers to harassment and I'm trying to offer a viable solution.
Personally it wouldn't phase me if they fell off the face of the earth
but that's neither here nor there.
|
| 20.3582 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 29 1995 17:10 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.3581 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| My implication here is that Planned Parenthood is exposing the pill
| refillers to harassment and I'm trying to offer a viable solution.
Having them change their policy because people don't know what they are
picketing is viable?
Glen
|
| 20.3583 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 29 1995 17:13 | 9 |
| Yes Glen. Go to any Shaws or Market Basket and you will see an express
line for under ten items. This would be similar in that a certain
office for a certain procedure.
A doctor can give stitches in the office but she can't do an
appendectomy there. It is more feasible to do it in another location
better suited.
-Jack
|
| 20.3584 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 29 1995 17:21 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.3583 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| Yes Glen. Go to any Shaws or Market Basket and you will see an express
| line for under ten items. This would be similar in that a certain
| office for a certain procedure.
Jack, the lines in the grocery stores are all in the same building, and
use the same entrances/exits. So how is that different from PP?
| It is more feasible to do it in another location better suited.
Feasible to you, or them? If them, then stop asking them to seperate.
|
| 20.3585 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 29 1995 17:23 | 7 |
| ZZ Jack, the lines in the grocery stores are all in the same building, and
ZZ use the same entrances/exits. So how is that different from PP?
Nevermind. I'm sure everybody else got the point.
As far as other entrances, et al, knock yourself out and keep the same
policy, I could care less.
|
| 20.3586 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Wed Nov 29 1995 19:38 | 17 |
| jack,
Why do you persist in making things more inconvenient for women to
refill their scripts?
there are three pp clinics in town, but this is not a tiny place, and
the west side clinic is one of the most centrally located for most of
the client base.
During the pope's visit to Denver a clinic that is title X funded, (and
therefore doew not offer abortion services at that location) was
picketed by loud obnoxious people from World Youth Day. When it was
explained that this clinic doesn't do abortions they stayed to scream
anyway, as they said offering contraceptives was just as bad as
offering abortions.
Go figure.
|
| 20.3587 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Wed Nov 29 1995 20:04 | 4 |
| Ah, youth.
I'm sure you too yelled at some strange things when you were
a girl!
|
| 20.3588 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Wed Nov 29 1995 20:06 | 1 |
| Wow.... talk about a side step......
|
| 20.3589 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 29 1995 20:39 | 8 |
| Meg:
Then why can't Planned Parenthood get into a consortium with local
pharmacies who can fill these scripts? Then these people wouldn't have
to deal with the picket lines. It seems access to pharmacies would be
as easy or difficult as a local PP clinic.
-Jack
|
| 20.3590 | I smell profit potential | BREAKR::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Wed Nov 29 1995 22:07 | 13 |
| Jack,
I agree 100%. Maybe what we could do is have T-shirts printed up that
say "I'm here to abort my baby" and distributed them to the women
coming in for abotions the night before (just so that the protestors
know who to block).
Heck, we might even be able to turn a buck by having a T-shirt stand
set up a block or two away from a PP on protest day and have shirts
printed up that say "I'm just here for a refill" or "I'm here for my 6
month exam" or "I'm here to counter protest".
-- Dave
|
| 20.3591 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Nov 29 1995 22:21 | 5 |
| Hey, that's capitalism baby! Survival of the fittist I always say.
This too has merit. Maybe Planned Parenthood could receive a royalty.
-Jack
|
| 20.3592 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 30 1995 00:50 | 3 |
|
Maybe you should go there for a reality pill....
|
| 20.3593 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 30 1995 15:59 | 9 |
| Glen Silva, you will WHINE about anything if you get a chance. My
point was quite valid. If a Planned Parenthood clinic offers services
at specific locations or on certain days, then the pill fillers won't
have to put up with the annoying picketers. What in hell is so
difficult to understand about this? A change in policy...pissing and
moaning about this? HMO's change policies every day. Hospitals change
policies every day. What in blazes is so unspeakable about this?
-jack
|
| 20.3594 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Thu Nov 30 1995 17:42 | 14 |
| Jack,
Unlike most pharmacies, PP doesn't make a huge progit on its
pharmaceuticals. Title X prescriptions can run as low as a token
dollar/month, and no one pays the 30+/month for pills that many
pharmacies charge.
On top of it, why should people be screaming at people walking into a
legal business, doing legal things? I also wonder what kind of
"charge" some of the people I have dealt with when acting as a clinic
escort get out of the verbal abuse they have heaped on women coming in
and out of the clinic. Maybe it is another orientation?
meg
|
| 20.3595 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 30 1995 17:55 | 14 |
| ZZ On top of it, why should people be screaming at people walking into a
ZZ legal business, doing legal things?
Guilt by association obviously. It is a wrong assumption but if
somebody uses planned parenthood for services, then they are an
abortion sympathizer. As far as getting a charge, can't argue there.
Just like Jesus coming into Jerusalem on a colt, a foal of a donkey.
The people were shouting Hosanna in the Highest. Three days later
these same people became an ugly mob yelling, "CRUCIFY HIM". Why are
humans so fickle? Abortion is the perfect issue to create a mob on
either side of the fence. I've seen plenty of rudeness on the pro
choice side as well. It's human nature Meg.
-Jack
|
| 20.3596 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Nov 30 1995 18:10 | 9 |
| RE: .3595 Jack Martin
/ Guilt by association obviously. It is a wrong assumption but if
/ somebody uses planned parenthood for services, then they are an
/ abortion sympathizer.
Planned Parenthood offers a 'sliding scale' of fees for its services.
If someone uses Planned Parenthood for services, it might just be
because they can't afford to go elsewhere.
|
| 20.3597 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Nov 30 1995 18:19 | 22 |
| <<< Note 20.3594 by CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors" >>>
> On top of it, why should people be screaming at people walking into a
> legal business, doing legal things?
Define 'screaming'. I've given you firsthand experience of
the total absence of such contact -- or any contact for that
matter. Oh, sure, one could always find extremes, but you
really are being unfair when you continually characterize
these abortion clinic protests as you do. And as recent news
reports show, those extremes are handled pretty thoroughly
by the legal system.
But to address your question in a more general scope, why
should we not be allowed to protest anything -- legal things
included? Do you ask the same question of those who protest
outside of furriers? Or at nuclear power plants? Or importers
of French goods during the recent French nuclear testing?
Protests outside of topless bars? Nestles? Did you ask the
same question of those protesting outside of Coors and
Celestial Seasonings in reaction to the passage of Colorado's
Amendment 2?
|
| 20.3598 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Nov 30 1995 18:20 | 6 |
| Suzanne, I uderstand that better since Meg educated me on this last
year. The point cannot be denied however that Planned Parenthood
simply does a crappy job marketing themselves. They have a crappy
image that needs to be changed. Change the name...anything!
-Jack
|
| 20.3599 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Thu Nov 30 1995 18:34 | 5 |
|
Yes, that point CAN be denied, Meaty. Not everyone thinks that Planned
Parenthood has a "crappy image". They provide a needed service, female
reproductive health care, at a reasonable cost.
|
| 20.3600 | snarf | CBHVAX::CBH | Lager Lout | Thu Nov 30 1995 19:20 | 0 |
| 20.3601 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Nov 30 1995 19:47 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.3593 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>
| Glen Silva, you will WHINE about anything if you get a chance.
That's because I hate wine. :-)
| My point was quite valid.
No, it isn't. You want an established business to change it's methods
because people are doing things illegally. That is not a valid point. People
should take responsibility for their own damn actions!
Glen
|
| 20.3602 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Consume feces and expire. | Thu Nov 30 1995 19:55 | 3 |
|
[Apostrophe alert]
|
| 20.3603 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Thu Nov 30 1995 19:58 | 4 |
|
Careful, Shawn, or Mr.Battis will want you as a Christmas gift.
|
| 20.3604 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Nov 30 1995 20:22 | 24 |
| <<< Note 20.3601 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
> No, it isn't. You want an established business to change it's methods
>because people are doing things illegally.
Illegally? The vast majority of abortion clinic protests
are perfectly legal. And quiet. And non-confrontational.
And even most of those few that result in shouting are still
perfectly legal. 'Illegal' is the rare exception.
But personally I am thankful when businesses I patronize
make changes because people are doing things illegally. I
am thankful that stores increase security to reduce shoplifting.
I am thankful when the malls hire extra security personnel to
protect me from pickpockets and muggers. I am thankful when
the owner of a store cluster non-renews the lease of an
establishment that attracts clientele that poses a risk
to the patrons of the surrounding businesses. Jack's point
merely suggests that the abortion business be separated
from the less controversial business (which some claim to
be the bulk of the business anyway) so that those who
patronize those less controversial services are not negatively
impacted by the fallout of the controversial stuff. His is
not a precedent-setting suggestion.
|
| 20.3605 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | A few cards short of a full deck | Fri Dec 01 1995 12:06 | 4 |
|
.3603
only you mz_debra, only you.
|
| 20.3606 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Fri Dec 01 1995 12:17 | 17 |
| I've been out sick, only to become sicker by reading some of the past
notes in this file.
I wonder how many of us would feel if suddendly there was a boycott on
computers and suddenly, they were immoral, religiously abhorent, and
all that other stuff. Then we tried to come to work to do our jobs,
only to find people who didn't belong there outside our doors,
threating our safety (don't deny the safety issue, because one safety
violation is one too many)......chanting how we are driven by evil
because we don't use the equipment that God gave us, but the equipment
that Digital made for us...and worse, because these people share a
different view on our company, and we are computer sympathizers....
sounds a bit far fetched huh????
|
| 20.3607 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Reformatted to fit your screen | Fri Dec 01 1995 12:24 | 5 |
| Not really. Read Fallen Angels by Larry Niven and Steven Barnes. At
least I think it was a collaboration. Read also the Unabomber
manifesto.
Brian
|
| 20.3608 | re .3606 -- or when the Nazi death camps were closed | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 01 1995 12:24 | 4 |
| Well, that's exactly what happened when the slave trade was finally
abolished.
/john
|
| 20.3609 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Dec 01 1995 12:39 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.3604 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| Illegally? The vast majority of abortion clinic protests are perfectly legal.
| And quiet. And non-confrontational.
What do you base this on?
|
| 20.3610 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Dec 01 1995 13:42 | 12 |
|
re: .3609
Video tapes of the events?????
Actually, the anti-anti-abortionists were the hysterical, non-quiet,
and confrontational ones at these places...
I saw six different videos, so that should qualify as "many" in some
people's views...
|
| 20.3611 | Anticipating glen's response | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend, will you be ready? | Fri Dec 01 1995 13:46 | 14 |
|
> I saw six different videos, so that should qualify as "many" in some
> people's views...
Thanks for that Andy..btw, what % of all video tapes made at abortion
clinics do those 6 videos represent. Thanks
Jim
|
| 20.3612 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Fri Dec 01 1995 13:47 | 4 |
|
And who made the videos?
|
| 20.3613 | he don't make videos | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend, will you be ready? | Fri Dec 01 1995 13:53 | 5 |
|
Who's on first
|
| 20.3614 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Fri Dec 01 1995 14:38 | 7 |
| ZZ sounds a bit far fetched huh????
Michelle, I celebrate their first ammendment right to dissent.
If they want to yell and scream at the front doors of DEC, more power
to them.
-Jack
|
| 20.3615 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Dec 01 1995 16:38 | 16 |
|
re: .3612
From what I recall, there were individual's names on the videos and not
some ABC Film Corp. or whatever...
Funny thing I remembered about most (all?) of them is that there was
barely any editing involved. The videos ran non-stop and the shots were
of every aspect and angle.
Four of the videos were taken by someone with relative experience
with camera work, while one was so-so and one was evidently made by a
rank amateur...
They all, however, conveyed my previous impression as stated...
|
| 20.3616 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Fri Dec 01 1995 16:48 | 4 |
|
Well, I was most curious about whether they were made by pro-choicers
or pro-lifers, you know?
|
| 20.3617 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Dec 01 1995 16:51 | 5 |
|
Well, as I stated, there was next to zero editing done, so it doesn't
look like it much matters who took the pics...
|
| 20.3618 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Fri Dec 01 1995 17:27 | 6 |
|
Well Andy dear, what I mean is, *I* can probably go to clinics and
find six different rowdy pro-life demonstrations and video them for
you to watch, too.
|
| 20.3619 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Dec 01 1995 17:32 | 8 |
|
Deb dear... I guess I wasn't exactly crystal clear (what else is new)
in my initial reply.
The videos, in each case, showed BOTH protagonists and antagonists
involved. After seeing the videos, I reserve judgment as to which were
which.
|
| 20.3620 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Fri Dec 01 1995 17:41 | 7 |
|
Andy precious...you're being crystal clear. I could just as easily
find an equal number of demonstrations, showing both sides, where the
pro-life side was rowdier than the pro-choice side. It all depends on
what I want to have you see.
|
| 20.3621 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | if u cn rd ths, u nd to gt a lyf | Fri Dec 01 1995 17:51 | 7 |
|
>It all depends on what I want to have you see.
BTW... when are we going to UNO's again????
|
| 20.3622 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Fri Dec 01 1995 17:58 | 4 |
|
Oh, I may have to kill you 8^).
|
| 20.3623 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | CPU Cycler | Fri Dec 01 1995 17:59 | 1 |
| 8^)
|
| 20.3624 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Fri Dec 01 1995 18:00 | 4 |
|
<-- shaddap you!
|
| 20.3625 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | CPU Cycler | Fri Dec 01 1995 18:35 | 1 |
| When are we going to DB Cooper's again Deb?
|
| 20.3626 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Fri Dec 01 1995 18:46 | 16 |
|
,.','.,'.,
,'.'.,''.,'.','' "
,.''.,.','.,' ,.',.',.',..,'',.',.',.'
,'.,'.',,.''.,'.,'.','.,'.,"'.,'.',.'
,.',.',,.',.',.'.' ,.',.
8^pPppPPppPppPpPppPppPpPppPPpP,.',.',.',.',.'",..,
,.',.'.'.','.,'.,',.',.',.',.' ,.','.,'.
,. ' ,.,.',.',"
,.',.',.',.',.'
,.',.','.,
,.',.
,.',.',.',
|
| 20.3627 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | CPU Cycler | Fri Dec 01 1995 18:48 | 16 |
|
,.','.,'.,
,'.'.,''.,'.','' "
,.''.,.','.,' ,.',.',.',..,'',.',.',.'
,'.,'.',,.''.,'.,'.','.,'.,"'.,'.',.'
,.',.',,.',.',.'.' ,.',.
'`'.`'',.',.8^o',.',.'",..,
,.',.'.'.','.,'.,',.',.',.',.' ,.','.,'.
,. ' ,.,.',.',"
,.',.',.',.',.'
,.',.','.,
,.',.
,.',.',.',
|
| 20.3628 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Dec 01 1995 19:25 | 29 |
| Joe,
While you may have been there for Fr Carmody's masses, I will remind
you his group isn't the only one picketing.
Try a "clinic rescue" for some real flavor. Or is very good at calling
women everything but responsible, wailing "Please don't kill me mommy"
at women entering or ezxiting the clinic, attempting to video tape
license numbers and cross reference them for later harrassment, Had one
pentacolstal preacher flipping through pages on the bible and blowing
across the pages at escorts. The lumber jacks were there complete with
megaphones.
The morning started with glued locks on the doors, and a Teddy bear
with wires hanging out of it, which had to be checked by the bomb
squad.
What was more fun, after a bit, was the charismatics decided they
didn't like those who were praying the rosary and started arguing.
that was entertainment. the organizer got to explain valuing
differences to his troops. (Interestingly enough I ran into him llater
shagging petitions for A-2)
Several years ago, a clinic escort was injured and her (WANTED) 3 month
fetus was fatally injured in the process. The perpetrator of this
fought his assault charge on the grounds it was justifiable. Guess it
is ok to kill a baby if it is inside someone who is pro-choice, right?
meg
|
| 20.3629 | Please you, do not hurt us. Do not hurt us, if it please you! | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 01 1995 19:36 | 8 |
| >wailing "Please don't kill me mommy" at women entering or exiting the clinic,
Well, meg, isn't that what you'd be wailing if your mother was planning on
killing you?
(Not yet being old enough to understand death is not a legitimate answer.)
/john
|
| 20.3630 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Fri Dec 01 1995 22:33 | 4 |
| John,
since these people did NOT know what a person was entering the clinic
for, this is a little ignorant plea.
|
| 20.3631 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Sun Dec 03 1995 13:13 | 4 |
|
Meg, think ofwhat you said, who you said it to, and you have your
reasons spelled out.
|
| 20.3632 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot. | Tue Dec 05 1995 16:53 | 5 |
|
re: .3628
Sources please...
|
| 20.3633 | | BIGQ::SILVA | EAT, Pappa, EAT! | Tue Dec 05 1995 17:13 | 2 |
| <---wave wave!!! Hi Andy!!! :-)
|
| 20.3634 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Dec 05 1995 17:39 | 9 |
| re .3632
Rocky Mountain News reports on the "rescue" that resulted in the death
of a clinic escort's fetus.
the rest is from personal experience, the "rescue" I described was on
St. Patrick's day 1989
meg
|
| 20.3635 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot. | Tue Dec 05 1995 18:07 | 12 |
|
re: .3634
>Rocky Mountain News reports on the "rescue"
Sorry.. not enough input.... need more input....
>St. Patrick's day 1989
My how time flies when you're having fun....
|
| 20.3636 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Dec 05 1995 18:47 | 7 |
| > >St. Patrick's day 1989
>
> My how time flies when you're having fun....
And in the meantime, another 9 million little boys and girls have been killed.
/john
|
| 20.3637 | What is your point? | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Dec 05 1995 19:34 | 4 |
| And another 100 or so babies have been exposed in oland. Weather is
starting to get pretty chilly there now.
|
| 20.3638 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Dec 05 1995 19:41 | 4 |
| The point as I can see Meg is that your non sequitor analogy shows you
are callous toward zygotes.
-Jack
|
| 20.3639 | just my two cents .... don't spend it! | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Tue Dec 05 1995 20:08 | 38 |
|
I know I'm going to get blasted for this one, but it's really getting
under my skin.
I saw a program on conception and birth...It showed the egg being
fertlized, then all these chemical reactions, then all these chemical
and bodily changes and the cells hadn't even formed anything but a
clump of cells doing some chemical thing. The narrator of the movie
said that the "cells were not viable" alone. That the "cell" were
mutating due to a chemical process in the body of the "host mother".
Well, I tried to look at this from a pro-life prospective, because I
believe that I should give that group one more chance and I was waiting
to hear that the "baby" was able to survive without the "host mother"
but the narrator even said that the "cells" may not even survive the
first week of pregnancy and that the "host mother" may not even be
aware that she has miscarried...weird I thought.... what the heck is a
"host mother" and when is this really a person? So then it went on to
explain that small twitches "mistaked for voluntary movements" are the
chemical reactions of the cells crashing together to complete a form.
Not until the 12 or so weeka did the narrator start calling the "cells"
a fetus. I heard fetus at this point but up till then I heard cells and
zygote. The zygote was up to the 12 weeks I believe. i still had no
feeling that the mass of cells had yet formed a human. If the time
period from conception to the time the cells stop doing their chemical
thing and the "form" starts doing it's human thing...is a bit cloudy
for me. I could see what I though was a heart but it was explained that
what was being showing was "synapses"(SP) in the cells combining to
form the muscle surrounding the heart..well, then they showed the birth
thing and I got a bit squeamish..I still can't figure out how something
that big.....well I'm sure you see the point of that part..
I just thought it was very interesting to realize that there are so
many different roads that the fertilized cells can take that it's
amazing that we even get pregnant at all.....
|
| 20.3640 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Dec 05 1995 20:17 | 10 |
| Michelle:
I actually saw the very same program. The Discovery Channel right?
I understand the lack of harmony considering the fact that conception
is the first hurdle and miscarriage is more possible than we think.
Regarding the host, it still isn't a valid argument as there are living
people who require a host. In a way, my wife's host is insulin because
she is diabetic. She cannot survive without it!
-Jack
|
| 20.3641 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Dec 05 1995 20:21 | 7 |
| Jack,
Given the fact that nature, g-d or mom decided that at least three of
my pregnancies would end in the first eight week, I don't think she is
that into zygotes as people either.
|
| 20.3642 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Dec 05 1995 20:25 | 10 |
| > Not until the 12 or so weeka did the narrator start calling the "cells"
> a fetus. I heard fetus at this point but up till then I heard cells and
> zygote. The zygote was up to the 12 weeks I believe.
Nope. Zygote for about the first nine days, then embryo. The generally
agreed point of time at which the child is called a fetus is eight weeks.
Read reply .1
/john
|
| 20.3643 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Dec 05 1995 20:31 | 10 |
| Meg:
Bottom line is...if God does in fact exist, then it isn't your call.
Interesting question I thought about asking you. Since abortion is an
unnatural act, doesn't this in fact contradict the doctrines of nature
and what not in the Wiccan beliefs? I'm asking without knowing much
about Wicca.
-Jack
|
| 20.3644 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Tue Dec 05 1995 20:50 | 23 |
| RE: .3639
> I was waiting
> to hear that the "baby" was able to survive without the "host mother"
Abortion rights cannot be founded upon survivability of the
cells/zygote/embryo/fetus (CZEF) outside of the (original) mother.
Medical technology is advancing. Given that we already have test tube
babies, it shouldn't be that much of a stretch to take an egg that has
been fertilized in one woman and implant it into another and produce a
healthy child.
If we are to assume that the right to abortion terminates when a CZEF
is able to survive outside of the original host then when medical
technology reaches the CZEF transplant stage the right to abortion will
cease.
Combine this with the argument that it would be unethical to throw
someone in jail for being five minutes late for a medical procedure and
you have my argument that external abortions (or retro-active abortions
if you prefer) should be allowed when the child is not a wanted child.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3645 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Tue Dec 05 1995 21:13 | 17 |
| Jack,
Birth and raising children are holy acts, as is what you do to get a
little started. However, because they are such holy acts to me, I
don't want them profaned by someone who is not willing.
Abortion is a very natural act, most conceptions are aborted before a
woman even knows she is pregnant for every reason from the cells not
adapting to the uterus, to the woman's own body rejecting the cells as
a forign object, to blood incompatabilities, to non-viable defects, to
hormone upheavals, to stress, malnutrition, drug use,............
It is not my call for any other woman and what is between her and her
partner, doctor and diety, it is my call for myself and between me and
my diety and partner, not the government certainly.
meg
|
| 20.3646 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Wed Dec 06 1995 12:36 | 16 |
| Jack,
Don't really know if it was the Discovery channel...I want to say it
was but I can't be sure...
hey, If we can transplant the fertilized cells of an unwanted pregnancy
into the uterus of a woman who cannot conceive...that would be great,
it would do away with abortion, but, we should never deny the right to
choose that option. So why isn't medial science, and prolife working on
a system that promotes transplantation to another woman. I be there
would be lines of infertile woman waiting to have implantation.
wonder what group would protest that???
f
|
| 20.3647 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Wed Dec 06 1995 15:07 | 21 |
| RE: .3646
I may be reading to much into what you wrote the first time, but ...
> The narrator of the movie
> said that the "cells were not viable" alone. That the "cell" were
> mutating due to a chemical process in the body of the "host mother".
> Well, I tried to look at this from a pro-life prospective, because I
> believe that I should give that group one more chance and I was waiting
> to hear that the "baby" was able to survive without the "host mother"
> ...
From the above I'm inferring that you would support the pro-life
position if the cells were viable/the "baby" was able to survive
without the "host mother".
If I'm wrong in this inference, please say so. .3646 seems to
contradict the above inference with "...it would do away with abortion,
but, we should never deny the right to choose that option."
-- Dave
|
| 20.3648 | I support choice....always.! | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Wed Dec 06 1995 16:20 | 21 |
| .3647
Does it really matter what I think, I was just reitterating what I saw
in the program. I was a bit moved that the science world says one thing
and the government says another and the prolife people say another. I
don't support the anti-choice route no how no way. I am all for choice,
sorry, can't bate me, I don't have the narrow mindedness to make a
choice for someone else. I support choice, and if your choice is to
give birth, I guess what I think of the first 7 days isn't reall
important now is it....i didnt' see a human being in that show, I saw
chemical reaction, because I didn't read into the show I guess. I just
listen and thought...gee, what a process...it's a wonder we can
reproduce the human at all....
So no, to your answer, I wouldn't support pro-life...I support choice
and that's my choice and I wouldn't ask that anyone else be involved
with my decision to give birth or not. (except the father of course).
All in my own opinion of course....
me.
|
| 20.3649 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Wed Dec 06 1995 16:22 | 7 |
|
Fine, make the choice before the life of another human is involved, the
life that you choose to terminate.
|
| 20.3650 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Wed Dec 06 1995 16:30 | 26 |
| .3649
My choice shouldn't keep you up at night....I make my choices according
to my life, not yours not TOm's not Dick's and not Harry's. So what you
think is human I see as something different. I can't say what I would
have done 10 years ago had my birth control failed...I think I would
have excercised my choice at that point, and my high power (politically
correct useage not to offend) and me would have been having a very
serious discussion. Today, what ever happens Happens, and my choice
would be to continue the pregnancy, that's today. I'm older, more
settled and stable. I have a family, so it's not the same ball game. I
do agree, we need to teach birth control...in what ever form, but be
need to be realistic and use a goal that will work with the younger
generation....I just wish the people outside of the clinics would spend
thier energy researching a way to do this instead of being hateful and
violent...that would be more progressive dont' you think, then maybe
the prochoice people wouldn't have to waste their time protecting
clinics that are being harrassed...sounds a bit more productive doesn't
it.
Choice should never be taken away, because the next thing to be taken
will be our freedom of speech, freedom of religion..oh you get the
picture....hopefully...
|
| 20.3651 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 06 1995 16:38 | 11 |
| Z and that's my choice and I wouldn't ask that anyone else be involved
Z with my decision to give birth or not. (except the father of
Z course). All in my own opinion of course....
Michelle:
If I knocked on your door with a petition written to our Senators
asking for a bill to stop federal funding to organizations like Planned
Parenthood, would you sign it??
-Jack
|
| 20.3652 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Dec 06 1995 16:44 | 3 |
| Do I have enought time to get to the gun shop before you come
around my neighbourhood?
|
| 20.3653 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Wed Dec 06 1995 17:14 | 30 |
| RE: .3648
> Does it really matter what I think,
In the grand scheme of things, the actual answer is no. Sorry, but it
really doesn't matter what you think or even if you exist. But that's
an irrelevent philosopical rat-hole.
I will say that I'm interested in your opinion, but that's because I'm
always interested in people's opinion on the subject; especially when
they imply a wishy-washy view and then later try to shore up a
hard-core stance. (Which I'll admit that I started with before taking
my hard-core pro-choice stance as well.)
> I was a bit moved that the science world says one thing
> and the government says another and the prolife people say another.
Are you surprised that the government and science don't mesh? I
personally will contend that science has nothing to do with it, just as
science has nothing to do with any of our other rights. I'll contend
that if you do let science play a role in our rights, then scientific
break throughs have the potential of taking our rights away.
> I am all for choice, sorry, can't bate me, I don't have the narrow
> mindedness to make a choice for someone else.
Wasn't trying to "bate" (sic?) you. I was trying to figure out where
you stood on the issue given your first note.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3654 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Wed Dec 06 1995 17:16 | 10 |
| RE: .3652
> Do I have enought time to get to the gun shop before you come
> around my neighbourhood?
Probably not since they passed the Brady Bill with a mandatory waiting
period. ;^)
-- Dave
|
| 20.3655 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Wed Dec 06 1995 18:33 | 9 |
| That's ok that that it doesn't matter that I exist..I'm kinda happy wit
that. Less to deal with. But I have a very strong pro-choice view, I
am sorry I assumed you were baiting me....it's the road of this note
when someone voices their OPINION. So I'm a bit too careful somethimes.
I am for anyones choice to be prolife, as long as they don't take away
my right to choose.
me again.
|
| 20.3656 | no no no..I don't sign that stuff... | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Wed Dec 06 1995 18:35 | 15 |
| .3651
Jack to answer your question,
NO!
If my money goes toward planned parenthood and they are giving woman
check ups that help them be healthier and help their born babies be
healthy and help them learn about birth control...then that's ok with
me.
'kay
|
| 20.3657 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Wed Dec 06 1995 18:47 | 21 |
| Jack,
Given that Tile X money is used for women's health and contraception
and that is about all the money PP gets from the Fed's, NFW would I
sign it.
Title X provides contraception, cancer screening, referal and
treatment, STD counseling, screening and treatment, Pregnancy testing
and counseling, but NOT anything to do with abortion funding. In CO
Title X runs at a deficit made up by volunteer donations, and health
care providors donating time and, in some cases, materials. BTW they
teach NFP with this money as well as other methods for contraception.
Les than 6% of all visits to PP in CO are for abortion services.
Ending Title X funding would only increase the rate of unwanted
pregnancies in this country, leading to more abortions, something I
don't want to see, but sometimes I think it is what some who claim to
be "pro-life" do. Why else attack the one program the Fed's fund that
is working to drop the number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies?
meg
|
| 20.3658 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 06 1995 19:06 | 16 |
| Z If my money goes toward planned parenthood and they are giving woman
Z check ups that help them be healthier and help their born babies be
Z healthy and help them learn about birth control...then that's ok
Z with me.
Then I find your attitude to be the height of hypocrisy, and this above
all things annoys the living hell out of the average citizen...you too
Meg! While I do see your point regarding the use of services for birth
control and the like, you still seem to talk out of both sides of your
mouth. You know darn well that title X money is used to fund
abortions...hence you have just brought government into the bedroom.
Why do you seem to insist on talking out of both sides of your
mouth...why Santa?
-Cindy Loo Hoo
|
| 20.3659 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Wed Dec 06 1995 19:09 | 9 |
| Jack,
I got my information regarding what Title X is used for from Rocky
Mountain Planned Parenthood. By law Title X money CANNOT be used for
abortion services. In fact the clinics that take the title X money
don't offer abortion services. Now where did you get your supposed
factoid that title X money is used for abortions?
meg
|
| 20.3660 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tummy Time | Wed Dec 06 1995 19:16 | 3 |
|
Meaty, really.
|
| 20.3661 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | we put the fun in dysfunctional! | Wed Dec 06 1995 19:17 | 3 |
| Cindy Loo Hoo,
Got news for yoo hoo,
You're not the average citizen.
|
| 20.3662 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | pack light, keep low, move fast, reload often | Wed Dec 06 1995 19:23 | 1 |
| I'll take made up facts for 200 Alex.
|
| 20.3663 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 06 1995 19:30 | 1 |
| Glen told me!
|
| 20.3664 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 06 1995 20:03 | 7 |
| Actually what I understood was PP gets Title-X money. Period. It is
not earmarked for any particular function, nor is it denied to any
particular service. Therefore, are you being disingenuous if your
telling me that Title X money is NEVER used for abortion services?
-Jack
|
| 20.3665 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot. | Wed Dec 06 1995 20:06 | 5 |
|
Still waiting for the Rocky Mountain Oyster Gazette info about the
"murder" of the baby...
Year, month and day would be fine, I'll do the rest...
|
| 20.3666 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Wed Dec 06 1995 22:38 | 25 |
| jack,
Title X has restrictions, just like any other federal money. One of
the restrictions is that Title X funds cannot be used for providing
abortion services. It is specifically for contraception, cancer and
std screening and some treatment of both.
Krawiecki It is the Rocky Mountain News, the Oyster is a completely
different sort of rag, and not one I read, I have a main squeeze and no
need for another. It was several years ago, so I don't have a specific
date. Your public library may or may not have the RMN on micro fiche,
do your own research.
The miscarriage after tossing the escort over the wall is fact. Not
being one of the people who believes a 12 week fetus is a baby, I think
agravated assualt and battery was a reasonable charge, however, I would
think someone who belongs to OR and believes that a fertile egg ==
newborn child would have insisted on pleading guilty to criminally
neglegent homicide. In fact he pled not guilty to assault and used
the usual OR defense of a life to attempt to justify the assault as a
legal action. Like I said this fetus was considered collateral damage
to the person who injured the woman. OR people scare me, they are not
what I consider balanced people.
meg
|
| 20.3667 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | No Compromise on Freedom | Thu Dec 07 1995 10:43 | 12 |
|
> Title X has restrictions, just like any other federal money. One of
> the restrictions is that Title X funds cannot be used for providing
> abortion services. It is specifically for contraception, cancer and
> std screening and some treatment of both.
Maybe, maybe not. They are receiving fed money. This is money that
they would not have had before. The fed money can be used for item 1
(not abortions), and that would free up money for item 2 (abortions,
petitioning congress for MORE money, etc.) So in the overall picture,
the Title X money may very well be (partially) funding aborting.
|
| 20.3668 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Thu Dec 07 1995 12:46 | 20 |
| So I guess it's ok that our tax dollars are being used to fund other
things that not EVERYONE is totally in agreement with....? Like sending
our troops to Bosnia...excuse me, we have our own wars going on here in
America on the streets of our cities, why isn't the money being used to
eliminate THAT war...
I personally don't want my money going to build bomber and stealth air
planes to fight countries...I think there is plenty of tax waste, why
doesn't someone use their energy to find our why we pay $500 dollars
(TIME 94' I believe january issue 2nd week) for a hammer for the
government instead of going to Walmart to purchase it for $5.
So If the fed money is earmarked with restrictions and they are not
being adhered to, then there should be investigations into this, until
then NO ONE but the centers and the government know for sure if
abortions are funded by the fed government. I can think of numerous
other "dislikable" things the government funds...so none of us REALLY
knows for sure if the abortions are indeed funded...DO WE?
|
| 20.3669 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Dec 07 1995 13:31 | 9 |
| Oh I agree with you Michelle. I was just commenting on the subtle
hypocrisy of those who want the government out of their bedrooms that's
all. I thin alot of military spending is white collar welfare just as
farm subsidies are. Since however abortion is a right in this country
and since prochoicers want private choice to be just that, it seems
disingenuous that you would advocate using federal funds to make
abortion available.
-Jack
|
| 20.3670 | what's this out-of-bedrooms stuff ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Dec 07 1995 13:33 | 4 |
|
Abortions are not performed in bedrooms, are they ?
bb
|
| 20.3671 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Dec 07 1995 13:38 | 19 |
| Fed money shouldn't be going to PP to begin with, for any reason.
State money, well, that is another story and is up to the state in
question.
Fed money should be going for national defense; the needs defined by
those in charge (whether we agree with it or not). This does not mean
that paying $500 for a hammer is acceptable in any way- this is
CRIMINAL mismanagement of the taxpayer's money, and should be harshly
dealt with.
Fed money should not be used to send troops to Bosnia, unless there are
critical national interests at stake.
Fed money should not be going to individuals via monthly check.
Fed money should not be going into the purses of corporations.
-steve
|
| 20.3672 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Thu Dec 07 1995 17:12 | 11 |
| Jack,
I thought you were one of the people who wanted women on welfare to
receive depo shots or norplant. Who do you think is going to take care
of the ENORMOUS cost of doing this? Norplant is about $600.00 in a
private Dr's office, 200-300 at PP. This doens't include minor stuff
like pap at the beginning, as well as blood work checking for liver
problems, regular bloodpressure monitoring, and treatment of any side
effects.
meg
|
| 20.3673 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Dec 07 1995 18:13 | 4 |
| Meg, I can't argue with you here. At the time it was only a suggestion
and the cost is a viable reason not to do it.
-Jack
|
| 20.3674 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Thu Dec 07 1995 19:14 | 8 |
| > of the ENORMOUS cost of doing this? Norplant is about $600.00 in a
> private Dr's office, 200-300 at PP. This doens't include minor stuff
I would be interested to know what the cost would be of doing Norplant
versus the cost of raising welfare kids. I'm willing to bet the
Norplant would be cost effective over the long haul.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3675 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Thu Dec 07 1995 20:53 | 9 |
| Roughly 40% of women who have used norplant have theirs removed before
the three - five years of usabilty due to side effects.
Given that some of the side effect can be fatal, one could wind up
raising orphans, also not cheap.
meg
|
| 20.3676 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Thu Dec 07 1995 21:00 | 15 |
| > Roughly 40% of women who have used norplant have theirs removed before
> the three - five years of usabilty due to side effects.
Ok, factor the 40% removal factor into the cost. How much a year does
it cost to raise a child? My ignorant little sister pegged it at
about $1500/year (grossly too low, but a number we'll work with).
Now let's take the $300 for Norplant (highend cost at PP), add in
another $300 for follow up visits (pure SWAG), add in the 40% removal
rate, and divide by 3 years (the low end of the effectivity rate): you
wind up with $280/year.
Which one is more cost effective?
-- Dave
|
| 20.3677 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Thu Dec 07 1995 21:23 | 3 |
| Dave,
No question,. however, cost of children is not something I figure in.
|
| 20.3678 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Thu Dec 07 1995 22:02 | 11 |
| > No question,. however, cost of children is not something I figure in.
Forgive me, but why not? If we're looking at taxpayer dollars and
trying to figure out if the Norplant is cost effective to the taxpayer,
then we need to look at the cost of children.
If you prefer, we can look at the cost of an average family on AFDC.
Possibly figure in just the additional cost of each additional child on
AFDC.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3679 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | runs with scissors | Thu Dec 07 1995 22:10 | 13 |
| Dave,
The median stay of a family on AFDC is 2.5 years in colrado. There is
recidivism, generally from a medical catastrophie, such as a seriously
ill child. Unfortunately there is little recourse for a woman with a
seriously ill child and no insurance than to fall back onto AFDC. the
family leave act doewn't help out when you have no resources and you
know something odd? All the people I have known in the last few years
who declared bankrupcy did it largely because of medical bills.
But health care reform is something for another topic.
meg
|
| 20.3680 | yet another House-Senateconference | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Dec 08 1995 12:14 | 14 |
|
Yesterday the Senate passed its version of the ban on partial birth
abortions (a rare procedure), 54-44, but it differs from the House
and will go to conference. Clinton says he hasn't yet made up his
mind on this - he said he would sign it if the exception for
protecting the mother's life (no such case of partial birth abortion
has been reported) meets his approval. I think this is one of the
points that are different - the House said something about it being
used as a defense, the Senate had some other language. The bill
defines a crime for doctors (up to 2 years in jail), not women.
By the way, there are numerous crimes for doctors already, but they
are rarely enforced or cases even reported.
bb
|
| 20.3681 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Fri Dec 08 1995 17:47 | 82 |
| The conspiracy investigations continue. What are they hiding?
DougO
-----
AP 25 Nov 95 19:17 EST V0333
Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Abortion Foe Back In Jail
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An antiabortion activist refused to testify under a
grant of immunity Tuesday before a federal grand jury investigating
whether there is a conspiracy behind abortion clinic violence, her
associates said.
She was returned to jail for contempt of court.
Four men, including three other abortion opponents, did testify before
the grand jury in suburban Alexandria, Va., according to Patrick
Mahoney, executive director of the Christian Defense Coalition. The
coalition, an antiabortion group, protested against the grand jury
outside the courthouse.
Despite a court order protecting her from prosecution, Cheryl
Richardson, of Arnold, Md., told the grand jury she would not answer
questions "as a matter of conscience," Mahoney said.
He said Richardson was allowed by prosecutors to read a short statement
in which she denied protecting anyone or having anything to hide. "We
applaud her. We have long contended this grand jury is just a political
witch hunt intended to keep the pro-choice movement, who are among
President Clinton's biggest supporters, happy," Mahoney said.
Mahoney said his information came from those who had spoken with
Richardson after the closed grand jury session. Mahoney's account was
confirmed by Jayne Bray, who spoke with Richardson after she appeared.
Mrs. Bray is the wife of Richardson's pastor, Michael Bray, an
antiabortion activist in Bowie, Md.
Attorney General Janet Reno ordered an investigation into a possible
conspiracy in the summer of 1994 after an abortion doctor and his
unarmed escort were shot to death in Pensacola, Fla.
A Justice Department official, who demanded anonymity, said Richardson
was held in contempt of court and jailed on Monday by U.S. District
Judge Leonie Brinkema when she announced her intention to refuse to
testify. She had been granted immunity because she initially refused to
answer questions last March. Mahoney said Richardson declined to
answer questions about her former fiance, another antiabortion
activist, Andrew Cabot of New Hampshire.
Early this year, Cabot, a frequently arrested abortion protester in New
Hampshire, called John C. Salvi "a hero." Salvi is charged with killing
two people and wounding five in shootings last December at two suburban
Boston abortion clinics and shooting into a Norfolk, Va., clinic
shortly thereafter.
"This is going to be, hopefully, the beginning of the war, and we'll
win because we're right, and we'll once again have godly laws in our
land," Cabot said after the Boston and Norfolk shootings.
Richardson, a regular protester at the Gynecare clinic in Severna Park,
Md., has been arrested at clinic blockades sponsored by Operation
Rescue in Buffalo, N.Y., in the spring of 1992 and in Wichita, Kan., in
1991, according to Mahoney, who was with Operation Rescue during those
years. "This woman has never been charged with any violence," Mahoney
said.
Richardson could be held in jail until she testifies or until the end
of the grand jury's term, now set for March 26, Mahoney said. He said
his group was collecting donations to help pay Richardson's expenses
and support her mother while Richardson is in jail.
The grand jury heard testimony from John Stetzer of Williamsburg, Va.,
John Witte of Houston, and Clifford Gannett of Bowie, Md., Mahoney
said. He identified Stetzer as a regular antiabortion protester and
said Gannett is an Operation Rescue leader from this area and Witte is
with Operation Rescue in Houston. He did not know the fourth man who
testified.
Mahoney said he expects the grand jury to issue indictments, but
Justice Department officials refused to discuss that possibility.
|
| 20.3682 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Dec 10 1995 03:17 | 79 |
| Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Action League (NARAL), said at a Nov. 7 press conference, "These experts
have made it very clear that the fetus undergoes demise before the [partial
birth abortion] procedure begins. And because of the anesthesia, which is,
you know, something like 50 to 100 times what a fetus can withstand,
because it's given according to the weight of the woman."
Dead wrong, according to Dr. Norig Ellison, president of the American
Society of Anesthesiologists, whose testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee follows:
Statement of Norig Ellison, M.D.
President, American Society of Anesthesiologists
Before the Committee on the Judiciary,
United States Senate
November 17, 1995
Chairman Hatch, members of the Committee. My name is Norig Ellison, M.D. I
am the President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), a
national professional society consisting of about 32,000 anesthesiologists
and other scientists engaged or specially interested in the medical
practice of anesthesiology. I have previously served ASA in a variety of
capacities, including serving as its Vice-President for Scientific Affairs
for three years. I am also Professor and Vice-Chair of the Department of
Anesthesiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in
Philadelphia, and am a staff anesthesiologist at the Hospital of the
University of Pennsylvania. I am a Diplomate of the American Board of
Anesthesiology.
I appreciate your allowing me to testify before the Committee on such short
notice, and I will be very brief. I appear here today for one purpose, and
one purpose only: to take issue with the testimony of James T. McMahon,
M.D., before a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives last June.
As I understand it, that subcommittee was considering legislation banning
"partial birth" abortions, apparently the same issue now before this
Committee.
According to his written testimony, of which I have a copy, Dr. McMahon
stated that anesthesia given the mother as part of the procedure eliminates
any pain to the fetus, and that a medical coma is induced in the fetus,
causing a "neurological fetal demise", or-- in lay terms-- "brain death".
I believe this statement to be entirely inaccurate. I am deeply concerned,
moreover, that the widespread publicity given to Dr. McMahon's testimony
may cause pregnant women to delay necessary and perhaps life-saving medical
procedures, totally unrelated to the birthing process, due to
misinformation regarding the effect of anesthetics on the fetus.
The fact is that when general anesthesia is administered to the mother,
only a portion of that anesthetic reaches the fetus-- the amount varying
depending on the type of anesthetic; anesthetics administered regionally do
not reach the fetus. As a result, many pregnant women-- currently totally
over 50,000 each year in this country-- are safely anesthetized without ill
effects to mother or fetus.
Although it is certainly true that some general analgesic medications given
to the mother will reach the fetus and perhaps provide some pain relief, it
is equally true that pregnant women are routinely heavily sedated during
the second or third trimester for the performance of a variety of necessary
surgical procedures, with absolutely no adverse effect on the fetus, let
alone death or "brain death." In my medical judgment, it would be
necessary-- in order to achieve "neurological demise" of the fetus in a
"partial birth" abortion-- to anesthetize the mother to such a degree as to
place her own health in serious jeopardy.
I have not spoken with one anesthesiologist who agrees with Dr. McMahon's
conclusion, and in my judgment, it is contrary to scientific fact. It
simply must not be allowed to stand.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that ASA's House of Delegates has
taken no position on the appropriateness of any abortion procedure,
including the type under consideration here today, and I do not appear to
speak for or against the proposed legislation before the Committee. We at
ASA have nonetheless felt it our responsibility as physicians specializing
in the provision of anesthesia care to seek every available forum in which
to contradict Dr. McMahon's testimony. Only in that way, we believe, can we
provide assurance to pregnant women that they can undergo necessary
surgical procedures safely, both for mother and unborn child.
|
| 20.3683 | Boston Globe, Dec. 9. 1995 pg. 1,12 | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot. | Mon Dec 11 1995 15:10 | 109 |
| Abortion clinic's testing probed
By Patricia Nealon and Judy Rakowsky
GLOBE STAFF
The owner of the state's largest chain of abortion clinics is under
investigation for allegedly rigging ultrasound tests in order to have women
undergo more expensive - and possibly riskier - abortions, according to
sources.
The FBI and Brookline police searched the Brookline offices of Repro
Associates on Nov. 30, seizing medical records and documents as part of an
ongoing criminal investigation of Dr. Howard J. Silverman, owner of the
clinic.
Silverman did not return phone messages left at the clinic yesterday.
The investigation, believed to be in its preliminary stages, is focusing on
whether ultrasounds were falsified in order to charge higher rates for
procedures performed in more advanced stages of pregnancy.
Investigators are also examining whether Silverman followed through and
performed the more invasive and expensive procedures required for late-term
abortions.
US Attorney Donald K. Stern declined comment. FBI spokesman Peter Ginieres
said he could not confirm or deny any search or investigation of Repro
Associates.
Silverman, who also runs for-profit abortion clinics in Hyannis, New Bedford
and Shrewsbury, has been a controversial figure among abortion providers. In
1984, the Board of Registration in Medicine disciplined him for sexual
misconduct with an 18-year-old patient.
As a result, Silverman's admitting privileges at five Boston area hospitals-
Brigham and Women's, Children's, New England Baptist, Newton-Wellesley and
Hahnermann - were revoked and have not been reinstated. Silverman must rely on
colleagues to admit patients to hospitals in case of emergencies.
"There is an amazing amount of controversy surrounding his clinic and his
practice," said Nicki Nichols Gamble, president of Planned Parenthood League
of Massachusetts, which operates nonprofit health clinics in Brookline and
Worcester that perform abortions.
Unlike the 30 hospitals and nonprofit clinics that perform abortions in
Massachusetts, Silverman's facilities are not licensed by the state because
legally they are doctors' offices, not clinics.
Thus Silverman is not required to provide annual statistics to the state
Department of Public Health detailing the number of abortions and at what
point in pregnancies they were performed. And, unlike licensed facilities, is
is not required to have a written agreement with a hospital or an ambulance
service in case of emergencies.
Also, as unlicensed facilities, Silverman's clinics are not eligible for
Medicaid reimbursement.
Silverman's facilities are believed to perform about 10,000 abortions a year,
about a third of the 35,000 or so abortions performed in Massachusetts each
year.
The earlier in a pregnancy an abortion is performed, the easier, safer and
cheaper it is. A source said that firs-trimester abortions performed at Repro
Associates, as elsewhere, involve suctioning the uterus.
The procedure takes about five minutes and cost between $300 and $500,
depending on the type of anesthesia used, the source said.
But after 14 weeks, the procedure gets more complicated and costly. A woman's
cervix is dilated slowly overnight and when she returns the next day, the
fetus is removed by suctioning. The uterus is then scraped with a spoon-shaped
instrument.
Ultrasound is used to determine the age of the fetus, and the cost of the
abortion goes up depending on its age. "The ultrasound is important because
the procedure gets more expensive every single week beyond 14 weeks," a source
said.
At 14 weeks, an abortion at Repro costs about $650 to $700, a source said,
compared to as much as $2,100 at 22 weeks.
While it is not uncommon for women to miscalculate how far along their
pregnancies are, it would be highly unusual that a medical professional would
"always find that women are three weeks further along," a source said.
IN 1984, Silverman was placed on probation by the medical board for three
years for putting his mouth on a patient's breast. He was ordered to undergo
psychotherapy and was not allowed. to examine patients without a third party
being present. His medical license was not suspended, however.
Since 1985, Silverman has been the subject of five complaints to the Board of
Registration, all of which were dismissed at the early stage of investigation
before reaching a full board.
In 1985, a complaint was filed against Silverman alleging substandard care by
a woman who charged that her abortion was incomplete. The complaint was
dismissed after an initial committee screening, before reaching the full
board.
Four other complaints ended with the same result. In 1989 and 1990,
complaints alleging professional misconduct were filed by anti-abortion
protesters who tangled with Silverman outside his Cape Cod clinic. The
complaints were dismissed.
A 1990 complaint alleging false advertising and an anonymous complaint in
1992 alleging that Silverman conducted an improper breast exam were also
dismissed before reaching the full board, according to documents on file with
the Board of Registration in Medicine.
|
| 20.3684 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Dec 17 1995 01:57 | 113 |
| The following is a letter written by a reader to the Editor of the Chicago
Sun-Times, Chicago, Illinois:
Dear Sirs:
Recently at the hospital where I am a physician, I received an unusual request:
a fourteen-year-old girl, a week-and-a-half short of being five-months
pregnant, had changed her mind about having an abortion. Instead of keeping her
third and final appointment at the nearby Albany abortion clinic, she asked if
I could remove the laminaria which had been inserted at her previous clinic
appointments.
From a telephone conversation with an employee of the Albany clinic I soon
learned that the operative procedure at the clinic had been performed by a
person with neither a medical degree nor a medical license. Moreover, from the
young girl herself I learned that at the clinic she had been given
tetracycline, an antibiotic that is contraindicated in pregnancy because of its
harmful effect on the baby's tooth enamel. This medication had been prescribed
even though a woman has a legal right to change her mind about an abortion up
till the last moment.
The purpose of the laminaria insertion at the clinic was to prepare the
fourteen-year-old girl for a "dilatation and extraction" abortion in which the
pre-term infant is delivered body first, still alive, then killed while the
head is still in the womb by thrusting an instrument into the base of the
infant's skull. Yes, this is legal in the State of Illinois. Roe vs. Wade
permits mid-and late-term abortions as long as the viable infant is killed
before its head is delivered. During the procedure the pre-term infant
displays the syrnptoms of pain reported in the July 9, '94 issue of the British
medical journal Lancet.
Although no parental consent had been required for this fourteen-year-old to
initiate the risky mid-term abortion, nevertheless, ironically, her parents had
to accompany her to the hospital where I work to give their consent to the
removal of the laminaria from their daughter. Neither the medical facility
which originally referred the fourteen-year-old to the Albany clinic, nor the
Albany clinic itself had informed the parents that their daughter was pregnant
or that a mid-term abortion was being planned. The abortion was to have been
paid for with an "abortion fund" coming apparently from Planned Parenthood
donations. The parents, both working people, thanked me repeatedly for agreeing
to undo the abortionist's preliminary operative work.
The attempt to abort this young girl at the Albany clinic without her parents'
knowledge or consent, although legal, violates all medico-ethical standards of
full disclosure and informed consent. Can a panicky fourteen-year-old under
intense emotional duress be mentally capable of weighing the serious immediate
and long-term risks of an abortion? Obviously not. Under the best of
circumstances fourteen-year-olds tend to give the immediate present undue
weight. Will a fourteen-year-old overwhelmed by her present predicament
sufficiently weigh the impact of an abortion on her chance of getting breast
cancer before the age of 45? According to the recent National Institute of
Cancer Study, with an abortion her chance will be 50% if she has no family
history of breast cancer, but 100% if she does have such a history. Will a
fourteen-year-old even know her family medical history? So young a girl in so
stressful a situation, and perhaps ignorant of her family medical history, can
in no way be said to have given true consent. Who made the decision for her
then? The abortionist: a person who stands to make a monetary profit from the
decision. And the staff member of the referring medical facility: a person who
perhaps receives solicitations from the abortionist, and possibly gifts in
return for referrals.
At the Albany clinic this pregnant fourteen-year-old was furthermore offered no
concrete alternative to the abortion, although such an alternative was readily
available as she discovered when she later went to nearby St. Mary of Nazareth
Hospital. This hospital has a program which offers material assistance and
donated physician time to expectant mothers in the situation this young girl
was in. It would have been easy enough for the Albany clinic personnel to have
mentioned the availability of this program a few blocks away. But they did not,
and had it not been for a pro-life sidewalk counselor, this young girl would
never have learned that such a program was so readily available to her.
How has it come about in the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois that
distressed young girls are allowed to be exploited by abortion entrepreneurs
who flaunt standard medico-legal ethics regarding full disclosure and informed
consent, and who perform risky medical procedures without a medical license?
And why is the current absence of inspection of abortion clinics by the Chicago
Health Department, and the current laxity of regulation of abortion clinics by
the State of Illinois considered a benefit to women and their babies?
Obviously it is a benefit chiefly to the abortion entrepreneurs, who, grossing
three times as much as an obstetrician, are the better enabled to line their
pockets under the cloak of "privacy."
What currently goes on in Chicago's abortion mills is unconscionable. The
parents of a girl under 18 are much more likely to know their family medical
history than she is. I therefore suggest that prompt action be taken at the
highest levels not only to enforce existing laws requiring a medical license to
perform operative procedures, but also to enact laws requiring 1) parental
notification in the case of minors seeking abortion, and 2) higher standards of
full disclosure to the mother regarding risks both to herself and the baby.
Sincerely,
George F. Dietz, M.D., A.B.F.P.
P.S. January 10, 1995
Since the events described in this letter took place, the young girl who was my
patient has delivered her baby. He was born nine-and-one-half weeks early
weighing only three pounds, a clinical sign that the young mother's cervix had
been damaged by the laminaria insertion. As of the date I write the infant is
still hospitalized.
Once a woman's cervix has been damaged any future children she may conceive
will be at risk of neurological impairment resulting from premature
birth. Higher rates of neurologically-impaired infants are already showing up
among populations which have higher rates of abortion. This indicates that a
substantial number of women who undergo laminaria insertion sustain cervical
damage, although they will not learn of the damage until later, perhaps many
years later, when they attempt to carry a child to term. All persons in a
position of public authority must therefore ask themselves if it is a wise
social policy for the U. S. to permit medically-contra-indicated surgery which
eventually results in the births of substantial numbers of
neurologically-handicapped infants.
|
| 20.3685 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Dec 19 1995 17:29 | 1 |
| John, you're not showing much tolerance here!
|
| 20.3686 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Wed Dec 20 1995 10:09 | 56 |
| Sad story, but one which does need some corrections,
1. The consent form for an abortion clearly state that once a
laminaria has been inserted the abortion has started. Laminaria is
used in preference to dialation points because it is much less likely
to cause permanent damage to the cervix in the early stages of
dialation. Once a cervix begins dialating for any reason, it generally
doesn't reverse the dialation until the pregnancy is ended, by either
delevery of an infant or termination of the pregnancy. It is
surprising that she managed to carry another couple of months, and one
has to wonder what life endangering drugs they used to prevent pre-term
labor to this point.
2. Because at the point that a laminaria is introduced, the abortion
has begun, and because a dialating cervix increases the risk of
infection, and because clamydia and several other STD's that teens are
likely to have are penicillin-resistant, tetracycline is the antibiotic
of choice to avoid a uterine infection.
3. The breastcancer/abortion connection has not been throughoughly
studied. While there does appear to be anectdotal evidence with the
termination of a first pregnancy and later breast cancers, there is
also anectdotal evidence that full-term pregnancies before 18, early
onset of menstrual periods, lack of breast feeding or breastfeeding for
only a few weeks, and early menopause have also been connected. All of
the studies to date, have been done with interviews of women in cancer
clinics, not with long-term studies from reproductive clinics. It is
agreed by all researcher that further studies are needed.
4. I have volunteered at several clinics. While not required,
parental and/or parter's involvement in the decision to carry to term
or to abort is strongly encouraged. Counselors stress all decisions
annd consequences of same. However a teen who is frightened of her
parents may make decisions without listening to full input. Additional
counseling is given before the laminaria is inserted, along with
stressing that the abortion has started at the point of insertion. A
trained Nurse-practitioner generally performs the insertion, as most
Dr's who perform abortions are now circuit riders and are in the clinic
on the day of abortions, not on a daily basis.
5. For those who don't know what laminaria is, it is a kind of seaweed
which expands when it comes into contact with fluids. When it is
inserted it is the approximate diameter of a matchstick, however in the
next 6 hours it expands to the diameter of a finger and continues
expansion until removed. While dialation is slower and more gentle
than using the standard points, and less likely to cause cervical
tearing, cramps do accompany the dialation, just as they do whenever
the cervix is dialated. In some cases an irritated cervix will cause
uterine contrations. laminaria has been used on its own to cause
enough uterine disruption to cause the fetus to be expelled on the
body's own. However, a d&c, d&s, or d&x is usually performed
afterwards, even in the case of spontaneous miscarriages to make sure
all products of conception are out of the body to reduce the risk of
infection and hemorrage.
|
| 20.3687 | Wot a suprise... | CHEFS::ROBINSONP | | Wed Dec 20 1995 12:05 | 5 |
| Interesting: I come back here after a year or so of not reading notes &
lo & behold this is still kicking around.....
Pious, guys, the tone is still pious...
Pierre
|
| 20.3688 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Sparky Doobster | Wed Dec 20 1995 12:11 | 3 |
|
Pierre, we missed you so.
|
| 20.3689 | economy with words | CHEFS::ROBINSONP | | Wed Dec 20 1995 13:20 | 1 |
| Yup.....
|
| 20.3690 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Wed Dec 20 1995 14:15 | 1 |
| Pierre, glad to see you are still your cheery self. Welcome back!
|
| 20.3691 | Elvis has left the building.... | CHEFS::ROBINSONP | | Wed Dec 20 1995 14:59 | 5 |
| In the words of the king:" Thank you, thankuverymuch"
I shall try to bring my bitter & twisted approach back to the box on a
regular basis....
Pierre
|
| 20.3692 | Topaz wannabe??? | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot. | Wed Dec 20 1995 15:24 | 4 |
|
>I shall try to bring my bitter & twisted approach back to the box on a
>regular basis....
|
| 20.3693 | .....er??... | CHEFS::ROBINSONP | | Wed Dec 20 1995 16:00 | 1 |
| "Topaz wannabe???"
|
| 20.3694 | Notes>dir/author=topaz *.* | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot. | Wed Dec 20 1995 16:15 | 3 |
|
You'll get the picture....
|
| 20.3695 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | pack light, keep low, move fast, reload often | Wed Dec 20 1995 16:23 | 2 |
| Next thing you know, folx will be reporting Topaz sightings at K-Mart
and Burger King.
|
| 20.3696 | And in Ohio?? | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot. | Wed Dec 20 1995 16:42 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.3697 | I hope not. | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Dec 20 1995 17:24 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.3698 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Dec 20 1995 18:17 | 61 |
| Alan Keyes: On Abortion and Euthanasia
The assertion of a right to abortion epitomizes the corrupt concept of
freedom that has tragically -- and, we may hope, temporarily, achieved
ascendancy in our times.
If the Declaration of Independence states our creed, there can be no right
to abortion, since it means denying the most fundamental right of all to
human offspring in the womb. One human being has the right to take the life
of another only in defense of his own life or when, through acts of war, an
aggressor forfeits his immunity from harm. This means that abortion
involves the unjust taking of a human life. Medical procedures resulting
in fetal loss, except as a collateral and unintended consequence of efforts
to save the mother's physical life, are therefore impermissable. The mere
fact that the individual in the womb is wholly in its mother's physical
power and completely dependent upon her for sustenance gives her no right
whatsoever with respect to its life, since the mere possession of physical
power can never confer such a right. Might does not make right. Abortion
is, therefore, a breach of the fundamental tenets of our public moral
crreed.
Some people, of course, assert that human beings have the right to draw the
line to determine which human offspring have rights we must respect -- and
which do not. If we accept this view, we utterly vitiate the doctrine of
human rights presented in the Declaration of Independence. According to
that doctrine, the laws of God command respect for the rights of all human
beings.
But if human beings can arbitrarily decide who is human and who is not, this
command has no force or effect. Whenever we wished to deny someone's human
rights, we could deny that person's humanity and escape the force of the
command. So, when whites wished to enslave blacks, they denied their
humanity, and so construed the right to hold slaves as a property right. To
avoid this absurdity and the injustices that follow from it, we must
acknowledge that God has drawn the line that separates human from non-human
life, and human beings have no choice but to respect His will.
The Declaration of Independence also clearly indicates how we can recognize
this line, since it states plainly that we are all created equal, which
means that the criterion of our humanity must be such as to provide no
grounds for invidious distinctions between one human being and another.
Only one criterion meets this requirement, i.e., that we are all of equal
parentage. Because our parents were human, we are human. After
conception, life in the womb is in this respect no different than life
outside the womb. We are, therefore, obliged to treat the human being,
once conceived, with the same respect that we demand for ourselves.
As for the so-called "right to suicide" and related practices, such as
euthanasia, whatever emotional arguments we make on their behalf, they
represent a violation of the Declaration of Independence's principles. Our
rights, including the right to life, are unalienable. We, therefore, do not
have the right to destroy or surrender them. Now, if we kill ourselves or
consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our right
to life. We act unjustly. We usurp the authority that belongs solely to
the Creator, and thus we deny the transcendent basis of our claim to human
rights.
Made available for posting by David Quackenbush
National Pro-Life Leadership Coordinator
The ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT '96 Committee
(the above should not be construed to constitute endorsement of any candidate)
|
| 20.3699 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | RIP Amos, you will be missed | Thu Dec 21 1995 11:13 | 53 |
|
Pro-lifer refuses to talk to get Christmas at home
From today's Washington Times
A pro-life activist who has spent 24 days in jail for refusing to
testify before a federal grand jury rejected a government offer
yesterday to set her free before Christmas if she answers questions.
Cheryl Richardson, 33, was brought before U.S. District Judge Leonie M.
Brickema and during a 30-minute closed hearing told the judge she still
will not discuss pro-lifers and their activities. It was the fourth
time Miss. Richardson refused to testify, despite a grant of immunity
from prosecution.
Judge Brickema "gave me the opportunity to speak, but I told her I
couldn't do it," Miss Richardson said as she was taken from the federal
courthouse in Alexandria to her cell in the Alexandria Detention
Center.
Judge Brickema ordered Miss Richardson, of Arnold, Md., jailed Oct 27
for civil contempt of court. She is the first pro-lifer to be jailed
for refusing to testify and could remain in custody up to 18 months,
when the grand jury's term expires.
Mathew T. Foley, Miss Richardson's attorney, said the hearing was held
on a motion from the government in an attempt to change her minds so
she could be home for Christmas. Because the grand jury has recessed
for the holidays, he said, prosecutors offered to let her testify
before a court reporter.
Attorney General Janet Reno launched the Justice Dept's inquiryinto the
pro-life movemnet after the 1993 shootings of abortion doctors in
Pensacola, Fl., and Wichita, Ka.
Miss Richardson said the justice dept believes there is a conspiracy
within the pro-life movement to incite violence, but she has testified
she knows of no criminal activity.
"I have answered the U.S. attorney's questions about no knowledge of a
conspiracy to commit acts of supposed violence at abortion clinics,"
she said. "Therefore, since they continue to hold me for contempt, I
must conclude the federal government is the one concocting a conspiracy
that doesn't exist."
Miss Richardson said she believes that Judge Brickema wanted to release
her but would only do so if she agreed to testify. "She said, 'You
need to go home to your family'. I think maybe that was her way of
saying you need to get out of here." Miss Richardson said. "I think
they may be under some pressure".
She said the judge gave her 15 minutes to talk alone in the courtroom
with her attorney about changing her mind.
|
| 20.3700 | | BIGQ::SILVA | EAT, Pappa, EAT! | Thu Dec 21 1995 12:13 | 1 |
| aborted snarf!
|
| 20.3701 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Dec 21 1995 12:37 | 3 |
| SIGN ZEE PAPERZ!!!
(Zigfried voice)
|
| 20.3702 | But seriously, | CHEFS::ROBINSONP | | Thu Dec 21 1995 13:34 | 5 |
| So J.C. (apt initials):
Do you speak for the masses, or are you a voice crying in the
wilderness do you think?
Pierre
|
| 20.3703 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot. | Thu Dec 21 1995 13:38 | 5 |
|
re: .3699
Bravo for her!!!
|
| 20.3705 | Stunning! | CHEFS::ROBINSONP | | Thu Dec 21 1995 13:49 | 3 |
| <=== so I take it you advocate extreme violence ??
P.
|
| 20.3706 | | CHEFS::ROBINSONP | | Thu Dec 21 1995 13:51 | 3 |
| Mr Covert ....
P
|
| 20.3707 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Dec 21 1995 14:56 | 15 |
| the dearly departed, in response to .3695:
It should come as no surprise that the so-called (or, as Prince Pompous would
say, "soi-dit") thought of certain scumsuckers turn quickly, as if by
uncontrollable synapse, to that which epitomizes mediocrity, that which
epitomizes vulgarity ... frankly, that which epitomizes Things American. The
suggestion of Scoundrel McBride -- and it can now be told that this creature of
misery was once a counter-spy for Woolworth's -- that this typist would be
caught dead mingling with others than Those Who Count has credibility equal to
a tv snow forecast, or to a smile from RMN.
Warm regards,
--Mr Topaz
|
| 20.3708 | absoluteamont! | CHEFS::ROBINSONP | | Thu Dec 21 1995 15:28 | 3 |
| <==What he said!!!
Pierre
|
| 20.3709 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Rhubarb... celery gone bloodshot. | Thu Dec 21 1995 16:03 | 5 |
|
re: .3707
Is he gone yet???
|
| 20.3710 | | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DIGITAL=DEC; Reclaim the Name&Glory! | Fri Dec 22 1995 00:29 | 3 |
| .3707 Aah, Ladye Di, thankee kindly for the relay job, my bile-ductz
were crufting up, but your liquor of the Gods hath flushed them free.
|
| 20.3711 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Too many politicians, not enough warriors. | Wed Jan 24 1996 18:31 | 12 |
|
Clinic protest ban overruled
VANCOUVER - A British Columbia court overturned yesterday a law banning
protests at abortion clinics, ruling the bill violated protesters'
rights to freedom of expression. Provincial Court Judge Edmond Cronin
made the ruling in dismissing charges against anti-abortion protester
Maurice Lewis. Lewis was the first person charged under a provincial
law which went into effect in September. Cronin said the government had
gone too far by banning peaceful protests, prayer, carrying signs and
sidewalk counseling outside abortion clinics. (Reuters)
|
| 20.3712 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jan 25 1996 12:37 | 8 |
| FLASH:
A Clinton Administration probe to determine whether there is a nationwide
conspiracy against abortion clinics has ended.
A federal grand jury impanelled in 1994 has completed its work and found
no evidence of any conspiracy.
|
| 20.3713 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | be nice, be happy | Thu Jan 25 1996 13:11 | 14 |
|
And there was a woman who spent 67 days in jail here in Maryland
because she wouldn't disclose names of people in pro-life
organizations. She testified that she knows of no conspiracy, but she
wouldn't give names of her friends. The judge put her in jail for
contempt. She was treated roughly by authorities. They let her go
yesterday without any reason for her release. This investigation was
put into place by Janet Reno.
You vill talk,
|
| 20.3714 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty! | Thu Jan 25 1996 14:24 | 1 |
| Scum bumbs. I hope she sues!
|
| 20.3715 | sweeping the violence under the rug, John? | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Jan 26 1996 02:27 | 7 |
| its a trick. the kinds of idiots who have and will continue to
conspire to commit violence against abortion providers will get
careless and they'll get caught. So the DoJ says there's no 'nationwide'
conspiracy. Let's not forget that several people have been convicted
of conspiracy in specific cases.
DougO
|
| 20.3716 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty! | Fri Jan 26 1996 12:14 | 12 |
| DougO:
Ya know, although I disagree with alot of the driving force behind
abortion rights, I do understand the position. What I don't understand
DougO is this. Anybody who goes in and blindly shoots workers at a
health center or clinic should be subjected to the penalties of the
law. But the question still remains unanswered...what the hell makes
us as a society any more virtuous than this clown who went on a
rampage. I hear from both sides how deplorable abortion is, but I've
learned that rhetoric is cheap!
-Jack
|
| 20.3717 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jan 26 1996 12:41 | 4 |
|
>but I've learned that rhetoric is cheap!
So he went out and bought two truckloads.
|
| 20.3718 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty! | Fri Jan 26 1996 12:50 | 4 |
| That's beside the point. I realize he's a kook. Right now I'm talking
about our virtue or lack thereof, not his.
|
| 20.3719 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Jan 26 1996 12:51 | 2 |
|
.3717 aagagagagag! ;>
|
| 20.3720 | | DECLNE::REESE | My REALITY check bounced | Fri Jan 26 1996 13:08 | 4 |
| Jack,
Are you saying I'm not virtuous because I'm pro-choice?
|
| 20.3721 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty! | Fri Jan 26 1996 13:33 | 13 |
| Karen, I'm asking us as a society to be honest with ourselves. You
will find that many pro choice people concur with prolifers that the
fetus is a human who hasn't reached personhood and therefore has not
been afforded the protections and rights under our government. I
believe these kinds of rights, ie the right to exist transcends any
written law we could ever put forward.
I didn't say we weren't virtuous. I am asking the question...what
right do we as a society to have a no flies on me mentality? What
makes us any less corrupt than the stalker who kills clinic workers
when we know darn well what we are doing?
-Jack
|
| 20.3722 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Fri Jan 26 1996 13:39 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.3721 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty!" >>>
| Karen, I'm asking us as a society to be honest with ourselves. You
| will find that many pro choice people concur with prolifers that the
| fetus is a human who hasn't reached personhood and therefore has not
| been afforded the protections and rights under our government. I
| believe these kinds of rights, ie the right to exist transcends any
| written law we could ever put forward.
Jack.... now you have confused me with this. You had stated something
earlier (might have been in CP) about how society is the gauge of what is law
or not. Now you seem to put God as the one who should be setting the laws.
Which is it? Please choose one, and stick with it. Thanks. :-)
Glen
|
| 20.3723 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty! | Fri Jan 26 1996 13:48 | 5 |
| Glen, I concede that point. What's good for the goose has to be good
for the gander. I guess I am asking society to search their conscience
just as you are asking society to search.
-Jack
|
| 20.3724 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Fri Jan 26 1996 13:54 | 4 |
|
To search? You've been saying they decide. I wonder about that because
I would think it is God who would decide for you.
|
| 20.3725 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Jan 26 1996 13:54 | 7 |
| >What makes us any less corrupt than the stalker who kills clinic workers
>when we know darn well what we are doing?
And some people wonder why the human condition seems to be deteriorating.
With this attitude it is obvious. Personal worth is nonexistent in normal people
who are convinced that they are no better than a "stalker who kills clinic
workers".
|
| 20.3726 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty! | Fri Jan 26 1996 13:59 | 15 |
| Tom:
What you just suggested is no more than a seered conscience. Avoid
identifying the good or bad we do lest we identify ourselves with the
wackos of the world.
It kind of reminds me of my mother n law when her husband died. She
sat in her chair and just kept saying, "It didn't happen...it didn't
happen....", over and over again. She was desparately trying to
convince herself of a dream that wasn't to be....the sobering reality.
Tom, the human condition isn't deteriorating. It has always been
deteriorated.
-Jack
|
| 20.3727 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Jan 26 1996 14:18 | 6 |
| Jack:
Your attitude of: people are bad, people are evil, only adds to low expectations.
To compare normal everyday people, who happen to believe in individual rights,
including the right to terminate a pregnancy, to stalkers and killers is
counterproductive to human welfare.
|
| 20.3728 | A sorry excuse. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Jan 26 1996 14:24 | 30 |
| I keep wondering how many more gyrations the pro-abortion segment of
society will go. I keep hearing so many of them, including our
illustrious First Lady, claim that they personally are opposed to
abortion, but would never impose their values on others. They then go
on to play word games about the fact that the baby isn't really a
person because it hasn't been born yet.
Well I find that people who are truly opposed to something tend to
speak out consistently and forcefully against whatever the activity is.
I wonder why this same trait, common in almost all other endeavors,
doesn't seem to apply here.
I think there are numerous other areas where we can apply the same
logic that the pro-abortion folks use and clearly identify the
hypocracy evident in their arguments. The whole support is that they
don't think the baby is really a person. Well, what happens if you
take a rather basic concept and apply to another area.
Let's take a really emotional example to prove a point. Assume a
rapist says that women aren't really people, for whatever reason, and
therefore the same protections don't apply to them. Would the same
pro-abortion folks say that they are opposed to rape, but wouldn't
force their values on someone else. I really don't think so. I'm sure
that they would attack the basic premise and then go from there. Well
the same is true about the abortion issue.
Pro-abortion people cling desarately to the "not a person" mantra to
lend credence to their position. Well, if that convenient dodge is
eliminated, what would the argument be. the same as the rapist.
|
| 20.3729 | Yawn, to borrow a word. | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Jan 26 1996 14:29 | 0 |
| 20.3730 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Fri Jan 26 1996 14:46 | 18 |
| RE: .3721
> You
> will find that many pro choice people concur with prolifers that the
> fetus is a human who hasn't reached personhood and therefore has not
> been afforded the protections and rights under our government.
Hmmm. I recall that one of the complaints against Hillary is that
she's trying to grant the rights of adults to children. Children who
are walking and talking now (as opposed to some future date) do NOT
currently have the same rights as adults.
If you want to grant rights to a person who doesn't exist yet, and you
want to be consistent, IMHO you'd have to grant all the rights of
adults to existing children first. I don't think this is what you
want.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3731 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Too many politicians, not enough warriors. | Fri Jan 26 1996 15:48 | 6 |
|
re: .3729
You know, you should... should get more sleep... honestly!!
|
| 20.3732 | Is human life inharently valuable? | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Jan 26 1996 19:39 | 10 |
| re: .3728
You can even go more basic than that. Is the unborn human? And, do
we, as a society, value human life? These are the basic questions, and
the answer I keep seeing is that we do not value ALL human life, only
that which we find value in.
-steve
|
| 20.3733 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Mon Jan 29 1996 13:15 | 21 |
| >Well I find that people who are truly opposed to something tend to
>speak out consistently and forcefully against whatever the activity is.
Yeah, like those who persecuted people for daring to suggest that
the earth is round. Someone said, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of
small minds". I would say that consistency and forcefulness by
themselves do indicate anything about the truthfulness or
reasonableness of an argument. They do, however, obviously impress
some people.
>You can even go more basic than that. Is the unborn human? And, do
>we, as a society, value human life?
And do we as a society value human rights?
The anti-choice crowd think they have more rights to the unborn than
do the pregnant women who are carrying the unborn. And they believe
women's rights to determine whether or not they are going to bear
children are secondary to their right to determine the same thing.
The anti-choice crowd is wrong.
|
| 20.3734 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Jan 29 1996 13:21 | 27 |
| 29 year old almost comatose quadraplegic woman in a nursing home in
Brighton, NY was raped in the facility last September and is now
pregnant, baby due in May if carried to term. ["Almost comatose" =
she apparently has some eye movement and reacts to pain stimuli.]
Some "officials" feel that the baby should be aborted due to the
circumstances of conception and the risk involved due to her health
condition. She breathes unassisted but takes nourishment through
a tube. She's been this way ever since an accident when she was
19.
Her parents, who, though divorced, are her legal guardians, are Roman
Catholic and claim that before the accident, the girl was pro-life,
as are they, and that the abortion should not be allowed.
I'm pro-choice, and BECAUSE of that, feel that the parents are in the
right in this case. She's unable to express her choice - we can only
assume what she might or might not want. They have needed to make all
of her choices for her for the past ten years, and have the right to
make the choice now.
For the "state" or "officials" to order an abortion in this case is just
as wrong and as ludicrous as it is for the "state" or "society" to decide
to prevent anyone from exercising their own choice.
|
| 20.3735 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Jan 29 1996 13:27 | 7 |
|
.3734 Marjorie disagrees with you, Jack. How unusual, eh? ;>
I agree that it should be the parents' decision and that they
seem to be making the right one.
|
| 20.3736 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Mon Jan 29 1996 13:34 | 3 |
| I agree that it's none of the state's business, assuming of course
that the girl's parents, not the state, are going to adopt and raise
the child.
|
| 20.3737 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Jan 29 1996 13:46 | 3 |
| Re: .3734
absolutely
|
| 20.3738 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 13:55 | 31 |
| re: 3733
> >You can even go more basic than that. Is the unborn human? And, do
> >we, as a society, value human life?
> And do we as a society value human rights?
Apparently you do, but only for certain humans.
> The anti-choice crowd think they have more rights to the unborn than
> do the pregnant women who are carrying the unborn.
This doesn't parse. We aren't talking about "rights to the unborn",
but the basic human right to life.
> And they believe
> women's rights to determine whether or not they are going to bear
> children are secondary to their right to determine the same thing.
Which is a more basic human right. The right to life, or the right to
end a pregnancy? Which should take precedence, life or death? Are we
a nation that values human life, or not? Are we a nation that values
an after-the-fact choice over the life of an unborn human?
> The anti-choice crowd is wrong.
A finely crafted and convincing argument. You nearly swayed me to the
pro-abortion camp with this one.
-steve
|
| 20.3739 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Mon Jan 29 1996 13:57 | 11 |
| > I agree that it's none of the state's business, assuming of course
> that the girl's parents, not the state, are going to adopt and raise
> the child.
Ah... so if the parents do what YOU WANT then the state should stay out
of it... but if they don't do what YOU WANT then the state should be
involved???
HA!
/scott
|
| 20.3740 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment vescimur. | Mon Jan 29 1996 13:57 | 10 |
| .3732
> do we, as a society, value human life?
SHOULD we? Consider an ancephalic fetus, one which will NEVER have a
thought of any kind, one that will NEVER live without the support of
machines. Is this human life? By your definition, I'll wager, it is.
But not by mine. To me, "human" means more than a mass of protoplasm
that happens to have been created by the fertilization of a human ovum
by a human sperm.
|
| 20.3741 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Mon Jan 29 1996 13:58 | 9 |
| > I agree that it's none of the state's business, assuming of course
> that the girl's parents, not the state, are going to adopt and raise
> the child.
BTW, considering the extreamly long waiting list to adopt US born babies,
I'd think that they would have no trouble in finding a loving home for
the little one.
/scott
|
| 20.3742 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Mon Jan 29 1996 13:59 | 10 |
| > SHOULD we? Consider an ancephalic fetus, one which will NEVER have a
> thought of any kind, one that will NEVER live without the support of
> machines. Is this human life? By your definition, I'll wager, it is.
> But not by mine. To me, "human" means more than a mass of protoplasm
so let's kill the mother while we are at it... I think she fits your
definition pretty well (don't know if she's on a machine or not, however)
/scott
|
| 20.3743 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment vescimur. | Mon Jan 29 1996 14:01 | 11 |
| .3739
> if the parents do what YOU WANT then the state should stay out
> of it... but if they don't do what YOU WANT then the state should be
> involved???
Not from where I stand. The state has ZERO business making such a
decision or imposing its will in such a matter. If the parents want
the baby to be born, that's their choice and I stick by it. If they
were not Roman Catholics and happened to believe it would be better to
abort the pregnancy, that'd still be their choice and I'd stick by it.
|
| 20.3744 | | SMURF::BINDER | Eis qui nos doment vescimur. | Mon Jan 29 1996 14:03 | 9 |
| .3742
Scott, the mother was at one time a fully functioning human. If she
were indeed brain-dead, I'd say she isn't anymore. But as long as
there is a glimmer of hope that she could be returned to consciousness,
she still qualifies as human.
My point was, and is, that possession of the human genome does not make
a human - it makes an animal that happens to possess the human genome.
|
| 20.3745 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Mon Jan 29 1996 14:06 | 18 |
| twit...
does a 4-week old fetus has a "glimmer of hope" that s/he will become
conscious??? I think much more than just a glimmer... do you still think
it'd be OK to abort that fetus?
You're just making up terms and special conditions so you can have your
way... all this "consciousness" crap.
> Scott, the mother was at one time a fully functioning human. If she
> were indeed brain-dead, I'd say she isn't anymore. But as long as
> there is a glimmer of hope that she could be returned to consciousness,
> she still qualifies as human.
>
> My point was, and is, that possession of the human genome does not make
> a human - it makes an animal that happens to possess the human genome.
/scott
|
| 20.3746 | | SMURF::BINDER | Manus Celer Dei | Mon Jan 29 1996 14:45 | 20 |
| .3745
> You're just making up terms and special conditions...
Not at all. Morally, I believe that aborting an embryo or fetus that
is not known to be catastrophically defective is reprehensible, even
if that embryo or fetus resulted from incest or rape.
Legally, I happen to believe in the First Amendment to the
Constitution, which prohibits laws based on religion. Since there are
differences of opinion between different religions (or lack of
religion) regarding when an embryo or fetus becomes human, the United
States government is legally prohibited from passing laws prohibiting
abortion. It therefore becomes a matter of conscience for the
individuals involved in each separate case. If they choose to abort,
that's their right. If they choose not to, that is also their right.
In NEITHER case is it your right or mine to interfere in their
decision. We have a right to express our views, nothing more - and
"more" includes harassment of ANY kind. Visibly praying at an abortion
clinic is, in my mind, harassment.
|
| 20.3747 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Jan 29 1996 15:14 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.3741 by UHUH::MARISON "Scott Marison" >>>
| BTW, considering the extreamly long waiting list to adopt US born babies,
Errr...... all babies, or white babies. I think you might want to look
into this a bit.
|
| 20.3748 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:05 | 19 |
| you say:
> Not at all. Morally, I believe that aborting an embryo or fetus that
then say:
> Legally, I happen to believe in the First Amendment to the
> Constitution, which prohibits laws based on religion. Since there are
This is pure crap! Listen... above you give a moral opinion. I can't
tell from your moral opinion if it was based on religion or not... And
also, I know there are some "religions" which say it's OK to kill other
people. Does that mean it's impossible for the federal government to
have a law which prohibits murder??? No - we have those laws...
Your logic doesn't stand up! Given your "interpretation" of the 1st admendment
then virtually all laws would be prohibited!!!
/scott
|
| 20.3749 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:11 | 6 |
| re: .3740
It is disengenuous to bring up the extreme circumstance to support a
general argument.
-steve
|
| 20.3750 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:11 | 50 |
| >Which is a more basic human right. The right to life, or the right to
>end a pregnancy?
You are saying that if you are a pregnant woman, you have no right to
take the life of the fetus because you choose to not be pregnant.
So here are a couple of questions:
Does anybody have the right to take a life?
What about the state, in an execution or in a war?
Do I have the right to take a life in the process of defending myself
against an armed mugger?
Do I have the right to take a life in the process of defending someone
else against an armed mugger?
What if that was my intention, but the "mugger" turned out to be an
undercover cop, and the "victim" turned out to be a serial killer --
did I still have the right to take a life?
Do I have the right to take a life in the process of defending a loved
one against a state executioner?
If you say NO to all the above, then at least I'll give you credit for
being consistent. But if you say yes to some and no to others, then
you are simply hypocritical.
--------------
>Ah... so if the parents do what YOU WANT then the state should stay out
>of it... but if they don't do what YOU WANT then the state should be
>involved???
No, if the parents handle the responsibility that goes with their
decision to deliver the child, then I have no quarrel with them
whatsoever. But if they intend to deliver the child and leave it to
me and the rest of the taxpayers deal with the consequences, then
I and the rest of the taxpayers (the state) has a right to decide to
abort.
>BTW, considering the extreamly long waiting list to adopt US born babies,
>I'd think that they would have no trouble in finding a loving home for
>the little one.
That sounds just lovely -- once again provided the taxpayers do not get
stuck with the bills.
|
| 20.3751 | completely irrelevant | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:13 | 20 |
|
Religion ? Has nothing whatever to do with religion.
And the Constitution says no such thing as "prohibiting
laws based on religion" either, nor has it been so interpreted.
Not that it matters, as opposition to abortion requires no
religion whatever. There are complete atheist anti-abortionists,
although the majority are, of course, Catholics, due to the
Pope's ant-abortion stance.
I think you mistinterpret the "Free Exercise" clause, a common
beginner's error. Their faith does not protect Catholic use of
wine in their service from Prohibition. Their faith does not
protect Jews from animal-slaughtering laws. Their faith does not
protect Moslems from bigamy laws. Their faith does not protect
Hopi indians from drug laws. If you start a bank-robbing religion,
it will have no effect in a prosecution for bank robbery.
bb
|
| 20.3752 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:14 | 8 |
| re: .3746
The First Amendment does not forbid laws based on religion. The First
Amendment forbids the federal government to interfere with religion,
and to establish a "state" religion.
-steve
|
| 20.3753 | | SMURF::BINDER | Manus Celer Dei | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:14 | 12 |
| .3748
May I suggest you take a course in English such that you will learn to
distinguish ethics from religion? Murder is wrong because murder is
the killing of a KNOWN HUMAN PERSON. Abortion is killing, and while
your religion may tell you that it's wrong, the fact is that legally an
embryo or fetus is NOT a person. Your religion may tell you that it
is, but other religions say that it is not. No possible decision can
be made based on religion, which is why the framers of the Constitution
wisely disbarred the estabnlishment of any specific religion as the
state religion and thereby quite effectively prevented moralistic
theocrats like you from running everyone else's lives for them.
|
| 20.3754 | | SMURF::BINDER | Manus Celer Dei | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:16 | 7 |
| .3752
> The First Amendment does not forbid laws based on religion.
Any federal law based on the beliefs of a specific religion is
disallowed because to set up the legal framework on one religion is to
establish a de-facto state religion.
|
| 20.3755 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | be nice, be happy | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:21 | 40 |
| <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Soapbox. Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 20.3750 Abortion 3750 of 3753
RUSURE::GOODWIN "Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it?" 50 lines 29-JAN-1996 13:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anybody have the right to take a life?
Yes
What about the state, in an execution or in a war?
Yes
Do I have the right to take a life in the process of defending myself
against an armed mugger?
Yes
Do I have the right to take a life in the process of defending someone
else against an armed mugger?
Yes
What if that was my intention, but the "mugger" turned out to be an
undercover cop, and the "victim" turned out to be a serial killer --
did I still have the right to take a life?
No
Do I have the right to take a life in the process of defending a loved
one against a state executioner?
No
>If you say NO to all the above, then at least I'll give you credit for
>being consistent. But if you say yes to some and no to others, then
>you are simply hypocritical.
And you are simply full of crap. You see, you forget that the criminal
has done something that caused him/her to forfeit his/her life.
--------------
|
| 20.3756 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:22 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.3749 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>
| It is disengenuous to bring up the extreme circumstance to support a
| general argument.
Steve, how is that any different from the, "if it saves one life"
argument that many Christians bring up?
Glen
|
| 20.3757 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Mon Jan 29 1996 16:52 | 14 |
| RE: .3750
> But if they intend to deliver the child and leave it to
> me and the rest of the taxpayers deal with the consequences, then
> I and the rest of the taxpayers (the state) has a right to decide to
> abort.
I agree 100%. I also am willing to slightly extend the logic and make
the statement that the state should have a the right to force abortion
on women receiving welfare. If the woman is not going to take the
fiscal responsibility for their decision then they should forfeit their
right to that decision.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3758 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:04 | 62 |
| re: .3750 (these are all rehash, but I'll address a few)
> Does anybody have the right to take a life?
No one has the inalienable right to murder another human being.
> What about the state, in an execution or in a war?
Execution and war are much different than abortion. In the case of the
execution, the criminal has forfeit his own life by committing a crime
that, by law, is punishable by death. In the case of the fetus, there
is no crime committed by the fetus, and in 98% of all cases of
pregnancy, the fetus is there by invitation.
War is a different story altogether, and goes astray of the issue at
hand. I think the subject needs to be narrowed to 'innocent human
life', which parallels my points better. A right to life is
inalienable (granted by the Creator, according to the DoI), but YOU can
forfeit this right by your own actions. A fetus cannot do this, so
most of these questions you pose are irrelevant.
> Do I have the right to take a life in the process of defending myself
> against an armed mugger?
If your life is in danger, you have the right to defend it with
whatever means necessary. Your right to life comes into play, in this
instance. Do you have an inalienable right to kill your attacker? No.
If he dies, though, it is really his own fault, not yours (assuming
this was the only way to preserve your life). He forfeit his right
when infringing upon your right to life.
> If you say NO to all the above, then at least I'll give you credit for
> being consistent. But if you say yes to some and no to others, then
> you are simply hypocritical.
Of course, my whole point is based on how we, as a society, value human
life (speaking of INNOCENT human life, particularly). We currently value
some generic "choice" over innocent human life. We obfuscate the issues
by bringing in extreme examples, as well as deflecting away from the very
basic issue at hand. Is the fetus human? Do we wish, as a society, to
value human life above all else? The rest are just side issues- issues
that can be dealt with as exclusions in laws against abortion.
If we all can agree that abortion, in itself, is not a good thing, we
are on our way to discovering that the entire pro-abortion argument is
one that obfuscates away from the real issue at hand; and is in fact, based
entirely on the concept that the fetus is not human, thus is not
entitled to human rights. There simply is NO SUCH right as the "right"
to destroy one's child. There may be instances where it should be
permitted by the state, but these should be the exceptions, not the
rule. These few exceptions can be dealt with legally quite easily.
There is no need to keep all abortions legal due to this tiny minority
of cases.
I've noticed that no one has answered any of my question yet. Don't
think this has escaped my attention. 8^) It would seem that they are
being ignored, and the usual tactics of obfuscation with peripheral
(and basically unrelated, for the most part) questions is in play.
-steve
|
| 20.3759 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:06 | 9 |
| >And you are simply full of crap. You see, you forget that the criminal
>has done something that caused him/her to forfeit his/her life.
But how are you supposed to know all that? Interview both mugger and
muggee before deciding whom to aid?
Sounds like the only safe thing to do is not help anyone out, or even
if you survive the incident, you could still end up dead at the hands
of the state.
|
| 20.3760 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:08 | 6 |
| re: .3754
Federal laws, yes. You did not specify this in your previous note.
-steve
|
| 20.3761 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:09 | 4 |
| |the fetus is there by invitation...
now, is this a formal invitation sent through the male,
or, is it an informal one, ie, just a phone call?
|
| 20.3762 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | be nice, be happy | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:17 | 3 |
|
It's an up close and personal invite.
|
| 20.3763 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | be nice, be happy | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:20 | 10 |
|
RE: .3759 The instance given is not really worth commenting on since
it is not a common occurance. Has it ever happened? We had an
incident in the DC area where a cop shot another cop in a similar
situation, but I have not heard of a civilian involved in such an
incident in the 26 (or is it now 28) states where concealed carry is
legal.
Mike
|
| 20.3764 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:23 | 2 |
| you can't extend an invitation to a fetus!
|
| 20.3765 | ;^) | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:25 | 6 |
| > you can't extend an invitation to a fetus!
Well, I suppose you could ... not that the fetus would understand it
and don't expect it to RSVP (at least not in a reasonable time frame).
-- Dave
|
| 20.3766 | Lemon test | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:31 | 27 |
|
In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court synthesized its prior
decisions into a three-pronged test that centered around the
concept of neutrality first articulated in Everson v. Board of
Education (1947). They created the three-pronged so-called
"Lemon" test, in which to escape invalidation, governement action
must :
(1) have a secular purpose that neither endorses nor dissaproves
of religion
(2) have an effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
and (3) avoid creating a relationship between religion and
government that entangles either in the affairs of the other.
Roe v. Wade (1976) was not a religion case, and if it had been
argued on religious grounds, anti-abortion laws would still be
constitutional. It was a totally secular privacy case.
Outside the schools, the Court has been quite lenient about the
Lemon test. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) it allowed a nativity scene
on city property. In Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties
Union, it allowed a Menoarah. In both cases, they found a secular
purpose sufficient to pass the Lemon test. However, they have
ruled the opposite way in public schools, but not in public
universities. It is complex.
bb
|
| 20.3767 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:39 | 19 |
| >>Does anybody have the right to take a life?
>No one has the inalienable right to murder another human being.
Oh no you don't -- you changed the question in two different ways
before you answered it -- you naughty fellow, you.
>>What about the state, in an execution or in a war?
>Execution and war are much different than abortion. In the case of the
>execution, the criminal has forfeit his own life by committing a crime
>that, by law, is punishable by death.
So your answer is "yes". I thought so.
Which means that you don't have a problem with people taking lives.
The fact that you want people to use *your* definition of who can
take lives, whose lives can be taken, and under what circumstances,
is irrelevant to anything, unless you are Dictator of the Earth
for Life.
|
| 20.3768 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:56 | 14 |
| re: .3764
Certain behaviors are known to produce offspring. If such behavior is
engaged in and the result is a new human life, it is invitation by
default (you consciously decided to engage in behavior that, by design,
can produce offspring).
If your intent is not to procrate, there are certain ways you
can go about it, but the fact remains that birth control devices are
not 100%, and intentions are meaningless when the result of your own
willfull actions is a child.
-steve
|
| 20.3769 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Mon Jan 29 1996 17:58 | 1 |
| so the moral of the story is avoid dark caves.
|
| 20.3770 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 18:09 | 30 |
| re: .3767
> Oh no you don't -- you changed the question in two different ways
> before you answered it -- you naughty fellow, you.
And of course, you didn't twist my words below at all...nah...
> So your answer is "yes". I thought so.
The answer is "no". You are trying to create a parallel where none
exists. No individual has the inalienable "right" to take a life. The
state is not an individual. It is the state that you are dealing with in
your non-parallels of execution and war.
> Which means that you don't have a problem with people taking lives.
This is not consistent with what I have posted. See preceding
paragraph.
> The fact that you want people to use *your* definition of who can
> take lives, whose lives can be taken, and under what circumstances,
> is irrelevant to anything, unless you are Dictator of the Earth
> for Life.
Actaully, you have just described the pro-abortion argument. I merely
want to see laws that protect innocent human life...ALL of it, not just
that which is deemed of value by subjective opinion.
-steve
|
| 20.3771 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Jan 29 1996 18:28 | 7 |
|
Steve, have you skip .3756 because it hit a little too close to home?
Especially in this topic?
Glen
|
| 20.3772 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 29 1996 18:37 | 10 |
| >Their faith does not protect Catholic use of wine in their service from
>Prohibition.
Oh, but it did. Wine continued to be used in celebrations of the Eucharist
throughout prohibition.
Probably more because of the political power of the Episcopal Church rather
than the Roman Catholic Church.
/john
|
| 20.3773 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Too many politicians, not enough warriors. | Mon Jan 29 1996 18:55 | 13 |
|
re: .3747
> Errr...... all babies, or white babies. I think you might want to
>look into this a bit.
Err.... I have... have you??? I know the answer.. do you??
You of course, being the intelligent person you are, will go and look
this information up rather than using some idiotic, time-worn request
others use, and say "Well, why don't you post it here?"
|
| 20.3774 | SCOTUS didn't protect them... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jan 29 1996 19:06 | 8 |
|
re, .3772 - that's interesting. There would be no constitutional
"Free Exercise" protection. Was this a provision of the Volstead
Act ? Congress made exceptions ? I'm interested in the history
of this. Also, what about low-alcohol states today ? Do the churches
use less alcoholic wines ?
bb
|
| 20.3775 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Mon Jan 29 1996 19:36 | 22 |
| re: .3770
>The answer is "no". You are trying to create a parallel where none
>exists. No individual has the inalienable "right" to take a life. The
>state is not an individual. It is the state that you are dealing with
>in your non-parallels of execution and war.
Either you believe the taking of human life is OK under some circumstances
or you don't. You are trying very hard to have it both ways, but you
can't do it. Once you concede that it is OK to take *some* human life,
then you have inescapably put yourself in the position of having to
decide *which* human lives are OK to take, and which are not, which is
exactly what the pro-choice folks are doing. You are no different
from them. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
>I merely
>want to see laws that protect innocent human life...ALL of it, not just
>that which is deemed of value by subjective opinion.
The word "innocent" is a subjective opinion, so the above statement is
as meaningless as your other similar arguments.
|
| 20.3776 | Oh, really. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Jan 29 1996 19:39 | 10 |
| .3750
One would assume from this entry that you fully support the concept of
being able to forcibly, if necessary, insuring that families on welfare
do not continue to procreate. You claim that if the parent expects
society to take care of the child, then society gets to call the shots.
I find your entry rather self-serving and would be humorous if not for
your beliefs.
|
| 20.3777 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 19:41 | 9 |
| re: .3771
No, I skipped it because it was not only irrelevant to any point I
made, but it mistakenly gives ownership of a pet phrase to the wrong
broad-brushed group. It is the "save us from ourselves" liberals who
started the "if it saves one life" crapola, not the Christians.
-steve
|
| 20.3778 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 19:53 | 27 |
| re: .3775
> Either you believe the taking of human life is OK under some circumstances
> or you don't.
If you keep generalizing to the extreme, you can argue for or against
nearly anything and look reasonable.
> Once you concede that it is OK to take *some* human life,
> then you have inescapably put yourself in the position of having to
> decide *which* human lives are OK to take, and which are not, which is
> exactly what the pro-choice folks are doing.
No, it is not exactly the same thing. Not even close. It is
not okay, generally speaking (since you insist on overgeneralizing
the subject), to take human life. As with anything in life, there are
extreme circumstances, however, that are exceptions to this general
rule. I even concede this within the subject of abortion.
> The word "innocent" is a subjective opinion, so the above statement is
> as meaningless as your other similar arguments.
Not at all. Innocent is a legal adjective that is very applicable to
this discussion.
-steve
|
| 20.3779 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Jan 29 1996 19:57 | 4 |
|
Steve, are you saying that the, "if it saves one life" phrase is not a
phrase that you believe in?
|
| 20.3780 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 20:02 | 1 |
| It's too generic to be useful, Glen.
|
| 20.3781 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Jan 29 1996 20:03 | 3 |
|
Then you don't believe it, yes or no.
|
| 20.3782 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Too many politicians, not enough warriors. | Mon Jan 29 1996 20:05 | 6 |
|
Are you conveniently forgetting .3773????
:)
|
| 20.3783 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Jan 29 1996 20:06 | 1 |
| Glen, have you stopped beating your significant other yet? yes or no.
|
| 20.3784 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Tue Jan 30 1996 12:53 | 25 |
| .3776
>One would assume from this entry that you fully support the concept of
>being able to forcibly, if necessary, insuring that families on welfare
>do not continue to procreate.
Now there's a quantum leap if I ever saw one. But since you
bring it up, no, that's not what I said. I said I don't see any
reason why I should have to pay for other people's children.
>You claim that if the parent expects society
>to take care of the child, then society gets to call the shots.
Almost -- I claim that if the responsibility for this child is going
to be dumped in my lap, then I am free to choose abortion as a way
to deal with it. If that gives someone incentive to take the
responsibility on themselves, then that's just wonderful.
>I find your entry rather self-serving and would be humorous if not for
>your beliefs.
Of course it's self serving! Just whom do you think I should be serving,
the parents who don't want to take responsibility for their kid? Hah!
You must be one of those liberal Democrats I've heard about. :-)
|
| 20.3785 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Tue Jan 30 1996 13:05 | 23 |
| .3778
>As with anything in life, there are extreme circumstances,
>however, that are exceptions to this general rule. I even
>concede this within the subject of abortion.
Good, we agree on that. So now it's merely a matter of
what exceptions are acceptable to you or to me or to
someone else, which is a matter of opinion, yours against
mine against someone else's. And a pregnant woman who
wishes not to bear a child will have her own opinion as
well, which may or may not differ from mine and yours, but
that is her choice, and you have no right to impose your
opinion on her as law, any more than I would.
>Innocent is a legal adjective that is very applicable to
>this discussion.
Well if the whole question is to be taken out of our hands
and determined by existing law, then Row vs Wade should
pretty well have it covered. Or would you like to reconsider
that last statement? :-)
|
| 20.3786 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Tue Jan 30 1996 13:45 | 12 |
| Simply being pregnant is NOT an extreme circumstance. If her life was
in danger, then that would be an extreme circumstance. We need to take
this out of the realm of opinion, and protect human life by default- IF
we, as a nation, wish to be a nation that values human life over
choice. It is within these basic laws that (should) protect life, that
we write in exclusions for the extreme circumstance, not the other way
around (which is protecting the few exclusions over that of protecting
human life).
-steve
|
| 20.3787 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Tue Jan 30 1996 15:01 | 8 |
| .3786
And that, of course, is a restatement of your opinion with which I and
so many others heartily disagree. So much so, in fact, that the law
now says exactly the opposite.
By the way, unless you can get pregnant yourself, you are not qualified
to judge how extreme a circumstance being pregnant is for someone.
|
| 20.3788 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Tue Jan 30 1996 15:55 | 24 |
| RE: .3784
> >One would assume from this entry that you fully support the concept of
> >being able to forcibly, if necessary, insuring that families on welfare
> >do not continue to procreate.
>
> Now there's a quantum leap if I ever saw one.
...
> Almost -- I claim that if the responsibility for this child is going
> to be dumped in my lap, then I am free to choose abortion as a way
> to deal with it.
Sorry Goodwin, but you are saying this AND I AGREE WITH YOU. If a
person is going to have a child and dump the financial responsibility
for that child onto the state then the state should have the right to
force an abortion.
If the woman doesn't want an abortion, that's her choice, but then the
state should no longer have any financial obligations to that woman or
her child.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3789 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Tue Jan 30 1996 18:27 | 30 |
| re: .3787
Whether you and others agree with my opinion or not, is irrelevant. The
basic question that remains unanswered is whether we, as a nation, want
to value personal choice first and foremost, or human life.
Your answer, as far as I can tell, is "personal choice". If this is
your position, then that's your choice, just be honest about it.
>By the way, unless you can get pregnant yourself, you are not qualified
>to judge how extreme a circumstance being pregnant is for someone.
Circumstance is irrelevant. If getting pregnant puts you in a servere
financial or mental crisis, then DON'T GET PREGNANT. No one is forcing
women to get pregnant, and if they did (say, in the case of rape), then
that should be an 'extreme circumstance' exclusion in the law.
There is no "right" to destroy your unborn child simply because
you are not liking your circumstance, one that can be blamed on no one but
yourself. The time to practice "choice" is not after a baby has been
conceived, but before. This is that rare concept called 'personal
responsibility'.
Human life is not valueless, nor should it be a "throw
away" deal because the parents' subjective opinion says the child's
life has no value to THEM. A society that allows this values
convenience and choice over human life.
-steve
|
| 20.3790 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Tue Jan 30 1996 19:36 | 7 |
| No right to stop a fetus from being born into poverty but some people
who are anti-abortion in this file are perfectly willing to starve and
otherwise deprive already born children from a life.
Make up your mind.
meg
|
| 20.3791 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Tue Jan 30 1996 19:37 | 3 |
|
Who?
|
| 20.3792 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Too many politicians, not enough warriors. | Tue Jan 30 1996 19:38 | 5 |
|
re: .3790
Perfect example of "hysterical" if I ever done seen it!!
|
| 20.3793 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Tue Jan 30 1996 19:41 | 8 |
| rep
I strongly recommend the writings of one particular noter regarding
AFDC, nutrition programs for pregnant and nursing mothers, and
nutrition programs for families. quite an eye opener. This person is
merely a fetilephile, not prolife, and he knows who he is.
|
| 20.3794 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jan 30 1996 19:46 | 3 |
| Not me. Unh-unh. I'm pro-choice _AND_ anti-welfare.
|
| 20.3795 | Likewise | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Tue Jan 30 1996 19:50 | 0 |
| 20.3796 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Bye Bye Mrs. Dougherty! | Tue Jan 30 1996 20:00 | 12 |
| Couldn't be me. I've always been a proponent of helping children
without means. I have also been a staunch speaker against programs
which could suck a young teen into a lifetime of dependency.
I am reminded of the incident where the Secretary of the Interior
brought a caged wolf somewhere in the mid west to let it loose and
assimilate in it's new surroundings of freedom. The cage door was
opened and the wolf sat in that cage for hours. Case in point...it is
natural for any living thing to remain complacent when they are
comfortable.
-Jack
|
| 20.3797 | | SMURF::BINDER | Manus Celer Dei | Tue Jan 30 1996 20:25 | 9 |
| .3796
> The cage door was
> opened and the wolf sat in that cage for hours. Case in point...it is
> natural for any living thing to remain complacent when they are
> comfortable.
Jack, you are full of it. The wolf sat inside the box because it was
frightened of its noew surroundings.
|
| 20.3798 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Jan 30 1996 20:32 | 3 |
| Commonly known as the "emergence test". Used by animal behaviourists
to test the effects of exposure to new environmental phenomena. Only
odd if it doesn't happen.
|
| 20.3799 | Okay, I'll play... | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Jan 31 1996 11:58 | 3 |
| re: .3793
Who?
|
| 20.3800 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Jan 31 1996 11:59 | 9 |
|
(__)
(oo)
/-------\/
/ | || \
* ||W---|| An aborted SNar..
~~ ~~
|
| 20.3801 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Jan 31 1996 12:07 | 1 |
| < Should have used cowtus interruptus.
|
| 20.3802 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Wed Jan 31 1996 13:26 | 3 |
| Steve,
check out a mirror sometime.
|
| 20.3803 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Too many politicians, not enough warriors. | Wed Jan 31 1996 13:29 | 10 |
|
Steve!!!!!! A "fetilephile"?????????
The shock!!!!!!!! The horror!!!!!!!!!
I'm agagagagaghast!!!!
|
| 20.3804 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Wed Jan 31 1996 13:52 | 14 |
| .3789
>Your answer, as far as I can tell, is "personal choice". If this is
>your position, then that's your choice, just be honest about it.
You be honest about it -- we have clearly established that you have
no problem with killing people. So you have your choices of whom
it's OK to kill, and other people have theirs.
Your choices and opinions are no better (and no worse) than anyone
else's. I don't happen to like them, but that's OK. You don't
happen to like mine, and that's OK too. As long as we don't try to
impose our personal choices on each other, there will be no problem.
|
| 20.3805 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Jan 31 1996 16:56 | 3 |
| re: .3804
We have clearly established nothing of the sort.
|
| 20.3806 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Jan 31 1996 17:03 | 22 |
| re: .3802
You will provide pointers to the boxmasses that prove your accusations,
won't you? Oh, never mind. I never said anything of the sort, so that
will be a difficult thing to do.
We are not talking about how you view my position, and what you think
it means. We are talking about me specifically saying "I'm for cutting
off all welfare to poor mothers, as well as prenatal support/etc.".
What you will find is that I am ideologically opposed to welfare...no
question about it. But what you are missing is what I propose should
happen FIRST- it should be given over to the states (with the
approprate amount of funds 'staying home'). You see, there simply is
no way to do away with welfare- now or ever- unless we get it off the
federal plate first. Even moderate changes to the system will be
relatively ineffective, when applied on the federal level.
I anxiously await pointers/quotes/valid argument from you.
-steve
|
| 20.3807 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Wed Jan 31 1996 19:37 | 6 |
| Steve,
And things like children will suffer, but so what? Maybe it will teach
other not to do irresponsible things, is this what you are looking for?
|
| 20.3808 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Jan 31 1996 20:25 | 5 |
| > And things like children will suffer, but so what?
Why will this happen if the funds are kept and administered at the
State rather than Federal level?
|
| 20.3809 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Jan 31 1996 20:39 | 4 |
| Because there will be a disparity of compassion and services throughout
the country. States with people like Dukakis types will offer too much
at taxpayers expense while people like the Pitaki types will offer
nothing. Dems are compassionate. Pubs are mean. Right?
|
| 20.3810 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Feb 01 1996 11:41 | 3 |
| .3807
I detect a substance-less scare-tactice. Yes, indeed I do.
|
| 20.3811 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Thu Feb 01 1996 12:27 | 24 |
| Steve,
may I ask what your approach is going to be if even 1/2 of the 1.3
million abortions in this country become babies to families who can't
afford to support same?
Do you support giving women paid leave for the first year if they want
to nurse their babies, a definite plus for both child and maternal
health?
do you support funding daycare so women with preschool-aged children
can enter the workforce?
Do you support paying for training for same?
How about a reasonable guarantee of basic health services, such as
immunizations, prenatal care, well-baby checks, and basic dental care?
What will you do with the children of "men" who can't be found?
How about men who are spreading their semen throughout an area with no
thought to the offspring they create?
meg
|
| 20.3812 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Too many politicians, not enough warriors. | Thu Feb 01 1996 12:32 | 11 |
|
You didn't ask me but...
>do you support funding daycare so women with preschool-aged children
>can enter the workforce?
No....
|
| 20.3813 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Feb 01 1996 13:22 | 3 |
| 1.5 million, not 1.3, Meg.
/john
|
| 20.3814 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Feb 01 1996 14:09 | 64 |
| re: .3811
> may I ask what your approach is going to be if even 1/2 of the 1.3
> million abortions in this country become babies to families who can't
> afford to support same?
I would imagine that when it is well known that abortion on demand is a
thing of the past, folks will be a bit more careful in their private
lives, in general. I'm a firm believer that Roe v. Wade is responsible
for the drastic increases in abortion from 1973-1992. I also believe
that the leveling off of abortions (and even mild decline) is due to
the AIDS epidemic.
As far as what "approach" I would take in your scenario, a partial
answer can be found in my comments below.
> Do you support giving women paid leave for the first year if they want
> to nurse their babies, a definite plus for both child and maternal
> health?
Sure. I am not for a federal mandate that forces companies to do this,
however. In the end, women will suffer, as they will be overlooked for
jobs (employers, forced to supply a year's paid vacation to mothers to
be, would inevitably find ways to NOT hire women...and understandably
so).
> do you support funding daycare so women with preschool-aged children
> can enter the workforce?
Yes, I do. Not a full funding, but a subsidy based on income of the
single mother/father.
> Do you support paying for training for same?
The current program already pays for training. I agree with this
particular aspect of it. The best way to get folks into the workforce
is to train them. I would go a step further, however, making this a
prerequisite for anyone who has been on welfare for more than 6 months.
If they can't find a job in this time period, then it's time to prod
them to do something constructive so they can become self-sufficient.
> How about a reasonable guarantee of basic health services, such as
> immunizations, prenatal care, well-baby checks, and basic dental care?
I see no problem with supplying these services, as long as there is a
maximum time-frame that someone may collect welfare.
> What will you do with the children of "men" who can't be found?
I'd like to see severe penalties for dead-beat dads. As far as what we
do with the children, the mother, if she is not self-sufficient to
start with, will end up on welfare- thus, see my above comments.
> How about men who are spreading their semen throughout an area with no
> thought to the offspring they create?
When caught, they should be held financially accountable in any and
every way possible. If they are jobless and do not get a job within a
specified time-frame, then they should be sent to prison for a while,
where the can create no more problems. Maybe a few months in jail will
change their behavioral outlook.
-steve
|
| 20.3815 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Thu Feb 01 1996 14:30 | 24 |
| RE: .3814
>> What will you do with the children of "men" who can't be found?
>
> I'd like to see severe penalties for dead-beat dads.
I read a statistic recently, and I don't remember where I read it, that
two-thirds of dead-beat dads are dead-beat because they _can't_ pay. I
would think that a repeat offender (i.e., a man who procreates 2+ times
without taking financial care of his offspring) would be a candidate
for sterilization.
RE: .3811
> Do you support giving women paid leave for the first year if they want
> to nurse their babies, a definite plus for both child and maternal
> health?
The economic burden of this would be unbelievable. I doubt if anybody
with any fiscal sense at all could sanely propose or endorse this;
especially if a woman decides to have a child every other year for 10
years (total of 5 kids, not all that unreasonable).
-- Dave
|
| 20.3816 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Thu Feb 01 1996 15:33 | 20 |
| Dave,
how much money do ear infections suck out of the medical economy?
(Side effect of kids on formula and/or in daycare)
How much productive time is lost by parents schlepping the kid back and
forth to the Dr's?
how about for infantile intestinal and stomch problems?
Then we can get into allergies (on the rise) and the fact that breast
feeding has a positvie affect for kids' health for at least 17 years?
This is not even going into the positive effects for maternal health,
including lowered risks for endometriosis, breast cancer, endometiral
cancer, and a suspected lowering of risk for ovarian cancer. Given
that the treatment of these3 diseases is expensive both medically and
and economically from the stand point of lost time.
|
| 20.3817 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Feb 01 1996 15:38 | 5 |
|
> how much money do ear infections suck out of the medical economy?
gerald - pay attention here. you might owe us.
|
| 20.3818 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 01 1996 15:53 | 1 |
| What? I can't hear you.
|
| 20.3819 | Of course, we should probably force them! | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Thu Feb 01 1996 17:02 | 7 |
| Re: .3816
What does this have to do with anything?? Do you know the answer to your
questions? I suspect not. Business will add benefits based on what is best
for the company. If it is cheaper to provide a service that precludes the
lost time, then business supplies that service for it's employees. If the
lost time is less then they don't.
|
| 20.3820 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund | Thu Feb 01 1996 17:35 | 43 |
| RE: .3816
My wife is very active in the Le Leche League and is currently going
through the process to become a Le Leche League leader. She breast fed
our daughter until her milk turn to colostrom (sp?) and our daughter
didn't like the taste anymore. Our son is still being breast fed.
I know what the benefits are for breast feeding and am a supporter of
breast feeding. However, the questions that you're asking don't have
answers and are bordering on being rather silly.
> how much money do ear infections suck out of the medical economy?
> (Side effect of kids on formula and/or in daycare)
Both of my kids have gotten ear infections, including my son who is
still being breast fed and neither of my kids have ever been in
daycare. So how are you going to determine which ear infection is the
result of formula and/or daycare?
> How much productive time is lost by parents schlepping the kid back and
> forth to the Dr's?
So breast fed kids who's mothers stayed at home the first year never go
to the doctor? Wow. I guess I'll have to have my wife explain all the
doctors' bills we've been paying.
By the way, at Digital there is sick time that one can charge to while
"schlepping" the kids to the doctors.
> Then we can get into allergies (on the rise) and the fact that breast
> feeding has a positvie affect for kids' health for at least 17 years?
Actually, if you consider that breast feeding (greatly?) reduces the
chances for juvienile diabetes (which all of my 2nd cousins have/had)
then the benefits last a life time.
If a woman wants to have a child and wants to stay home with that child
then she needs to count that cost before getting pregnant. There is no
reason that either the taxpayer or her employer should be force to foot
the bill for HER CHOICE to stay home for a year.
-- Dave
|
| 20.3821 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Feb 02 1996 06:04 | 16 |
| From "The Secret Life of the Unborn Child" by Thomas Verny, M.D.
Brain waves, which normally start in the eighth or ninth week (they have
been detected as early as the fifth), quickly take on, in the words of one
investigator, "a distinctly individual pattern." The same is true of body
movements, which begin about this time. The first stirrings -- usually
slight changes in position -- are discernible as early as the eighth week,
but active movement does not usually start until the tenth or eleventh
week. Thereafter, the child quickly masters a host of complex and
increasingly individual movements: babies in utero have been photographed
scratching their noses, sucking their thumbs, raising their heads and
reaching out. Because a ten- or eleven-week-old child not only moves, but
moves in a purposeful way, it raises the possibility that those faint EEG
tracings -- brain waves -- in the second and third month are indicative of
meaningful mental activity.
|
| 20.3822 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Feb 02 1996 11:46 | 27 |
| Alpha ? Theta? Not that it matters much. If your point is that the
embryo is beginning to think because brain activity appears to start
before movement, it does, but there are logical reasons why.
You can detect the same patterns in most mammalian embryos. Hollerith
has done extensive work on brain microstructures and associated motor
programs. There is a lot of evidence that the neuronal motor programs
for basic skeleto-muscular movements are laid down genetically and are
"rehearsed" as part of brain developments. Testing the circuits, if
you like.
Othere researchers (Pollit & Bizzi?) have discovered that there are
oscillation patterns in some brain waves that point to timing control
functions (the brain's clock chip). Such mechanisms are present in the
structure of the brain and start up as soon as the pathways are laid
down. Some of the clock functions provide reference timing for the
heart.
These structures can also be found in the embryo brains of insects,
reptiles and other vertebrates.
Colin
|
| 20.3823 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Feb 02 1996 17:21 | 18 |
| In the News: an excerpt from an article on the new telecommunications bill:
The abortion debate provided an unexpected twist yesterday. Several
House members argued for a delay in voting because they said an
anti-obscenity measure in the bill would also outlaw discussion of
abortion over computer networks. ``Now what we're seeing is a gag rule
come through, which we hope isn't a gag rule but it might be a gag
rule,'' said Rep. Patricia Schroeder, a Colorado Democrat.
Rep. Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican and abortion foe, said the
amendment wasn't intended to gag discussion. ``Any discussion about
abortion, both pro-life and pro-abortion rights, is protected by the
First Amendment,'' he said. But Schroeder voted against the bill.
Does this mean that Patsy realizes that advocating abortion is obscene?
(I'm doubt she'd be upset about a bill that gagged abortion opponents.)
/john
|
| 20.3824 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Feb 02 1996 20:38 | 1 |
| John Covert: The Pro-Choiceophobic :)
|
| 20.3825 | Think before you speak. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 02 1996 22:13 | 19 |
| .3814 .3816
Very interesting questions but so absolutely irrelavent to any
discussion about children and families. All of the issues you raise a
re personal decisions and considerations that a person makes BEFORE
they become pregnant of decide to have a family.
If you are concerned about someone not having adequate training,
medical care for children, etc, etc then I assume that the person who
is going to have a family or just jump from sack to sack should
consider the consequences of their decisions.
Why do you pose these assinine questions as if they are societal as
opposed to personal issues? If a person takes all necessary
precautions, plans for the impact on the family finances and times, and
then something absolutely unplanned, like the sudden death of the
spouse, then we should do something.
'Nough said.
|
| 20.3826 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Fri Feb 02 1996 22:46 | 23 |
| and if none of that takes effect, what are you planning on doing with
the BORN children?
If abortion is outlawed and you believe outlawing it will put a stop to
abortion, and the abortion rate in 1994 was 1.3 mill (John's bitch
notwithstanding that was the cdc figure) and even 1/2 of those who
would have been aborted comes to more or less term, WTF are you
planning to do with those children?
How are you going to feed, shelter and clothe them? Orphanges have a
dismal infant mortality rate, historically. Even the best see an IM
rate twice as high as that of infants who remain with their parents.
Are you going to see to prenatal care and nutrition which is already
sadly lacking among the poor and especially among the uninsured who
have too much income for medicaid?
I don't see how those of you who say you are in love with fetuses can,
at the same time, ignore the consequences of their being brought to
term. Are you planning on the Brazilian solution, the Romanian
solution, or the Chinese solution for unwanted children who are
born to people who can't afford or feed them?
Just curious.
|
| 20.3827 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Sat Feb 03 1996 01:41 | 24 |
| For those who dont know about the three solutions listed:
Romainian: dump in orphanages. IM rate is close to 25% Last time I
checked they were still transfusing infants through the naval if they
looked puny, comunicating Hepititus (all flavors) and a high percentage
of HIV, as they have a shortage of needles and donors. Up to 200
babies may get a transfusion from the same donor and up to 30 may get
that transfusion from the same needle.
Brazilian: dump on the street and let corporate brazil kill them, and
his happens frequently that kids between the ages of 4 and 14 are
slaughtered by either corporate or state police.
Chinese: Dump in rivers or really awful, even compared to Romanian,
orphanges IMR 50% or worse.
BTW children over 18 months from Chinese and Romanian orphanages often
have "failure to attach syndrome" a thing that psycholgists have
related to serial criminals and rapists. there was a pretty
heartbreaking story about same in the GT this week by a couple who
adopted two Romanian "orphans" (Orphan in the sense that their parents
couldn't afford to keep them.)
meg
|
| 20.3828 | There are other options. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 05 1996 11:47 | 21 |
| .3826
You seem to think that there are only two options. either allow
uncontrolled abortions or kill children. I for one do not believe that
those are the only choices.
I believe that once we put some realistic controls on access to
abortions, and take a public position regarding the sanctity of life,
it will begin to funnel through society. I think that right now an
overwhelming number of people don't really give pregnancy a second
thought, and if they don't get an abortion, they feel that society owes
them and their children all sorts of benefits.
Well, I believe that there are other options that will protect babies
and children, give people a sense of self-worth and strengthen society
as a whole.
Your only position is that any change from the status quo is not to be
considered and any attempt will result in all sorts of disasters. Such
a short sighted view lends nothing to progress.
|
| 20.3829 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Mon Feb 05 1996 14:29 | 7 |
| >You seem to think that there are only two options. either allow
>uncontrolled abortions or kill children. I for one do not believe
that
>those are the only choices.
And the other choices are?
|
| 20.3830 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Mon Feb 05 1996 14:50 | 62 |
| I too would like to know what the other choices are.
maybe you can out line them.
somewhere back in this string and many other incarnations of this
string I gave some ideas for stopping abortion without outlawing it.
The best would be 100% reliable, reversable, safe, and convenient
contraception which can be used by both sexes. Failing that there will
always be unplanned pregnancies.
You need to look at how you can make the world a more welcoming
place for pregnant women, babies, and new mothers. This, to me means
celebrating pregnancies, no matter how the conception took place,
instead of condeming behaviors, or other euphemism for telling people
that they shouldn't have been doing the horizontal bop and that their
offspirng should suffer because they are "illegitemate." The more
sanctions you put on people the more likely they are to turn to
something other than bringing a pregnancy to term.
Daycare needs to be available and affordable. This may mean training
some women who would rather be at home with their children to help in
the care of children of women who want to work outside the home. This
may mean upgrading buildings in projects so that there can be a center
on the ground floor of every building and it needs to provide 24 hour
care so people can go for non-traditional jobs and shifts.
Breastfeeding needs to be supported and encouraged, to the point where
employers are encouraged to have on-premisis daycare, or at the minimum
a good electric breast pump and disposable parts available for
employees to use.
Mothers and babies need to be supported, even if that means the dreaded
increase in support by men who want to pretend they had nothing to do
with their child(ren)'s conception(s). The fact is economics to play a
major role in women's decisions to abort or not to abort a pregnancy.
Prenatal care, well-baby care, innoculations all need to be available
on demand. Without this you are more likely to continue the spiral of
low-birthweight babies who are more likely to cost all of us money and
need more resources, preventing a woman from continuing another
pregnancy should it occur.
Job training and parenting training need to be available to all, and
not for jobs which have no upward mobility. This needs to be available
to all parental units. Teaching young and older men that they have a
REAL responsibility to ALL of their offspring might cut down
significantly on unplanned pregnancies, as men take steps to protect
against and unwanted pregnancy.
As was harshly brought home to me last week, outlawing abortions will
only kill more women, it doesn't stop abortion. A friend's
granddaughter died in Michigan, due to an attempt to self-abort. She
was under 18 and her parents would not consent to an abortion while
belittling her for becoming pregnant, and her maternal grandfather had
disowned her, because she wasn't married and the young man was of a
different race. No one was happy about the pregnancy or willing to
support her, so she took matters into her own hands. A little joy in
the fact that she might be bringing another member to the family might
have saved two lives.
meg
|
| 20.3831 | Too Much Pain/Too Unethical | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | | Mon Feb 05 1996 15:57 | 60 |
| Meg,
I know I am looking at this extremely philosophically and
simplistically. But, the following are my thoughts.
You talk about things that *need* to be done/that need to
be provided. Provided by who? I am assuming you refer to
the government.
I believe that if one were to be able to see the sum total
of human pain as a result of socialism and to look at the
sum total of human pain as the result of 'less govt.' (Consti-
tutional government if I may), that the sum total of pain
produced by socialism WOULD FAR OUTWEIGH.
In fact, I believe what you are calling for would eventually
economically doom this country.
This dialogue reminds me a little bit of one I had with my
ma. I asked her a hypothetical question. I basically said,
lets say you somehow could see the future and you KNEW that
if we continued on with our federal welfare and entitlement
programs that the entire economy would just collapse. I asked
her what she would recommend in terms of what the govt. should
do.
SHE COULD NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. Just couldn't answer it.
Its not a perfect world. I don't deny there is pain - no matter
the system of governance. But, from a moral *and* a collective
economic standpoint, I believe your socialistic solutions would
eventually collapse the entire economy.
Socialism will morally and economically bankrupt us.
I lack the wisdom/intelligence to know what needs to be done,
but I feel strongly about one thing that needs not to be done
and that is bigger federal govt. To take money from one so
as to give to another is theft. I don't endorse theft.
The government has got to get smaller and not bigger.
It was always meant to be that private citizens, outside of
governmental involvement, are meant to be the helpers of each
other.
Your entire rationale appears to overemphasize what needs to
be done and it also cannot foresee nongovernmantal solutions
(too much of a cultural change - it can't be envisioned I
suppose).
Your rationale, imo, is short in terms of realistically giving
any credibility to COST and to what it means in terms of a
collective moral consciousness to continue to have a system
wherein we are brainwashed into believing that we don't help
our fellow man, our government does.
Tony
|
| 20.3832 | Simple control | ACISS1::axpsls.chi.dec.com::rocush | ALBIN ROCUSH | Mon Feb 05 1996 18:11 | 24 |
| .3830
You really do make it too simple. There is a safe, effective and reversible
form of birth control. It works every time it is used and can be used by
either sex. It's known generically as "NO". That's all it takes, is for
either party to say NO.
Of course you will dismiss this as impossible given today's society, etc.
The simple fact of the matter is that all of the laws, attitudes, environment
and conditions that you so wholeheartedly support are what led to this
problem. You and others claim that every time the concept of No comes up,
that someone is trying to push religion. Well you can teach No and enforce
NO throughout society without ever tying it to any religion.
As far as your other points they all assume that nothing can be done to
reduce these pregnancies. I contend that a lot can be done before we
insititue any further programs that give any indication that we condone these
activities.
Once you and all of the others that want these programs get behind efforts to
really make NO the only supported choice, then I will be happy to address how
we can provide all of the other services you identify, with almost no cost to
anyone. And I might add, with pretty good results.
|
| 20.3833 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Fri Feb 09 1996 01:43 | 42 |
| Tony,
I don't know who can provide this. I do know that I have supported a
group in town who at least tries, but they run into the same problems I
do. Doctors won't see wmen who are are medicaid, and they don't get
proper prenatal care for the first trimester (being on insurance I have
run into the same issure) Direct enty midwives are not currently
funded in this state, even though they are legal and save a lot of
money if the state would use them.
Funding Daycare. If you are convinced that 60+% of women on AFDC are
doing this because they want to stay home wiht kids, then you have a
ready pool of people who can learn to do day-care, come u with the
facilities. If you really believe that most people on AFDC are in
projects, then gut the first floor of every building and make it into a
reasonable center, getting the 40% who want to work, the availablity of
care so they can work outside the home. Heck, I know friends and
myself and partner who could benifit from available, affordable care.
Breast feeding saves 3.50/day at a minimum on food costs for infants.
Encourge that. The cost to feed a nursing mother increases to the
equivelent of one cup of milk and one peanutbutter sandwich, or
equivilent nutrition/day, not to mention savings in ther problems
breastfed babies don't have. Talk to a parent who has a kid in
day-care who has choronic infections sometime, you may find it cheaper
to fund a mom at home, or at least a breast pump at work to gain this
health benefit for kids.
If you want pregnancies to result in healthy babies, and not disaters,
you will have to fund those people who become pregnant against all the
ranting an attempts to turn the tide, or you pretend not to pay for
abortions, and we all do.
meg
BTW telling people not to do the horizontal bop, is like asking the
tide not to come in and flow out each day. The reproductive drive in
humans, for the most part is as strong as the tidal and orbital forces
in the universe.
|
| 20.3834 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Feb 09 1996 13:05 | 15 |
| Z BTW telling people not to do the horizontal bop, is like asking the
Z tide not to come in and flow out each day. The reproductive drive
Z in humans, for the most part is as strong as the tidal and orbital
Z forces in the universe.
I don't believe this. Not one bit. Oh I don't deny the urge can be
strong and the temptation can be present. I don't deny that the
horizontal bop can be fun, relaxing, and what have you. But I
categorically deny this notion that it cannot be controlled. I believe
our ability to reason and not act upon our instincts is a big part of
what seperates us from the animal kingdom. So comparing the sex drive
to the tide is a phallacy. Otherwise, you just made a good case for
gays not being allowed in the military.
-Jack
|
| 20.3835 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | pack light, keep low, move fast, reload often | Fri Feb 09 1996 13:06 | 2 |
| Um, Jack, minor nit. We are part of the animal kingdom. NNTTM, HTH,
FYFR, etc.
|
| 20.3836 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Fri Feb 09 1996 13:10 | 3 |
| |So comparing the sex drive to the tide is a phallacy.
obviously apples and bananas.
|
| 20.3837 | very bad analogy | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Feb 09 1996 13:11 | 7 |
|
Horsefeathers. The tide is predictable like a clock. Humans are
certainly not. There are very large numbers of humans who are
sexually inactive, others who have rare sex, others who have lots.
There are no days without tides, or with lots of them.
bb
|
| 20.3838 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Feb 09 1996 13:12 | 8 |
| Brian:
Of course now we're getting into religiosity here. Animals in my
opinion are not spiritual beings. Humans were made in God's image and
likeness. Therefore, we are not part of the animal kingdom. Strictly
opinion of course.
-Jack
|
| 20.3839 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | pack light, keep low, move fast, reload often | Fri Feb 09 1996 13:19 | 13 |
| Bzzzt! Spin again bunkie. Religion has nothing to do with it but you
already know that. Even if it did, we humans share the same urges to
procreate as the rest of the non-spiritual beings in the animal
kingdom. We however are able to categorize it more finely. Animals
most likely do not do it for recreation and certainly aren't burdened
with any artificial emotions such as guilt.
BTW, there are regions where the tide is non-existent or negligible,
the Carribean for instance, and areas where the tidal range is quite
large, France and Newfoundland. This may explain why these two regions
of the world are known as hot beds of passion.
Brian
|
| 20.3840 | A simple process. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 09 1996 15:24 | 19 |
| .3833 .3839
Let me just give you areal simple example of how you can pretty
effectively introduce and support NO as the only societal supported
choice. The majority of the pregnancy problem is with teens as well as
the this representing the largest segment of increase.
First of all, before any support of any kind is provided the father
must be identified. Next both students would be removed from the
general student population so as to clearly indicate that pregnancy is
not a recognized school activity.
Next these students would be allowed to attend after hours so as not
to have the skills necessary. It would be expected that both parents
would have gainful employment and mutually support the child.
This makes it clear who is responsible for the baby, what is expected
and that we do not support teen pregnancy.
|
| 20.3841 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Fri Feb 09 1996 15:46 | 15 |
| re: .3840
Please describe to me the type of "gainful employment" two
sixteen year olds without high school diplomas are expected
to procure. Then explain how they are going to pay for food,
rent, medical expenses and the required baby items on said
employment, presumably without government assistance. Who's
going to drive them back and forth to school at night? What
if the job is at night? Do they have to give up school?
Also, why wouldn't they be able to choose to put the child
up for adoption? And if they do, why pull them out of school?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3842 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:05 | 43 |
| re: .3840
There are ways other than sex education to teach kids to say
NO, however, basic sexual education and reproduction should
be a foundation course at the high school level. I don't
see why the school and local church organizations couldn't work
together to provide a public school series which ties in
with CCD/Sunday School classes so that the message and the
appropriate morals get to the right kids at the right time.
You could also have parental workbooks for those who are not
part of an organized religion.
There should be a basic lifeskills class offered at the
high school level. Balancing a checkbook, savings, tax forms,
loan applications, budgetting, laundry, nutrition, cooking - all
the things they will need to use, whether working or living on
fairly fixed incomes at college. Part of this course should be
assignment to spend some time with a local family. Ideally
all of the families volunteering for the program should have
more than two children between infancy and four years of age,
and the parents should be between 20 and 25 years of age. Any
extended period of time in this scenario should decrease the
teen pregnancy rate fairly quickly. :-) :-) All this stuff about
carrying around sacks of flour and sugar is useless. Sugar
doesn't cry for 8 straight hours. Flour doesn't scream at the
top of it's lungs in a crowded supermarket. I'd be willing
to be that if kids understood the amount of time, patience,
energy, money and commitment raising children takes, they'd
be pretty ready to concede they aren't ready for that yet.
Finally, we should do everything we can to help increase
self-esteem in teenagers, especially teenage girls. We
should teach girls that saying, "Yes" isn't going to make them
more popular, better looking, or remove them from a bad situation
at home. We should teach boys that "No" means "No" and not,
"No, but I'm just being coy", or "No, but I mean yes." No means
no, and you don't force yourself on someone who says no. Period.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3843 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:11 | 21 |
|
> be a foundation course at the high school level. I don't
> see why the school and local church organizations couldn't work
> together to provide a public school series which ties in
> with CCD/Sunday School classes so that the message and the
> appropriate morals get to the right kids at the right time.
Can't do that..separation of Church and State, remember? The
Southern Baptists have a program called (the name of which escapes
me) that calls for abstinence. From what I've heard the public
schools put the kiboshes on bringing the program into public schools.
Jim
|
| 20.3844 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:22 | 10 |
| re: .3843
No, that wasn't what I meant. I meant using the public school
program to coordinate with a CCD/Sunday School program. So that
while the kids are learning sexual education basics at school,
they are also learning their religion's moral/ethical rules
for sexual conduct at church school on their Sabbath.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3845 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:27 | 9 |
|
I see...so in one program they can learn how to put on condoms, and
in the other they can learn that pre-marital sex is wrong?
Jim
|
| 20.3846 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:28 | 8 |
| re: .3839
The big difference is that we have the built-in ability to deny our
urges, while animals do not. This, IMO, separates us from animals in
itself (I won't go into the metaphysical).
-steve
|
| 20.3847 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:30 | 1 |
| Six billion humans have a lot of willpower.
|
| 20.3848 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | pack light, keep low, move fast, reload often | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:36 | 21 |
| RE: .3840
You can put all the disincentive in place you wish. I believe that is
a naive way to approach the issue. Not at all unlike the war on drugs.
The penalties are harsh but depending upon the propoganda source, drugs
are still running rampant. Teens will still have sex. Teens will
still have sex without the benefit of knowing how to prevent STDs and
pregnancies. I can hear it now...."But, but, but, Billy and I just
said NO to getting pregnant but I am still pregnant! It didn't work!"
I am all for encouraging teens to not have sex. I also believe that to
do anything other than providing them with information on the outcomes,
responsibilities and prevention methods is irresponsible behavior on
our part, the adult population. I cannot believe there are people out
there that continue to offer hollow platitudes and cliches such as "just
say NO" and then sit back and wonder why the problem is worsening. It
is no better than giving your children a gun and ammunition and then
not telling them how to handle and use the weapon safely and
responsibly. IMO etc.
Brian
|
| 20.3849 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:37 | 17 |
| If a moral-neutral sex-education program worked, we would not be seeing
a rise of teenage pregnancies. Apparently, morally neutral programs
are not the best way to go, nor are the schools the best place to
implement them (schools who have a rotten reputation for teaching
things they are supposed to teach, like reading, writing, arithmetic,
history, science, etc.).
In fact, such programs step on the sensibilities of many parents who
object to the government stepping in where it is not wanted nor needed
(for thier kids). In many instances, the government's message effectively
confuses or contradicts the parents' teachings.
I don't believe that "some parents won't teach their kids about sex" is
reason enough to force liberal sex-education into the schools.
-steve
|
| 20.3850 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:41 | 3 |
| Moral-neutral education programs are used in public education in most
European countries. All have lower teen pregnancy rates that the US.
Reported on NPR this week.
|
| 20.3851 | Perspective Disconnect??? | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:45 | 25 |
| re: .3833
Hi Meg,
I am looking at the picture from a perspective which invited
your own inputs from that same perspective.
I do not endorse the government, at least at the federal level,
having any involvement whatsoever.
It honestly doesn't matter the human pain in terms of my
conviction as I am already convinced that socialism is far more
painful.
Its the same old thing. People look at all this pain and (as a
result) find themselves endorsing ominous things.
Germany was in a lot of pain too.
You haven't touched the perspective that I am mainly interested
in so I'll bow out.
Take Care,
Tony
|
| 20.3852 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | pack light, keep low, move fast, reload often | Fri Feb 09 1996 16:50 | 8 |
| B.S. I believe kids are getting half the story. They are learning the
physiology and physics of the act, maybe, but no practical knowledge
and are not given the means for prevention with the exception of some
hollow words like, better not, or save it, or just say no. Take away
what little intellectual exposure kids have and see what happens to
unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
|
| 20.3853 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Fri Feb 09 1996 17:39 | 23 |
| re: .3845
Well, we tell them that killing is wrong and then send
them off to war. We tell them that stealing is wrong, and
they hear people laughing about cheating on their taxes
or "getting even" with their insurance company. We teach
them that charity is a virtue and then speak with disgust
about the "scums" on welfare. We teach them that hatred and
bigotry is wrong and then they see us fight over race, color and creed.
We teach them to respect each other, then they see us question
the morality of women who are raped or abused, rather than
the actions of their assailants.
If they haven't figured out that we're talking out of both
sides of our collective mouths by now, I'd be rather amazed.
However, teaching a child the mechanics of a tool, and teaching
the child the responsibility of using the tool properly are
two different things. Like teaching a child to shoot a gun,
and teaching them not to kill anyone with it.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3854 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Feb 09 1996 18:02 | 37 |
| Z Well, we tell them that killing is wrong and then send
Z them off to war.
Murder is wrong. Self defense is not.
Z We tell them that stealing is wrong, and
Z they hear people laughing about cheating on their taxes
Z or "getting even" with their insurance company.
This is only an injustice if we live under the false notion that humanity is
basically good. It proves the point that humans are inherently depraved.
Z We teach
Z them that charity is a virtue and then speak with disgust
Z about the "scums" on welfare.
Am I being charitable if I allow a perpetrator to walk in and take what he wants
from my home. The charitable thing would be to direct him toward the
straight and narrow. You misrepresent a segment of people who you believe
need charity. What they need is an incentive toward self fulfillment.
Z We teach them that hatred and
Z bigotry is wrong and then they see us fight over race, color and creed.
No, not a fight over race, color or creed. It is actually a battle for truth.
If somebody tells me if I shoot up, I will feel complete peace and love, I am
being sold a lie or a bill of goods. It is not wrong to hate a lie.
Z We teach them to respect each other, then they see us question
Z the morality of women who are raped or abused, rather than
Z the actions of their assailants.
Can't disagree with you on this one too much. I do question the common sense
of a woman who ignorantly put herself into a compromising position.
-Jack
|
| 20.3855 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Feb 09 1996 18:03 | 4 |
| DougO:
By the way, a church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for
saints!
|
| 20.3856 | other opinions | CSC32::PRICE | Tongue-tied & twisted ...... | Fri Feb 09 1996 18:11 | 10 |
|
re ;-1
some could argue that it's a den for thieves.
|
| 20.3857 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Fri Feb 09 1996 18:17 | 12 |
| |This is only an injustice if we live under the false notion that
|humanity is basically good. It proves the point that humans are
|inherently depraved.
jack, i know it's friday, a good day to yank chains, but if you
truly believe this, then it must be difficult being you, jack.
Picture this: jack on the beach, or at a picnic with his wife
and children. jack watching his little ones playing in the sun.
suddenly, a dark thought descends upon him...how can they be so
innocent and sweet, and yet, at the same time, depraved monsters?
ah yes, jack, it must be difficult being you.
|
| 20.3858 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Fri Feb 09 1996 18:23 | 5 |
|
RE: Jack on the beach
Definitely preferred to Jack in the 'BOX.
|
| 20.3859 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Fri Feb 09 1996 18:26 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.3857 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "mz morality sez..." >>>
| ah yes, jack, it must be difficult being you.
Bonnie, quite honestly, it's only difficult for us. :-) I think Jack is
himself quite easily. :-)
|
| 20.3860 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Fri Feb 09 1996 18:32 | 36 |
| re: .3854
Jack,
That's an interesting perspective you've got there. Let's take
a look at it piece by piece:
So, when we go to war, we only kill those people who are
shooting at us? We make sure we never kill civilians? No
innocent women and children have ever died during a war in
which the U.S. was involved? After all, self-defense is
only in response to people who have threatened you.
Humanity is inherently depraved? What an awful load you must
carry around with you every day! I'd rather think each human
has an unlimited, though sometimes unused, capacity for goodness,
and that, in a pinch, most people will do the right thing.
Not all people on welfare are bad. Many people on welfare need
our help. Jesus Himself advised his disciples to turn the other
cheek. Charity is difficult, especially in those times when
the people receiving assistance do not appear grateful. When
that happens, see above regarding humanity.
And finally, no one, absolutely no one, "deserves" to be sexually
assaulted or beaten, regardless of race, creed, color, attire,
sexual orientation, average intelligence, time of day, season
of the year, etc, etc, etc, I think you get the picture. Physical
expressions of anger and frustration taken out on anything except
and inanimate object which the angry and frustrated person owns
are wrong.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3861 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Feb 09 1996 19:20 | 64 |
| Mary Michael:
Z So, when we go to war, we only kill those people who are
Z shooting at us? We make sure we never kill civilians? No
Z innocent women and children have ever died during a war in
Z which the U.S. was involved? After all, self-defense is
Z only in response to people who have threatened you.
Mary Michael, I don't deny war is an ugly thing. I also don't deny that
war crimes happen frequently. I don't recall the United States sanctioning war
crimes of the kind you mentioned. By the way, consider the fact that most of
the soldiers who go to war are scared out of their wits and would much rather
be home. When a country is attacked, it is not an ungodly concept to defend
one's homeland.
Z Humanity is inherently depraved? What an awful load you must
Z carry around with you every day! I'd rather think each human
Z has an unlimited, though sometimes unused, capacity for goodness,
Z and that, in a pinch, most people will do the right thing.
I didn't say the capacity for goodness generally doesn't exist. The reason we
don't see eye to eye derives from our concept of how God views us. In the
eyes of a Holy sovereign God, how can we be anything but depraved? In the eyes
of our community, we might be the most upstanding citizen. From God's
perspective, there dwells in us no good thing.
Z Not all people on welfare are bad. Many people on welfare need
Z our help. Jesus Himself advised his disciples to turn the other
Z cheek. Charity is difficult, especially in those times when
Z the people receiving assistance do not appear grateful. When
Z that happens, see above regarding humanity.
Never said that. I don't deny that welfare can work. It obviously has helped
some. However, the people who exploit the system ARE scum...because in my view
they are robbing from the people who really need it.
Z And finally, no one, absolutely no one, "deserves" to be sexually
Z assaulted or beaten, regardless of race, creed, color, attire,
Z sexual orientation, average intelligence, time of day, season
Z of the year, etc, etc, etc, I think you get the picture.
Remember that movie Saturday Night Fever? I was thinking of the scene in the
movie where the young lady was getting (if you'll excuse the expression),
gang banged in the back seat of her car. The first was a fun experience but
when the second came upon her she was acting like a rape victim. Understandably
since that was happening. Yes, she is a victim but at the same time, it takes
alot of effort on my part to be sympathetic with sheer stupidity. She
displayed this through her choices. She did not deserve what happened to her,
but there is no accounting for stupidity.
Getting back to the depravity thing. I find it interesting how the very
concept is displayed within the subject of abortion alone. I find most
pro choicers saying, "OOOHHHH....abortion is a horrible thing...abortion is
something everybody should avoid...etc. Then alas, the big...HOWEVER...
I find it interesting that people
inherently know it is wrong but somehow they justify for social reasons the
need for such a practice. This is why I always ask the question...what is it
that makes us any more virtuous than this guy who killed the women at the
clinic. Just the fact that we can justify a wrong...the mere ability to do
this is what makes us as a human race depraved.
-Jack
|
| 20.3862 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Fri Feb 09 1996 19:31 | 2 |
| oh, so you don't think your kids are depraved. only god
does. well, that must make it less difficult to be you.
|
| 20.3863 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Fri Feb 09 1996 19:48 | 48 |
| re: .3861
I think that when the U.S. military is making it's casualty
assessments before a battle, the minimal loss of life is
usually weight on our own troops and not on civilians. I
agree that we do not intentionally attack civilians, I would
not agree that our prime directive is to avoid hurting them
at our own expense.
According to Christianity, God made mankind in His own image.
I cannot believe He would make something he loathed in His
own image. Your child may misbehave, but you don't hate
him or her, your capacity for love goes beyond the behavior.
I think it's the same kind of thing with God.
People on welfare are pigeonholed and stereotyped,
and it is these generalizations that hurt all welfare recipients,
including the ones who use it for it's intended purpose. It is
fine to weed out the dishonest ones, it is good, in fact because
it makes more available to those who are really in need. However
the broad brushes applied to poor people in general do no one
any good. As my mother used to say, "If you can't say anything
nice, don't say anything at all."
Having never seen Saturday Night Fever, I have not seen the
scene you described. However, based on your description, I
see more than one stupid person there - the woman who thought
it might be a great idea, and all the men who agreed with her.
By insisting the woman is entirely to blame, you are basically
saying that men are brainless fools who are totally powerless
any time a woman rips off her clothes, and I don't think either
one of us believes that is true.
And yes, I am one of those people who believes that being
pro-choice means that each woman is entitled to *her own*
choice and not entitled to my choice based on the benefit
of my experience. While I know how I would handle the situation
should it ever re-occur, I have not walked in the shoes of every
woman with an unwanted pregnancy, and therefore I cannot decide
their path for them. I can give them advice if they ask, but I
cannot make the decision for them.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3864 | I agree in part with -1 | CSC32::PRICE | Tongue-tied & twisted ...... | Fri Feb 09 1996 20:05 | 19 |
|
> And yes, I am one of those people who believes that being
> pro-choice means that each woman is entitled to *her own*
> choice and not entitled to my choice based on the benefit
> of my experience.
Hear, hear !!
This should be the key to the whole debate.
No-one has to right to *enforce* what a woman may or may not do with
her body, and it's her body that has to build anything that's growing
inside it.
|
| 20.3865 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Feb 09 1996 20:14 | 6 |
| >This is only an injustice if we live under the false notion that
>humanity is basically good. It proves the point that humans are
>inherently depraved.
This is total religious crap and it may very well be this thinking that is
the root of the problems seen in society today.
|
| 20.3866 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Fri Feb 09 1996 20:29 | 4 |
| re: .3864
But...it isn't just the body of the woman we are talking about within
the abortion debate.
|
| 20.3867 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Feb 09 1996 20:40 | 30 |
| Z No-one has to right to *enforce* what a woman may or may not do with
Z her body, and it's her body that has to build anything that's
Z growing inside it.
Yawn. Please delete for lack of value. So we've heard....
And heard...
and heard...
and heard...
The reason I brought that up wasn't to argue pro life vs. prochoice.
That's an old one. My bringing it up was to point out that humans have
an inherent ability to know right from wrong...hence the seperation
through sin issue, i.e. depravity of mankind. We already know by law
we have the choice. Thanks for pointing that out. The only thing that
matters in this discussion is that those who believe as Mr. Price
does...in many numbers know it is inherently wrong.
-Jack
|
| 20.3868 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Feb 09 1996 21:06 | 37 |
| Z This is total religious crap and it may very well be this thinking that
Z is the root of the problems seen in society today.
Of course it is Tom! I've been awaiting your response here. This is
understandable considering you don't believe in a holy God, therefore,
my standard couldn't be anything other than religious crap.
I don't agree with your second part though. How could a standard based
on emulating goodness be the cause of all the dysfunctionality
surrounding us? Let me give you a small example of what I mean. I
have a little 1 yr. old named Audrey. She will be two in a few weeks
and for whatever reason started her terrible twos thing about a week
ago. This morning she wanted a pop tart. I put it in the toaster. I
know for a fact she understands please...and thankyou. I took the tart
out and said, what do you say Audrey? She gives me this defiant look.
I said to her again, "Audrey...say please...say please" No way, she
defied me to no end. I wanted her to understand there was a
consequence to her choice but at the same time, I know she is only one.
I tried for about ten minutes...."Say please Audrey...say please...."
Nothing! She said no. Finally about a half hour later she said please
and got the pop tart. On her own she said, sank you daddy! I gave her
a big hug and rewarded her for doing the right thing.
Key point. Audrey DID NOT learn how to be defiant. She did not have
to learn...why? Because Audrey, like every other person, has the
inherent ability to be disobediance. We are born in this
condition...it is not a learned thing. A child can be brought up
totally correct, and be a wonderful person. But they will ALWAYS have
to deal with their inherent nature. Paul the apostle calls it a battle
between the flesh and the Spirit; constantly waging war between each
other.
You fail to be able to accept my point because the issue of depravity
is as natural as breathing; therefore, nobody can really discern it.
But it is most definitely there.
-Jack
|
| 20.3869 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Fri Feb 09 1996 21:24 | 7 |
|
Wow, what a nasty guy you are, Jack!! Torturing a 1-year old
like that for a lousy pop-tart.
I don't think "defiant" is the word you're looking for ... I
think it's "stupefied that daddy would be such a jerk".
|
| 20.3870 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tear-Off Bottoms | Fri Feb 09 1996 21:27 | 7 |
|
I think Jack should have started eating the pop-tart himself. That
woulda shaped her up right quick 8^).
HOWEVER, Jack, how can you feed such sugar-laden trash to your daughter
8^o!?
|
| 20.3871 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Fri Feb 09 1996 21:29 | 4 |
|
Because Jack knew he'd NEVER get her to say "please" and "thank
you" for a helping of spinach.
|
| 20.3872 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Feb 09 1996 21:30 | 25 |
| Re: .3868, Jack
>How could a standard based
>on emulating goodness be the cause of all the dysfunctionality
>surrounding us?
Because it isn't goodness, it is mysticism, a disease of the human mind.
Teaching anyone, especially children, that they are inherently bad and that
they must look to some unseen authority for guidance accomplishes only the
creation of incompetent, short sighted human beings with low self-esteems.
>Key point. Audrey DID NOT learn how to be defiant.
I think that you are the one who has failed to learn. You forget that your
daughter is an individual, who knows what she wants. What you define as defiance
is an individuality that you seem to want to suppress.
>You fail to be able to accept my point because the issue of depravity
>is as natural as breathing; therefore, nobody can really discern it.
>But it is most definitely there.
It is obvious where the depravity lies and it isn't in young innocent children
who are denied individual expression, because it is deemed evil.
|
| 20.3873 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Tear-Off Bottoms | Fri Feb 09 1996 21:37 | 5 |
|
There's nothing wrong with teaching your child to be polite. I don't
know what it has to do with innate depravity, though.
|
| 20.3874 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Sat Feb 10 1996 17:57 | 18 |
| Teaching children ALL about pregnancy, pregnancy prevention and each
individual's responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy has worked
in European countries. their teen pregnancy rate, STD transmissions
among teens and the fact that teens in Europe become sexually active at
a later age than US teens says something about morally neutral
education.
jack,
making a spectical of teen parents will more likely push more girls
faced with an unplanned pregnancy towards avoiding the stigma by
aborting. With your scenario on also treating teen fathers as pariahs
there will be EVEN MORE pressure on a pregnant teen to abort by the
boy, his parents, and her parents as well. I really think you need to
be around teens more than you apparently are. The boy scouts could use
you.
|
| 20.3875 | Still missing it. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 12 1996 12:20 | 28 |
| .3872 .3874
You obviously have no concept of teaching children to be polite.
Unless you find no value whatsoever, in having kids say please and
thank you. I think children learn at a very early age what the limits
are and if they are not enforced right from the start it will be
increasingly difficult to have them exhibit appropriate behaviors
later. I assume you do not condone allowing children to grow up with
the simple "gimme" as their only statement, or perhaps you do since
this society has evolved into a "gimme" society, particularly if
someone else has more than you.
.3874
First of all European society has always been significantly different
than AMerican society, so to look at one aspect and claim that this
would work here is a bit of a stretch. Plus we have taken a hands off
approach to sex education for years andthere has been a corresponding
increase in teen pregnancies and single teen families. So much for
your experiment.
Also, you keep focusing on a single point. If teens understood that
they were going to have to take responsiblity for their actions, my
contention is that teens will be much more selective about bedhopping
and will probably avoid it. I do not claim that this will be easy or
simple. I do know that it works and puts personal responibility at the
top of the list as opposed to a footnote somewhere else.
|
| 20.3876 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Feb 12 1996 12:50 | 29 |
| Z I don't think "defiant" is the word you're looking for ... I
Z think it's "stupefied that daddy would be such a jerk".
Shaun, do you have the slightest knowledge or experience in parenting?
If not, then please shut up.
Look Shaun, I have a kid in first grade now. He hasn't gotten a
demerit all year so far....only one in his class. I have three kids
who understand what please and thank you are. It's called laying the
foundation in a child's life toward respecting authority, understanding
right from wrong, and building one's integrity and character. Works
for me....sorry about your situation. Now my sister n law is opposite
to my wife. She's going through a nasty divorce and one of her
children is at the Devereaux school in Holden. He's eleven years old,
went to the neighbors and threatened her. Unfortunately, he threatened
a Newton attorney who has no regard for arrogant kids. His hearing
comes up on March 18th, he may very well be in a reform school.
Causality...the parents paid little attention to the kids, gave them
everything they wanted, caved in to their every whim, had no sense of
discipline tempered with love, the kid has Chucky and Freddie for crying
out loud. So, the kid is now in a special school for troubled kids.
Obviously not all parents can help this...and it isn't always the
parents fault. In this case however, it most certainly was.
As far as sweet ladens food...smuckers jam in a non frosted pop tart is
minimal compared to other foods. Nice try Mz. Debra!! :-)
-Jack
|
| 20.3877 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Feb 12 1996 12:56 | 17 |
| Getting back to the depravity issue. What we as people fail to do is
seperate our view of humanity from God's view of humanity. We
naturally see ourselves as good...I see my son for example as good, and
hopefully will stay that way. I see him as a leader in some ways and
as a follower in other ways. My intent is to be sure he follows the
right influences.
In the eyes of a holy God, ANYBODY who is of the Adamic race is born
into depravity. Therefore, redemption is necessary. Otherwise, the
act of what happened on Calvary would be of no necessity. That's the
gist of it...short and simple. In our propensity to see ourselves as
good, we are blinded from the sobering reality. Abortion of course is
not wrong...because we have determined that we are good and therefore
in our relativistic society, how can we possibly deal with a wrong as
wide scale as this??
|
| 20.3878 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Mon Feb 12 1996 13:03 | 4 |
| jack, you're just angry because abortion is legal.
and will remain legal, regardless of your constant hemmering
and hawing. there's been enough debate. it's legal, jack.
face it.
|
| 20.3879 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Feb 12 1996 13:07 | 10 |
|
Jack, there could be other variables involved with that kid that
you mentioned. If his parents are going through a divorce, maybe
the environment has never been ideal for learning right from
wrong, especially if the parents were fighting often.
And I guess I can make a connection between saying "Please" for
a Pop-Tart and staying out of jail, but it's so minor on the
grand scale of things so as not to be very relevant.
|
| 20.3880 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Feb 12 1996 13:21 | 16 |
| No one is saying that it is wrong to teach a child to be polite. But to
equate the lack of politeness in a young child to "natural" depravation
is almost to ridiculas for a response. Young children are the only human
beings not yet polluted by the mystical mind manipulations of their parents,
teachers, religious leaders and political authorities.
Also, IMO it seems a waste of good time to worship a god who considers his
creation depraved. Would make him/her depraved as well.
Human beings are by nature good, rational and productive (or mankind couldn't
exist). Human beings are competent to fill their needs and to achieve happiness.
By being free to act according to their own individual natures, they will
best serve themselves and society. The problem lies in the fact that we are not
free from the force and coersion of religious "authorities" and power
seeking politicians.
|
| 20.3881 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Feb 12 1996 13:23 | 48 |
| re: .3876, .3877
Anybody's children can wind up with behavioral problems, Jack.
Even people who take pains to bring them up correctly. And divorce
is one of the most difficult things for a child to go through, and
11 is one of the most difficult ages.
There is certainly value in teaching children to be polite. It is
a necessary social skill which will help make them successful as
adults. But there is a difference between respect and subservience,
deference and grovelling. Teaching a child to covet their own
individuality while at the same time respecting that individuality
in others is a fine line to walk, but a necessary one. It's the
difference between a free thinking individual and a white collar
automaton. And automatons don't change the world.
One of the things I found impossible to deal with in the Catholic
Church is the complete lack of tolerance for speculative thought.
People need to obey the rules, blindly, without question as a
matter of "faith". I believe faith is something that is strong enough,
that, if you go round about it 17 different ways, you still come back
to it, even if you don't ultimately understand why. Faith should
stand up to scrutiny. Law should too, and justice and society.
Teaching children that "good people obey the rules", doesn't give
them the whole picture. You should not obey bad rules blindly.
You should get involved and change them. You should not obey
authority without question in every situation (obviously if the
building is on fire and a fireman is telling you to leave, it is not
the best time to assert yourself :-). Authority CAN be wrong.
There is no reason you cannot be polite, respectful and assertive.
I would not want to teach a child blind obedience, but then again,
I'm not a full-fledged parent, I just live with one :-).
Finally, I think you and I believe in a different kind of God. You
seem to believe in a God of anger. To me, God, if God exists, is
a God of love. I don't believe He wants us to blindly follow His
rules. If He did, we wouldn't have brains. I believe He has a
special place in His heart for the ones with spirit, the ones who
question, the ones who breathe life into the world. If God had
legions of obedient people who never dared to challenge His word,
He would be nothing more than an eternal dictator, and I think
God is smart enough to be right bored with that. And if no one
ever challenged His word, it would never become as precious, as
important, as alive to those who never did.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3882 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Feb 12 1996 14:29 | 34 |
| Z Finally, I think you and I believe in a different kind of God. You
Z seem to believe in a God of anger. To me, God, if God exists, is
Z a God of love.
I had copied something from Tom but this response portrays quite well I
am miscommunicating here...and I'd like to address it. But before I
do...
Bonnie, I am not angry abortion is legal. I came to grips with this
years ago and actually see abortion as a necessary evil for the big
three. I also believe is a member of the armed forces is pregnant and
she needs an abortion to survive, I believe it should be a federally
funded necessity. Therefore, I am not as angry as you would have me to
be. What I do lack tolerance for is blind relativism which our society
seems to be clinging to. Oh..and of course this blind lack of virtue
we also seem to cling to.
Now back to Mary Michael...A God of anger...Hmmm. i thought I had made
it clear that the foundation of Christianity is what Jesus did on
Calvary. Therefore, God has proven the ultimate in love here.
Therefore, I don't follow a God of anger. However, I do believe anger
is an attribute of God and is an attribute that has been used in
history.
As humans, we are born into sin. There is nothing we can personally
do about this. It would take an act of God to make us clean before His
perfect standard. Hence there you have Christ and the act of love on
Calvary. I too believe in not blindly following rules...and believe
me, my children have a clear understanding of why rules are to be
followed. I don't leave them in the dark by any means. As far as my
nephew goes, I had him pegged ten years ago for prison or suicide.
My prophecy is coming to pass.
-Jack
|
| 20.3883 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Feb 12 1996 14:34 | 20 |
| Z No one is saying that it is wrong to teach a child to be polite. But to
Z equate the lack of politeness in a young child to "natural" depravation
Z is almost to ridiculous for a response.
What I am trying to communicate is that Audrey was not taught to be
rebellious. At such a young age, I don't apply strong pressure to get
results, but I did want to test her to see if she would eventually
understand...and although it took twenty minutes or so, she did in fact
relent. Furthermore, of her own free will she said thank you;
therefore, it proves children are more perceptive than we give them
credit for.
Audrey's little rebellion was the result...of Audrey. Nobody told her
to say no to me. She did it of her own free will. The episode is
simply an illustration of how we as a race appear before a Holy God.
Since you don't believe in God, the concept is irrelavent to you;
however, to me, the reality of the problem still exists.
-Jack
|
| 20.3884 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Feb 12 1996 14:40 | 6 |
|
Jack, she gave in because she figured she'd starve waiting for
you to feed her.
[Yes, Chip, tongue is still firmly implanted in cheek.]
|
| 20.3885 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Feb 12 1996 14:47 | 30 |
| re: .3883
So, in order to attain the "Pop-Tart" of eternal life, we
must learn to say "Please" to God? I'd never thought of it
quite in those terms before, Jack......
re: .3882
You had this poor child pegged for suicide and/or prison
at the age of one?!!!! Pray tell, what criteria did you
use? Parents everywhere want to know!!!! You seem more
smug that your intuition was correct than compassionate
over what is obviously a very sad situation with a
very troubled child. This bothers me.
I had always thought that Baptism removed the stain of
Original Sin that was present at birth (however, doctrinal
differences say this does not apply to all faiths). I guess
that's one of the reasons I don't feel humans are inherently
depraved from a religious standpoint. While you may feel that
God loves you in spite of the state He thinks you're in, a God
that thinks of His children that way has some serious self-esteem
issues with his subjects.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3886 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Feb 12 1996 14:52 | 10 |
|
>re: .3882
>
>You had this poor child pegged for suicide and/or prison
>at the age of one?!!!! Pray tell, what criteria did you
>use? Parents everywhere want to know!!!! You seem more
I guess the kid never said "Please" before he crapped his diaper.
|
| 20.3887 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Feb 12 1996 15:08 | 43 |
| Z So, in order to attain the "Pop-Tart" of eternal life, we
Z must learn to say "Please" to God? I'd never thought of it
Z quite in those terms before, Jack......
You are using an example of teaching a child manners with doctrinal
issues of inheriting eternal life. Not sure if you are attempting to
ridicule the belief or what...
I believe eternal life is available to all and is acquired by asking
for it...yes. Better than a works program right?
Z You had this poor child pegged for suicide and/or prison
Z at the age of one?!!!! Pray tell, what criteria did you
Z use? Parents everywhere want to know!!!! You seem more
Z smug that your intuition was correct than compassionate
Smugness is not my intent. But I do know that where there is smoke
there is bound to be fire. I attribute his problems to two individuals
who had absolutely no concept of parenting....and still don't. Yes,
the divorce isn't helping matters; but I watched this kid grow from age
three to the age of thirteen. He was the type of kid who would
arbitrarily take your dessert from you and turn it over on your lap.
The SIGNS were there. I remember driving home from a holiday and
saying to Michele.."You watch Michele. When he turns 13, he's going to
pull that stuff and it isn't going to be cute anymore, not that it ever
was. I always saw him as an obnoxious uncontrollable child. What
really pee'd me off was the parents lack of desire to deal with
it...hence we have the deviant in a special school today awaiting
trial.
Believe me, I take no pleasure in this. I call him about three times a
week to let him know I'm thinking of him. His incompetent dad is
unequipped to deal with it because he was raised be a nanny himself and
his dad was never around to teach him anything. A beautiful and
sobering case study of sheer idiocy and incompetence. Anyway, his
father doesn't call him anymore.
This kid always had the ability to rebel...just as we all do. His
wonderful parents gleefully helped him along...just before he was
arraigned.
-Jack
|
| 20.3888 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Feb 12 1996 15:08 | 4 |
|
People, try to remember... we're in Jack's world here...nothing is as
it seems. :-)
|
| 20.3889 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Feb 12 1996 15:44 | 1 |
| ...and objects are closer than they appear.
|
| 20.3890 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Feb 12 1996 16:02 | 21 |
| re: .3887
No, I am not ridiculing your belief. I am being a tad sarcastic,
but I don't know of a "sarcastic face" I can use to relay that.....;-)
You are entitled to any belief you choose. I do not believe that
simply "following the rules" gets you eternal life, YMMV. I think
God expects us to be a little more creative.
I don't believe in gratuitous "rules". I don't believe people
have "places", pigeonholes, or "tasks". I believe that we each
have gifts and talents and it is upon ourselves to use them to
the best our of ability and the betterment of humanity, regardless
of whether or not conventional societal wisdom or religious dogma
deems the activity appropriate for our "position." I believe that
is what God wants, not a struggle out of depravity, but a challenge
to better humanity.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3891 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | He's no lackey!! He's a toady!! | Mon Feb 12 1996 16:50 | 20 |
|
Jack (Martin)
Why don't you just shut up and forget about trying to convince anyone
here...
You did what you, as Audrey's parent, thought was the correct thing to
do. Trying to convince non-parents, or those that have no conception of
your relationship with God and/or your kids is fruitless at best.
People would rather slam you and ridicule you (the messenger) rather
than look at what you have to say (the message).
For what it's worth, I believe (IMO) you did the right thing. You
didn't profess (in here) that is was the "only correct" or "no other
alternative" thing to do, but it seems that some have taken it that way
and are taking you to task...
Let em feel superior... others know better...
|
| 20.3892 | Contrary to JM = depraved? | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Feb 12 1996 17:05 | 25 |
| >Audrey's little rebellion was the result...of Audrey. Nobody told her
>to say no to me. She did it of her own free will.
So what are we saying here Jack. Her free will is contrary to what you think is
right and good, so it is automatically a sign of her depravity?
>The episode is
>simply an illustration of how we as a race appear before a Holy God.
>Since you don't believe in God, the concept is irrelavent to you;
>however, to me, the reality of the problem still exists.
One slight correction Jack, this is how the race appears before YOUR god. Also,
it is relevent to me Jack. I see a large group of children being taught that
they are depraved. I believe this adversely affects the world I live in.
Re: .3891
Please keep in mind that no one is saying that Jack did anything wrong with
his handling of the situation with his daughter. It is his using this episode
as "proof" that human beings are depraved that I take issue with.
|
| 20.3893 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 12 1996 17:09 | 3 |
|
.3892 oh c'mon, Tommy, you're just feeling superior and you know it! ;>
godless, depraved bigot...
|
| 20.3894 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Mon Feb 12 1996 17:19 | 4 |
| re: .3892
Not completely true. Shawn was indeed inferring that Jack's way was
wrong. Maybe he was being sarcastic?
|
| 20.3895 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Feb 12 1996 17:23 | 5 |
|
Wrong? No, I don't consider it "wrong". "Extreme" would be a
better adjective, considering the central object in the disc-
ussion was a Pop Tart.
|
| 20.3896 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Feb 12 1996 17:28 | 6 |
| Z Some people believe it is impolite to hurl insults at women without
Z even knowing why they are entering a clinic?
Simple. Your PR stinks!
-Jack
|
| 20.3897 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | He's no lackey!! He's a toady!! | Mon Feb 12 1996 17:34 | 16 |
|
re: .3895
>considering the central object in the discussion was a Pop Tart.
You just don't get it, do you Shawn?? It has nothing to do with some
silly Pop-Tart...
re: "depraved"...
Jack, in his own convoluted way, has mis-represented the meaning of
the word as it should be used. So what else is new? Why do you think I
told him to shut up??
|
| 20.3898 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Feb 12 1996 17:44 | 16 |
|
It has EVERYTHING to do with a silly Pop-Tart, since that's what
started this whole discussion in the 1st place.
Look, I understand things like developing good habits early, and
instilling a solid set of morals in kids before they start to
learn from other kids, etc. But what I don't understand is why
you would HOUND a kid for 10-15 minutes for the simple reason of
showing them who's boss if they don't say "the magic word[s]".
And a 1-year old at that!!
For all Jack knows, the kid could have been on the downward side
of an extreme mood swing, and wasn't quite feeling up to being
incredibly polite. Not that any adult would have any concept of
mood swings, of course [see PMS] ... but let's just suppose.
|
| 20.3899 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Feb 12 1996 17:49 | 7 |
| re: .3893
>oh c'mon, Tommy, you're just feeling superior and you know it! ;>
>godless, depraved bigot...
you found me out, I'm soooooooooo embarrassed!! :)
|
| 20.3900 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Feb 12 1996 17:49 | 35 |
| Andy and others, thanks for your advice to shut up...and I will...AFTER
this reply if possible. I realize some are hurling insults and others
are just being sarcastic. If I were over synsytyve to such matters, I
wouldn't be here.
Just so it is understood, I brought up the Audrey incident for this
reason. Audrey is a baby...and there are millions of Audreys in the
world today. They are all representative of innocense...even Christ
said to us, "Let the little children come unto me, and forbid them not,
for theirs is the kingdom of God." Jesus was pointing out the
innocence of children and I acknowledge that fact.
Z I believe that
Z is what God wants, not a struggle out of depravity, but a challenge
Z to better humanity.
I'm afraid it is even worse than that Mary Michael. The whole purpose
of Christ's message was to point out the sobering fact that we are
totally unable to struggle out of our depravity. If this is what your
catecism instructor taught you, then you were sold a bill of goods.
"For in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive." Trying to
struggle out of one's depravity will never happen. It would be like
using a bandaid to cure a cold. Our efforts on human terms have been
weighed on the scales and have been found deficient. Like I said
before, redempotion has to come through other means as we are
completely incapable. It would have to take an act of God.
Look, this discussion is very appropo (sp?) to the abortion topic. Our
passions or convictions are driven via different vehicles. That why
most prolifers tend to have religious convictions and most pro choice
individuals tend to driven more humanistically. Not always the case
obviously but I would say it is a safe bet nonetheless.
-Jack
|
| 20.3901 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | He's no lackey!! He's a toady!! | Mon Feb 12 1996 17:58 | 21 |
|
re: .3898
You may consider it "hounding"... others see it differently. If you
have no experience in raising children (and I'm not saying that is a
prerequisite for joining in this discussion) it is very difficult to
grasp certain procedures.
If you go back, you'll notice that for all intents and purposes, Audry
is 2 years old rather than 1. This makes a big difference. "Hounding" a
1 year old is out of the question as the results will not be what the
lesson is/should be all about.
I used to have all day battles of the will with my children... not
necessarily having to do with food. And this has absolutely nothing to
do with recognizing them as individuals or little person, or little
humans... or whatever... It has nothing to do with "crushing" their
wills and to make them brain-dead automatons...
It has everything to do with teaching them to grow up....
|
| 20.3902 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Feb 12 1996 18:04 | 24 |
| re: .3900
I'm sorry, I can't buy that. What you are saying is that
it is ok to tell people, "Hey! You are morally corrupt. You
will always be morally corrupt. Nothing you can possibly
do with your lives can ever raise you from this state of
being morally corrupt." I can assure you, hearing this
does not fill me with joy. It fills me with a sense of
hopelessness and rage that anyone could be so obtuse as
to find no redeeming qualities in either my behavior and/or my actions,
especially when one of the tenets in that same faith is to tr
try and find those qualities in other people!
It reminds me of the medieval sect who used to go through
the streets flogging themselves because they felt unworthy
to worship their God.
If each of us is a temple of God, how can such a temple
be depraved?
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.3903 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Feb 12 1996 18:16 | 25 |
| Z If each of us is a temple of God, how can such a temple
Z be depraved?
Disclaimer...Mary Michael asked a question here, and I want to be
courteous and answer it!! :-)
Key point to remember, the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. This
is important to note. The reason it is important is this. The apostle
Paul directed that message to a church of believers, not to society at
large. He was speaking to a group of people who had recognized their
inherent condition, realized they had need of redemption, and hence
believed that through Calvary and ONLY through Calvary, they could
receive forgiveness and stand before God without sin...blameless and
Holy. Could the Corinthian Church...people from an idolatrous
culture...ever have the right to stand before God on their own merit??
Never. They needed a scapegoat, they recognized Jesus as their
scapegoat, and they acted upon it through faith. The Holy Spirit is
the mark of identification a believer receives through faith...and
although we still deal with the sin nature, we are constantly made
clean through the redemption of Christ.
One who doesn't believe...how can the Spirit of God dwell within them
in their natural condition. That's the real question here!
-Jack
|
| 20.3904 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:15 | 133 |
| 20.3905 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:21 | 7 |
|
>"I didn't feel worthy," Mariano, 44, said. "I thought that I was the worst
>sinner and that I was forever banned from church. I didn't think God could
>ever forgive me for allowing my child to be killed."
It's very telling that she felt that way. The Catholic Church
doesn't do a very good job of teaching, imho.
|
| 20.3906 | The way it is, according to ME! | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:21 | 26 |
| Children are born free of irrationality. But, quickly, every child becomes
trapped in the irrationalities of this world created by religious, political
and power mongering parasites who seem to have lost their humanity and grasp
of reality. These people trap and blind children in order to insure the future
survival of their kind. They survive by draining productive adults who have
been blinded since youth by illusions, deception, and force. This corruption is
force fed into the minds of children. While unknowingly holding minds free of
this irrationality children lack the knowledge to protect their minds. So,
before they can learn to use their minds in conjuction with reality, they are
inflicted with destructive illusions built on contradictions and
irrationalities. Those illusions damage the minds of children and block their
consciousness. Now as they grow they must increasingly invest in the
irrationalities, like humans are depraved and we must look to a god for guidence
and forgiveness, in order to get along in their world. They grow, have children
of their own and the cycle starts again. Reality dictates that the concept of
god, religion and higher authorities are products of mysticism, which is the
opposite of honesty and reason. It undermines the capacity for independent
thinking and reasoning, which is the human survival tool. The concept of god is
an effective tool because it manipulates real thinking into convenient, well
organized packages of deceptive "truths". This deception is used by the leaders
of religions and political organizations to cajole innocent followers into
sacrificing their value and earnings to these leaders, all while doing nothing
of value.
|
| 20.3907 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | He's no lackey!! He's a toady!! | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:25 | 7 |
|
Can I have some of what you're smoking?????
Inter-office will be fine, thanks...
|
| 20.3908 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:27 | 1 |
| I don't smoke
|
| 20.3909 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | He's no lackey!! He's a toady!! | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:29 | 4 |
|
Okay... I can take it intravenously too!!!
|
| 20.3910 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:31 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.3891 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "He's no lackey!! He's a toady!!" >>>
| People would rather slam you and ridicule you (the messenger) rather
| than look at what you have to say (the message).
Gee, Andy.... seem like this is something you know much about. You do
it quite often.
|
| 20.3911 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:31 | 1 |
| Ralston mainlines Puppy Chow.
|
| 20.3912 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:35 | 4 |
| re: .3907, .3909, .3911
Nice handwaving. Of course handwaving required little to no thought, so it is
not unexpected.
|
| 20.3913 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:35 | 2 |
|
.3911 wonder if he's ever seen Dog.
|
| 20.3914 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:39 | 6 |
|
I thought what you wrote made a lot of sense, Tom. If I were
an atheist, and God knows I might be (I'll never tell), that
would be my rationale. It's extremely logical.
|
| 20.3915 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | He's no lackey!! He's a toady!! | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:43 | 6 |
|
>It's extremely logical.
If you're a Pop Tart...
|
| 20.3916 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Perdition | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:45 | 4 |
|
I think the last time I had a pop tart was September 24, 1988.
|
| 20.3917 | Tom - 1, others -2 | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:45 | 2 |
| Thanks, being a non-theist, and having given it much thought, this is genuinely
my conclusion.
|
| 20.3918 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:45 | 8 |
|
> If you're a Pop Tart...
well, up until now, i had never thought of myself as a Pop Tart,
but i suppose that has interesting possibilities associated with it.
hmm.
|
| 20.3919 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:46 | 3 |
|
Deb, why is it you can remember the last time you had a pop tart?
|
| 20.3920 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Perdition | Mon Feb 12 1996 19:53 | 3 |
|
I have a brain stuffed with useless information.
|
| 20.3921 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Feb 12 1996 20:05 | 7 |
|
Apparently on September 24, 1988, your stomach was full of useless
food. :-)
|
| 20.3922 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Perdition | Mon Feb 12 1996 20:06 | 4 |
|
8^)
|
| 20.3923 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Feb 12 1996 20:44 | 4 |
| Z like humans are depraved and we must look to a god for guidence
Z and forgiveness, in order to get along in their world.
May the Force be with you!!!
|
| 20.3924 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Feb 12 1996 21:00 | 1 |
| JACK, I expected handwaving from those others, but not from you!
|
| 20.3925 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Tue Feb 13 1996 12:04 | 6 |
| .3906
i was raised lutheran. they were big on original sin.
even as a little girl, i always questioned that notion,
and i guess you could say i never bought it. it seemed
as ridiculous at 12 years old as it does now.
|
| 20.3926 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Tue Feb 13 1996 12:19 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.3925 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "mz morality sez..." >>>
| i was raised lutheran.
Cool! The Davey and Goliath people!
| they were big on original sin. even as a little girl, i always questioned that
| notion, and i guess you could say i never bought it.
Since when can you buy original sin? Bonnie, I think the same people
who sell swamp land were trying to sell you original sin! But being the very
smart person you are, you declined the offer. :-)
Glen
|
| 20.3927 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | pack light, keep low, move fast, reload often | Tue Feb 13 1996 12:46 | 1 |
| Most good quality ski shops sell Original Sin Snowboards. HTH.
|
| 20.3928 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Tue Feb 13 1996 12:55 | 2 |
| Even if there was an Adam and Eve, which I doubt, how am I responsible for what
they did. I will not take the blame. I was in Philadelphia at the time!
|
| 20.3929 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Tue Feb 13 1996 12:57 | 1 |
| you are tainted, i say, tainted!!!
|
| 20.3930 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:07 | 12 |
| Z Even if there was an Adam and Eve, which I doubt, how am I responsible
Z for what they did.
Tom,
We inherited the penalty of sin because we came from a corruptible
seed.
I know this is going to gleefully be bantered about by the naysayers!
:-)
|
| 20.3931 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:24 | 10 |
| I think human history more than backs up the claim that human nature is
terribly flawed, and if left unrestrained by law or conscience, would
not be a pretty sight at all <he says in Biblical-style
understatement>.
I think the evidence is all around us, slapping us in the face on a
daily basis.
-steve
|
| 20.3932 | childcare is built-in | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:31 | 15 |
|
The mammals (and birds) are built using a model of development
requiring parental care after birth. The offspring generally
fail if the parents die. Ecologically, this is a "K-strategy",
in which the adults invest heavily in a few young, as opposed to,
among others, the "r-strategy" - just breed in great quantity, as
in most frogs. Humans extend the period of infancy to an extreme
degree through neotony - the retention of juvenile characteristics
late into development. That's genetic.
There is abundant evidence that human children if unsupervised
fail to develop into successful adults. Why would we expect anything
different ? There is no reason why any life form need be autonomous.
bb
|
| 20.3933 | I'm sorry I'm soooooooooooooo depraved!! geesh | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:37 | 12 |
| Re: .3930
Well Steve, maybe the problems are are result of this kind of irrational idiocy
being taught.
>We inherited the penalty of sin because we came from a corruptible
>seed.
This is so ridiculas that it would be laughable, if it wasn't for the fact that
many believe this crap.
|
| 20.3934 | | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | cheerful, charming odd-job man | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:42 | 6 |
| God is in his heaven
and we all want what's his
but power and greed and corruptible seed
seem to be all that there is...
-Bob Dylan ("Blind Willie McTell")
|
| 20.3935 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:43 | 1 |
| Ahhh, Bob Dylan. That proves it. Hehehehe
|
| 20.3936 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:46 | 2 |
| wait a minute! he got over that born again stuff!
he's okay now.
|
| 20.3937 | or was that Hollis Brown | HBAHBA::HAAS | Extra low prices and hepatitis too!~ | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:47 | 4 |
| Ain't he the same guy that wondered whether Judas Iscariot had God on his
side?
TTom
|
| 20.3938 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:52 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.3928 by GENRAL::RALSTON "Fugitive from the law of averages" >>>
| Even if there was an Adam and Eve, which I doubt, how am I responsible for what
| they did. I will not take the blame. I was in Philadelphia at the time!
You doubt that they existed, but you know where you were when they did?
|
| 20.3939 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:54 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.3936 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "mz morality sez..." >>>
| wait a minute! he got over that born again stuff!
| he's okay now.
Bonnie, one can be born again, but be ok. :-)
|
| 20.3940 | | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | cheerful, charming odd-job man | Tue Feb 13 1996 13:56 | 7 |
| I think Dylan's been a sort of apocalyptic moralist for a long time.
(Among other things.)
I don't know where the phrase "corruptible seed" comes from; I suspect
somewhere in the Bible.
-Stephen
|
| 20.3941 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Tue Feb 13 1996 14:02 | 1 |
| OK, I THINK I was in Philadelphia at the time. :)
|
| 20.3942 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Tue Feb 13 1996 14:02 | 3 |
|
That's better....
|
| 20.3943 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Tue Feb 13 1996 14:14 | 4 |
| |Bonnie, one can be born again, but be ok. :-)
i'm a bit of a doubting thomasina, but okay, glen.
i'll take your word for it.
|
| 20.3944 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Tue Feb 13 1996 14:25 | 1 |
| Isn't "born again" an oxymoron??
|
| 20.3945 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Feb 13 1996 14:34 | 1 |
| .3932 gee, i don't think i've ever know an unsuccessful frog.
|
| 20.3946 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 13 1996 14:48 | 28 |
| Frogs are vanishing at an alarming rate from all over the world right
now. Some scientists propose that global pollution is harming
amphibians more than other species. Your genes are only as successful
as your environment allows.
In Roman times, the average life expectancy was around 30. It was not
uncommon to have children at 14 and be dead by 20. In Tudor times,
the human environment was such that children were considered to be
little adults and were treated as such. "Adulthood" came as soon as
puberty and often before - children were married of as early as 8 years
age. Even as recently as the industrial revolution, children of 4 were
working in the mines and cotton mills, up to 10 hours per day.
It's only in very recent times that we have set these societal limits
between childhood and adulthood. Mostly, these reflect that children
now need a massive amount of education in order to be successful in
modern society. That has little to do with genetics, and a lot to do
with socialisation. Ironically, the age of puberty, which usually
marked the rite of passage in former times, is getting lower and lower
in modern times. This is probably due to far better nutrition
and easier lifestyles.
If anything, our modern society is trying to shoehorn the genetic
tendencies into an ill-fitting environment. It won't work for the frog
and I wonder what it will do to us.
Colin
|
| 20.3947 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 13 1996 14:51 | 2 |
|
.3946 ribeting.
|
| 20.3948 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I sawer that | Tue Feb 13 1996 14:52 | 8 |
|
eh?
/
oO)-.
/__ _\
\ \( |
\__|\ {
' '--'
|
| 20.3949 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Tue Feb 13 1996 14:55 | 3 |
|
"frogs are croaking at an alarming rate" Film at 11
|
| 20.3950 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:09 | 1 |
| It was on the world wide webbed foot. Honest.
|
| 20.3951 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:10 | 1 |
| that's bull!
|
| 20.3952 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:17 | 13 |
| I always feel more comfy in a dress
/
(__) /
(oo)
+--\/--+
/)\< < /(\
\| \ / |/
~ / \ ~
/ \
/ \
~~~~~~~~
~ ~
|
| 20.3953 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | No swords | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:22 | 3 |
| I read that as "comely".
8)
|
| 20.3954 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:22 | 1 |
| transvestite bull!!!
|
| 20.3955 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I sawer that | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:23 | 13 |
| This feels kinda weird.
/
/
oO)-.
/__ _\
+\__\__+
/)\ < < /(\
\| \ / |/
W / \ W
/ \
/ \
~~~~~~~~
W W
|
| 20.3956 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | No swords | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:24 | 1 |
| Looks kinda weird too.
|
| 20.3957 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | pack light, keep low, move fast, reload often | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:25 | 1 |
| Ohmigawd! I'm dyin' ovah heah!! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!
|
| 20.3958 | au contraire | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Perdition | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:25 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.3959 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:25 | 2 |
| It's me bovine growth hormones dearie. I get hot flashes. Although,
maybe that's just the cattleprod.
|
| 20.3960 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Tue Feb 13 1996 15:40 | 4 |
|
Glenn, that was tooo funny! People are starting to wonder what I'm
doing laughing so hard... ;-)
|
| 20.3961 | The fire was cool and I had some wood. | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Tue Feb 13 1996 18:41 | 10 |
| The resistance to self-responsibility is formidable amoung religions and
religious backed organizations, such as right-to-lifers. These are people
who always look to a higher authority for answers. Those who accept external
authorities allow government officials, religious leaders, environmental and
anti-abortion movements, faith, homilies, cliches, one-liners, slogans, the
familiar, habits, and feelings to automatically guide their actions. Throughout
history people have submitted to illusionary external authorities, creating
parasitical establishments, governments, and religions. Such submission is
always done at a net loss to the well being and happiness of society and each
individual.
|
| 20.3962 | | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | cheerful, charming odd-job man | Tue Feb 13 1996 18:43 | 4 |
| The history of religion is the history of the state
Incestuous exploiters of a catalogue of hate
- Roy Harper
|
| 20.3963 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Feb 13 1996 19:02 | 8 |
| > Throughout
>history people have submitted to illusionary external authorities, creating
>parasitical establishments, governments, and religions. Such submission is
>always done at a net loss to the well being and happiness of society and each
>individual.
Without submission to some kind of authority, how do you balance the happiness
of society and the individual?
|
| 20.3964 | partly right | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Feb 13 1996 19:20 | 34 |
|
re, .3946 -
Yes, frogs are dying off, for reasons surely manmade but not well
understood. However, I could have picked any of many r-strategists,
some doing very well, some not, which exhibit little parental care.
(And note I said most. There are a few frogs which do NOT choose
the prolific strategem).
The separate treatment of those below puberty is universal in
mammals, and as ancient as we go in human history - yom kippur
and confirmation are latecoming religious recognitions of a natural
transition from youth to adult that was always there in the Class
Mammalia. No, it isn't a clear metamorphisus as in insects, but
human babies are not designed to survive or grow up properly on
their own, and neither are blue jays.
Thus, humans go through an inevitable mammalian behavior pattern,
from helplessness, to submission, to rebellion, to adulthood. The
pattern is genetic, but the necessary data is NOT. Children need
adults to watch most of all, to copy, to test, to best. Without
interaction with adults, children do not grow up. At least, not
very effectively. This is not a weakness in the class, any more
than pregnancy, suckling, etc are weaknesses. You could view it
as a strength. The mammal has taken advantage of the opportunity
to learn (as the frog doesn't), supplementing the data in its genes
for an inheritance. It should hardly be surprising that the whole
class has come to depend on the proper functioning of this extra channel of
adults teaching children.
To obey an adult is everywhere a feature of mammal babies. It is from
nature, not any thought process, that "authority" comes into being.
bb
|
| 20.3965 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Feb 13 1996 19:24 | 15 |
| Tom:
How about reverse logic. The church is responsible for establishing
schools and actually creating the institution of what we know as the
hospital. The church has been the main hingepin in establishing mores
which have given us civility. It has been a long known fact since the
times of Christ that the government is of the world, and has been
seperate from such man made institutions. It has been the unfortunate
practice of secular humanists throughout our society to use government
as a vehicle to weaken the church and interfere with the tenets of the
church. The parasites have usurped and institutionalized the schools
and the hospitals, making them into the hap hazard beaurocracies
existing today.
|
| 20.3966 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Tue Feb 13 1996 19:28 | 4 |
| |The church has been the main hingepin in establishing mores
^^^^^^^^
should that be linchpin?
|
| 20.3967 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I sawer that | Tue Feb 13 1996 19:28 | 4 |
| Oh yes, the church is not to blame for any of the pain in our
civilization.
{thud}
|
| 20.3968 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Feb 13 1996 19:28 | 3 |
| I SAID HINGEPIN!!!!!
go on....
|
| 20.3969 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Feb 13 1996 19:29 | 4 |
| Z Oh yes, the church is not to blame for any of the pain in our
Z civilization.
Right! Same hasty generalization Uncle Tom seems to be making!!
|
| 20.3971 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Feb 13 1996 19:30 | 1 |
| Yom Kippur?
|
| 20.3973 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Tue Feb 13 1996 20:25 | 18 |
| re: .3933
>Well Steve, maybe the problems are [the] result of this kind of
>irrational idiocy being taught.
As Jack Martin has demonstrated, it isn't a learned discipline. It
comes to us quite naturally, which supports the Bible's "original sin"
teaching. Before the Bible was penned, people were still the same.
Ancient history is full of examples, if you car to look.
In fact, the evil of the world flourishes where atheistic and/or
humanistic concepts reign supreme. History shows this in spades.
I think your 'cause and effect' scenario is a bit off.
-steve
|
| 20.3974 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Tue Feb 13 1996 20:34 | 13 |
| re: .3946
>In Roman times, the average life expectancy was around 30.
Rubbish. If you averaged in the infant mortality rate, and the
childhood disease death rate, maybe the average would be around 30. Once
you made it through this period in your life, your natural life
expectancy was quite a bit longer than 30, more like 60+.
-steve
|
| 20.3975 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Tue Feb 13 1996 20:42 | 36 |
| Re: .3963
>Without submission to some kind of authority, how do you balance the happiness
>of society and the individual?
First, thanks for this question. It caused me to think about this. What I think
is that human happiness is only achieved in a society that allows unimpeded
advancement on a never ending scale. Only in this kind of society will knowledge
deliver prosperity and happiness to everyone. Those who want to be authorities
over us default on the effort required for humans to advance. How, by
parasitically living off those who are the producers. When the time and lives
of the producers are used up in service to the authorities, the authorities are
the only ones who gain. The reason I think this is: if you as a person were left
unincumbered, in other words no law, no authority, no one to force you in any
direction, how would you act? Religious and political authorities use lies and
deception to convince us that we would do the wrong thing for any number of
reasons (example is the depravity argument, or creation of political policy law).
But think about it. Each individual would do what is best for themselves. Why,
because our individual lives would be the most important entity. We would be
rational. Rationality is what brings prosperity and happiness. Someone will say
"what if I think it is best for me to murder (or some other known crime)". But,
murder is not rational. Mutual agreement and trade is rational. We live in
this irrational authoritative world. In order to live an easy effortless life,
"authorities" need us to think irrationally. Otherwise we would see that they
were not capable of producing anything of value and we would ignore them as
worthless to society.
Re: .3965
>How about reverse logic. ................hazard beaurocracies existing
>today.
Your reverse logic isn't logical because religion also established the
bureaucracies, for the reasons I mentioned above.
|
| 20.3976 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Tue Feb 13 1996 20:56 | 22 |
|
re: .3973
>As Jack Martin has demonstrated, it isn't a learned discipline. It
>comes to us quite naturally, which supports the Bible's "original sin"
>teaching. Before the Bible was penned, people were still the same.
>Ancient history is full of examples, if you car to look.
I do look, because I care. Jack has demonstrated nothing. Children aren't
rebellous, they are doing what comes naturally, learning what is best for them.
It isn't until parents with their irrational mystical teachings get in the way,
that children become rebellous. We are responsible for irrationally molding
the minds of children. They want to be free and rational. We teach them to be
submissive, subservient and irrational.
>In fact, the evil of the world flourishes where atheistic and/or
>humanistic concepts reign supreme. History shows this in spades.
We have gone through this before. I think you have it backwards so I don't
see the need to rehash.
...Tom
|
| 20.3977 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Feb 14 1996 09:24 | 4 |
| i thought i read somewhere (averaging all variables) the average age of
an ancient Roman was more like 19yrs.
|
| 20.3978 | oops | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Feb 14 1996 11:51 | 33 |
|
Sorry, Gerald. Bar Mitzfah, of course. Similar rituals
abound.
Authority exists because authority solves the problem of teamwork.
There are many tasks (little things, like science, technology, war,
city construction, etc) in which teams of individuals working to a
common purpose outperform aggregates of individuals, no matter how
skilled. Without a CEO, Digital would go bankrupt in short order.
Authority is common in teamwork mammals. The only other natural
model we have for teamwork is species of automata, such as ants.
That won't work in mammals.
I don't for a minute agree with Tom, that Bob Palmer is necessarily
a monster, or motivated by some religion or philosophical error.
It is the genius of America (and particularly of George Washington,
who laid down his sword before Congress) that we have limited
authority, in such a way as to solve some of the problems that go
with it. Most notably, the nasty problem of effective succession.
It is useless to claim all leadership is pathological, because well
led teams win, while the anarchists and libertarians work at cross
purposes and accomplish nothing.
The relationship between religion and authority is another matter.
All sorts of arrangements have been tried, from a close-coupling
(the king is god), to complete hostility between the two. In our
country, the two are largely divorced. This has its problems, but
I'm not sure I'd try to change it. Look at Iran.
bb
|
| 20.3979 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Wed Feb 14 1996 12:29 | 8 |
| Steve,
I think you need to revise your stat. IF you were male and lived to the
age of 12, you had a good chance of making it to 60. If you were
female and fertile, your chances of making it to menopause were quite a
bit lower than that.
meg
|
| 20.3980 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159 | Wed Feb 14 1996 12:39 | 2 |
| Next question: what's the relationship between lifespan and
subservience to authority?
|
| 20.3981 | | SMURF::BINDER | Manus Celer Dei | Wed Feb 14 1996 13:35 | 17 |
| .3974
> Rubbish....
> [life] expectancy was quite a bit longer than 30, more like 60+.
Rubbish. The word senile comes from the Latin senex, which means an
old man or old woman. It was the term applied to anyone over the age
of 40. If a boy lived to 15, his statistical life expectancy was about
40. Women died younger than 40 as a rule, most of them from
complications related to childbirth. We hear about so many Romans who
lived to advanced ages because we read the literature of the educated
Romans, who were the upper class and had better living conditions than
the vast majority of their countrypeople. More than half of the people
in Rome at the time of Jesus wers slaves, and of the remaining free
people, more than 90 percent were of the plebeian class - which was
roughly equivalent to living in a modern urban slum. Without Medicaid
or AFDC.
|
| 20.3982 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Feb 14 1996 13:42 | 48 |
| re: .3976
>I do look, because I care. Jack has demonstrated nothing. Children aren't
>rebellous, they are doing what comes naturally, learning what is best for them
Jack's little girl was rebelling against Jack's authority. This was an
unlearned response. It came quite naturally. It WAS rebellion.
>It isn't until parents with their irrational mystical teachings get in the way,
>that children become rebellous.
You've got to be kidding. Children of atheists rebell just as children
of parents who teach "irrational mystical teachings".
There aren't any exclusions. You HAVE to get in the way of what a
child wants in some instances, as they do not know what is best for
them. You have to set up rules and guidelines, and once you do, you
can be sure that the children will rebell against them sooner or later.
The only alternative is to set no rules or guidelines and let the child
do whatever they want, whenever they want. And I think we can agree
that the child would probably end up in jail later in life- having no
respect for anyone or anything besides themself and what they want.
> We are responsible for irrationally molding
>the minds of children. They want to be free and rational. We teach them to be
>submissive, subservient and irrational.
Define rational.
We teach them rules and guidelines for their own good.
> >In fact, the evil of the world flourishes where atheistic and/or
> >humanistic concepts reign supreme. History shows this in spades.
>We have gone through this before. I think you have it backwards so I don't
>see the need to rehash.
I think your 'cause and effect' are skewed, Tom. In the previous
discussion on the topic above, you considered communism based on a
"religion" of sorts, which was stretching things quite a bit (if I
remember correctly).
Look at the atheistic nations today. Tell me how well human rights are
upheld in these nations.
-steve
|
| 20.3983 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Wed Feb 14 1996 13:47 | 25 |
| > Authority exists because authority solves the problem of teamwork.
>There are many tasks (little things, like science, technology, war,
>city construction, etc) in which teams of individuals working to a
>common purpose outperform aggregates of individuals, no matter how
>skilled. Without a CEO, Digital would go bankrupt in short order.
This kind of authority becomes that through effort and value production.
Not like religious or political "authorities" who become such through fraud
and coersion. The authority you speak of does not set himself up as the
authority, he earned the position.
> I don't for a minute agree with Tom, that Bob Palmer is necessarily
>a monster, or motivated by some religion or philosophical error.
Non-seguitur, no one said Bob Palmer was a monster. Bob Palmer makes his
livelihood through value production. He is where he is because of honest
work and effort. Also, he expects you to do your own job. Not look to him
to solve your problems. Teamwork is the result of many, in individual and
different positions, solving there own individual problems. The culmination
of individual problem resolution automatically affects the success or failure
of the team.
Looking to others for information is one thing. Looking to others to solve our
problems is something totally different.
|
| 20.3984 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Wed Feb 14 1996 13:59 | 14 |
| Re: .3982
Interesting. It appears that you, and Jack as well, defines rebellion as that
which causes someone to do something that is contrary to what you think is
correct.
BECAUSE I"M YOUR FATHER, THAT"S WHY!!!! YOU WILL DO AS I SAY!!!
By contrast to this, the two most valuable gifts parents can give their
children are respect as conscious beings with individual rights, and
a home environment that promotes honesty, assertive effort, itegrity,
independence, and the skill to preceive reality. Reality is the key.
...Tom
|
| 20.3985 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Feb 14 1996 14:26 | 8 |
| ZZ BECAUSE I"M YOUR FATHER, THAT"S WHY!!!! YOU WILL DO AS I SAY!!!
That's absurd! How could I foist that kind of reasoning on a 2 year
old? My sons are also 7 and 4, and I have YET to use that kind of
reasoning on any of them. I believe that excuse is a cop out and the
child is entitled to understand why they are doing something.
-Jack
|
| 20.3986 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Wed Feb 14 1996 14:35 | 4 |
| Well Jack, perhaps you can enlighten us as to the reason for the Pot Tart
incident. Steve seems to think that it is because your daughter didn't
recognize your authority. If this is the case then your "that's absurd"
comment is what is absurd.
|
| 20.3987 | Any other stupid questions? | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Keybored... | Wed Feb 14 1996 14:35 | 4 |
| >> That's absurd! How could I foist that kind of reasoning on a 2
>> year old?
>> BECAUSE I"M YOUR FATHER, THAT"S WHY!!!! YOU WILL DO AS I SAY!!!
|
| 20.3988 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | He's no lackey!! He's a toady!! | Wed Feb 14 1996 14:39 | 16 |
|
More like:
(calmly)
"Because I'm your father, that's why. You will do as I say."
There... much better... amazing what a few lower case letters will do
for a sentence... huh?
Oh... another of my favorites was:
"This house is not a democracy..."
|
| 20.3989 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Feb 14 1996 14:40 | 3 |
|
Andy, you socialist swine. 8^)
|
| 20.3990 | glug glug glug | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Keybored... | Wed Feb 14 1996 14:41 | 3 |
| >> Andy, you socialist swine. 8^)
I prefer a socialist Wine, thank you.
|
| 20.3991 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Feb 14 1996 14:45 | 7 |
|
You mean like
"I want a new Skoooooddddddaaaaaaaaa!!"
?
|
| 20.3992 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | He's no lackey!! He's a toady!! | Wed Feb 14 1996 14:51 | 7 |
|
>I prefer a socialist Wine, thank you.
I'll drink some stuff that's from Hungary...
|
| 20.3993 | Ta DA!!! The wit abounds today... | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Keybored... | Wed Feb 14 1996 15:07 | 3 |
| >> I'll drink some stuff that's from Hungary...
Drinking that stuff makes me Hungary...
|
| 20.3994 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Feb 14 1996 15:17 | 9 |
| Tom, what it is called is, instilling values in a child that will build
their character and integrity. The pop tart incident was an investment
in the molding of her person, not my desire to lord anything over
her. I don't get my jollies through such activities. I was awaiting
the desired response also to teach her that actions have
consequences...and the right actions bring rewards, i.e. a hug from me!
:-)
-Jack
|
| 20.3995 | | SMURF::BINDER | Manus Celer Dei | Wed Feb 14 1996 15:28 | 9 |
| .3994
> the right actions...
...according to your narrow viewpoint. Others may, and obviously do,
think that allowing/teaching a child to think for itself is of more
value than molding that child's "character" into a circumscribed
channel.
|
| 20.3996 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Wed Feb 14 1996 15:51 | 13 |
| >Tom, what it is called is, instilling values in a child that will build
>their character and integrity. The pop tart incident was an investment
>in the molding of her person, not my desire to lord anything over
>her. I don't get my jollies through such activities. I was awaiting
>the desired response also to teach her that actions have
>consequences...and the right actions bring rewards, i.e. a hug from me!
So in the future will this turn into "if you want a hug from dad, you must
conform to the "value" that Dad sets?" What happens to the concept of
unconditional love so often proclaimed from christians? The Pop Tart incident
was the message that what daddy thinks is of value is what needs to be done if
you want daddy's love. You daughter, like most children, will conform to your
desire, whether they like it, and agree with it, or not.
|
| 20.3997 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Feb 14 1996 16:41 | 8 |
|
Jack, in a nutshell, you're going to turn Andrea into a robot.
But when she asks for candy at the store, and then says "Please"
and you still don't give it to her, even after you hounded her
for 10-15 minutes for omitting that very same word, she's going
to be confused.
|
| 20.3998 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Wed Feb 14 1996 16:41 | 1 |
| audrey.
|
| 20.3999 | fail to see what's wrong with teaching "please" | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Feb 14 1996 16:50 | 11 |
|
Well, how would you teach the magic words (please and thank you ?)
I have to admit to doing a similar thing as Jack. It's so long
ago that I don't remember, but I probably got the same treatment
by my parents. It works, the words are learned, they get used.
I guess I don't see the problem. This is standard Americana..
By the way, Jack, pop tarts are a doubtful breakfast.
bb
|
| 20.4000 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Feb 14 1996 16:50 | 4 |
|
Well, Audrey never was a favorite name of mine, so I'd rather
call her Andrea.
|
| 20.4001 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Wed Feb 14 1996 16:57 | 2 |
| i like the name audrey. nix on the nickname 'aud'.
anyway, that's probably the neighbors' name for jack.
|
| 20.4002 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Feb 14 1996 17:46 | 23 |
| Z So in the future will this turn into "if you want a hug from dad, you
Z must conform to the "value" that Dad sets?" What happens to the concept of
Z unconditional love so often proclaimed from christians? The Pop Tart
Z incident
Z was the message that what daddy thinks is of value is what needs to be
Z done if
Z you want daddy's love. You daughter, like most children, will conform
Z to your desire, whether they like it, and agree with it, or not.
No, actually I hug Audrey alot. My affections for Audrey are seperate
from her need to learn. Audrey didn't say please to earn a hug. She
acquiesced because she realized she wasn't getting anywhere doing it
her way.
Regarding your last statement, I believe the key element in rearing
children is to pour your life into them. You speak correctly when you
say they will conform...this is a key tenet of biblical child rearing.
"Train a child in the way he shall go. And when he grows up he shall
not depart from it." Nothing is more rewarding than when a child
emulates the patterns you instill in their lives...when they are the
right ones.
-Jack
|
| 20.4003 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Wed Feb 14 1996 20:31 | 20 |
| First, I'll bet that Jack is a terrific father, in that he loves his wife and
children more than life. He works hard to instill his values in his children.
>Regarding your last statement, I believe the key element in rearing
>children is to pour your life into them. You speak correctly when you
>say they will conform...this is a key tenet of biblical child rearing.
>"Train a child in the way he shall go. And when he grows up he shall
>not depart from it." Nothing is more rewarding than when a child
>emulates the patterns you instill in their lives...when they are the
>right ones.
This is where we differ. Having raised two boys I would have to say that
nothing is more rewarding than when a child is independent, successful and
most important, happy. It is so true about training, and the fact that a
child will not depart from that training. This shows, as I pointed out a few
back, parents perpetuate the mystical, irrational beliefs by forcing them
upon their children. Children should be taught to think and to operate within
reality by solving their own problems and not look to others, real or mystical,
for solutions.
|
| 20.4004 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Feb 15 1996 11:56 | 3 |
| re: .3986
That's not what I said.
|
| 20.4005 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Feb 15 1996 12:44 | 105 |
| [This Page has been Canadianized]
Hoser Abortion foe's lawyer uses insanity plea in bid for acquittal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEDHAM, Mass, eh? (Feb 15, 1996 01:23 a.m, eh? EST) -- A lawyer for John C,
eh? Salvi III acknowledged Wednesday that Salvi, a Boston Hoser, killed two
women and wounded five other hoseheads in attacks on two Brookline abortin'
clinics in 1994.
But the lawyer, in his openin' statement at Salvi's trial, said Salvi acted
because he was driven by schizophrenic delusions and urged the jury to find
him "not guilty by reason of mental illness."
"Let me make no mistake and leave no misunderstandin'," said the lawyer,
J.W, eh? Carney Jr., in an attempt to get his client a lighter (i don't even
know 'er) sentence. "We represent the Hoser who shot and killed" the two
women, both receptionists.
The case is "not what happened, or by whom it happened, but why it happened,"
Carney said, eh? He maintained that his client was a "sick, sick sick, sick,
sick, young man" who believed that the Roman Catholic Church was bein'
destroyed by a conspiracy involvin' the Ku Klux Klan, the Mafia and the
Freemasons, leadin' him to kill to "save the Catholic hosers."
What precipitated the shootin's at the clinics on Dec, eh hoser? 30, 1994,
Carney said, was a television newscast two days before that Salvi saw with
his parents, reportin' that four French priests had been killed by a Muslim
fundamentalist group in Algeria.
BURP!!!scuse me eh?
But John Kivlan, an assistant district attorney, said Salvi "is legally
sane" and carried out the shootin's "with premeditation and with extreme
ferocity and cruelty, eh?"
Kivlan said that when Salvi, a 23-year-old apprentice hairdresser, was
arrested, maps were found in his pickup truck detailin' routes to the two
clinics in Brookline, a suburb of Boston, eh? He had recently bought a
.22-caliber assault rifle and 1,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition "used
primarily for killin'," the prosecutor said.
In a preview of testimony to come from some 80 hoser witnesses, Kivlan said
Lee Ann Nichols, one of the two women Salvi killed, had said, "No, no, no,"
when he aimed his gun at her at point blank range on Dec, eh? 30, 1994, eh?
Then, as he sprayed her with 10 rounds from her head to her (i don't even know
'er) waist, he told her: "That's what you get, eh? You should pray the
rosary."
Salvi is charged with two counts of first-degree murder and five counts of
assault with intent to murder in the attack, eh hoser? If convicted, he
faces life in prison without parole. If acquitted by reason of insanity, he
would be sent to a mental hospital and could be released if he was later
found sane.
The families of Ms. Nichols, who was 38 years old, and the other
receptionist who was slain, Shannon Lowney, 25, were in the small courtroom
Wednesday in Norfolk County Superior Court, as were the parents of Salvi,
eh? Mrs, eh? Lowney wept as Kivlan recounted her daughter's death, eh? Salvi
sat mute and expressionless at the defense table, not movin' or conferrin'
with his lawyers.
Judge Barbara Dortch-Okara, who is presidin' over (i don't even know 'er)
the trial, has banned television cameras from the courtroom, eh hoser?
Wednesday, as a security measure, she ordered the single still photographer
allowed in the proceedin's not to photograph several of the witnesses who
still work at the abortin' clinics.
The judge also ordered the press not to print the name of a doctor from the
Planned Parenthood clinic who testified, and in a further unusual move, told
representatives of Planned Parenthood not to discuss the case with
reporters.
The first witness to testify Wednersday, Anjana Agrawal, a counselor at the
Planned Parenthood clinic, described how Ms, eh? Lowney buzzed Salvi into
the buildin' after he rang a bell, eh? Salvi, who was wearin' a long black
ski parka, suddenly reached down and pulled the rifle out from under his
coat and began firing, Ms, eh? Agrawal said.
Then, as Ms, eh? Agrawal tried to back out of the room, Salvi turned the gun
on her, hittin' her twice in the right side. Ms, eh? Agrawal said she still
has a bullet lodged between her heart and her spine.
When she finished testifying, Carney, the defense lawyer, said he would not
cross-examine her, eh? Nor did he ask any questions of the other (i don't
even know 'er) nine witnesses for the prosecution Wednesday, even as they
identified Salvi as the gunman.
Instead, Carney seemed intent on paintin' a portrait of a man whose actions
were dictated by schizophrenia, which first afflicted him when he was 19 but
was not diagnosed until after his arrest.
"In his delusional thinking," Carney said, Salvi came to believe that
Catholic children were bein' injected with a jelly that made them sterile
and that "all of us were bein' monitored by bar codes."
As his illness worsened, Carney said, Salvi also began to believe that
abortin' clinics were bein' run by the Freemasons, an international
fraternity whose principles are brotherliness, charity and mutual aid.
"That's why this case is not about abortion, but about insanity," Carney
said.
[The Great Web Canadianizer is located at
http://www.io.org/~themaxx/canada/can.html]
|
| 20.4006 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 15 1996 12:47 | 4 |
| > [The Great Web Canadianizer is located at
> http://www.io.org/~themaxx/canada/can.html]
John, are you setting yourself up for an insanity plea?
|
| 20.4007 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Thu Feb 15 1996 13:06 | 6 |
|
Ummm, how does someone "Canadianize" a document?
Change US dollars to Canadian dollars, US values to metric
values, and add "eh" in every other sentence?
|
| 20.4008 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | He's no lackey!! He's a toady!! | Thu Feb 15 1996 13:06 | 3 |
|
Shaddap.... you Hoser!!!!!
|
| 20.4009 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Thu Feb 15 1996 13:09 | 3 |
|
Eh?
|
| 20.4010 | I bet to differ | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Thu Feb 15 1996 13:25 | 21 |
| re: 20.4004, Steve
>re: .3986
>That's not what I said.
Excuse me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 20.3982 Abortion 3982 of 4009
ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." 48 lines 14-FEB-1996 10:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .3976
>I do look, because I care. Jack has demonstrated nothing. Children aren't
>rebellous, they are doing what comes naturally, learning what is best for them
Jack's little girl was rebelling against Jack's authority. This was an
unlearned response. It came quite naturally. It WAS rebellion.
{snip}
|
| 20.4011 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Thu Feb 15 1996 13:32 | 9 |
|
> -< I bet to differ >-
how much?
|
| 20.4012 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Thu Feb 15 1996 13:38 | 1 |
| how much you got??? :)
|
| 20.4013 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Feb 21 1996 16:23 | 54 |
| Utah House tries to add video watching to abortion rules
SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah soon could be on its way to court once again to test
the constitutional limits of restrictions on abortion.
State representatives Tuesday approved 53-15 and sent to the Senate a bill
requiring that women be shown a state-produced informational video before
they could obtain a legal abortion.
A second controversial provision of the House bill would ban the current
practice of women using the telephone to fulfill the state law requiring
they consult with a physician or other medical professional 24 hours before
undergoing the procedure.
The Legislature's own attorneys warn that the bill "goes further than what
was specifically tested" in the last major U.S. Supreme Court ruling on
abortion, which made it clear states could impose waiting periods and
informed-consent provisions.
Minority Leader Frank Pignanelli, D-Salt Lake City, pleaded for colleagues
to eliminate the mandate that women be shown the video. His amendment
would have required only that the state make it available.
"If this amendment dies, then we might just as well staple a check to the
ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) to the bill," warned Pignanelli, an
attorney. "We are buying ourselves a major lawsuit."
But the bill sponsor, Rep. Robert Killpack, R-Murray, successfully
resisted attempts to soften the measure, declaring: "If it's going to be
challenged, let's take the strongest possible stance we can. ... Why is
it we appear so anti-baby in this issue? Don't we care?"
The Republican-dominated House swept aside a second Democratic amendment --
one that would have required every man residing in Utah to view the video
before it was distributed to women.
"Women are not in these abortion clinics because they got pregnant all by
themselves -- there was a man involved," said Rep. Loretta Baca, D-Salt
Lake City. "Men also have a responsibility and we're putting it all on the
women."
Republicans argued that the proposed law is not intended to be punitive,
but informative.
"After seeing the video, they're free to make the choice," said Rep. David
Bresnahan, R-West Jordan.
Killpack's bill provides that the video would contain scientifically valid
information about the development of the fetus, including generic
ultrasound images of a fetus.
In addition, the measure would require the state to offer free ultrasound
tests to any woman considering abortion, at an estimated cost of $100,000
annually.
|
| 20.4014 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Wed Feb 21 1996 17:44 | 1 |
| I said it before and I....... awwwww, nevermind!
|
| 20.4015 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Feb 28 1996 21:47 | 22 |
| Don't you think women should be informed about the decision they are
going to make? I heard one woman on TV a couple of years ago supporting
a similar bill, the difference being that bill required women to take
home a pamphlet about abortion. Anyway this woman had had an abortion,
and she was told at the clinic that , at that point of the pregnancy,
it was just "a blob of cells". The woman had the abortion and some time
later saw something in a book showing the progress of a fetus in vitro.
It seems that at the point of her pregnancy in question, the baby was
somewhat developed, and the woman was distraught and you know the rest.
I'm sorry I don't have names, a state, how far the baby was advanced,
etc. But the point I'm making is that when you have a medical
procedure done, you should be aware of just what is happening. Why do
the National organization of Women and similar groups protest so
heavily to legislation requiring women considering abortion to see what
they are doing to themselves and their fetus? While I'm on the subject,
why does NOW make broken record statements about "It's my body, it's my
choice" and then harrass women who CHOOSE to show THEIR BODY in
magazines, movies, or in night clubs?
dave
|
| 20.4016 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Hindskits Velvet | Wed Feb 28 1996 21:56 | 1 |
| Well, we are `ugly bags, mostly water' after all.
|
| 20.4017 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Feb 28 1996 21:58 | 1 |
| Yes, 75% of the human body is water
|
| 20.4018 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Feb 28 1996 22:01 | 10 |
| Dave, abortion is looked upon by some as a contraceptive. To others it
is a choice they feel one should be free to make. To others, it is a
tool of "Get Even withemisms" for frustrated women who are
disillusioned by the inequality between the sexes. But the worst case
is a segment of the female population who hold the likes of Lorena
Bobbit in high regard and would sell their soul to have the experience
she had. Total power......
You will find the latter frequently at Wellesley, Smith, Simmons,
Holyoke, and Cambridge. Avoid these areas.
|
| 20.4019 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Feb 28 1996 22:06 | 5 |
| I don't think it's as extreme as Lorena Bobbitt, but I think if women
are going to make a decision as major as abortion, it should be an
informed one.
dave
|
| 20.4020 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Feb 28 1996 22:47 | 6 |
| If men are going to make a decision as major as having sex with
someone of the opposite sex, it should be an informed decision, too.
They ought to be forced to watch the video if women are going to be
forced to watch it. If they see it first, perhaps fewer women will
need to see it later.
|
| 20.4021 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Feb 28 1996 22:58 | 14 |
| Point well taken, but as I'm sure has been mentioned before, a lot of
these women had the misfortune of being with shady men, who won't be
around for the morning, let alone the pregnancy/birth/abortion. Maybe
everybody should see the video. A few days ago, a discussion on youth
crime took place and a general concenses was that people need to take
responsibility for themselves. Why shouldn't women see this video? If
you were having a medical procedure done wouldn't you want to know just
what the heck was going to happen? Why should we be in denial about
what an ugly procedure abortion can be? It's a decision that might be
regretted later in life should a woman come upon some facts she wasn't
aware of at the time of the abortion, thus she should be informed, and
if the father is in the picture, he should be informed too.
dave
|
| 20.4022 | On your next birthday, Lunchbox, drink a toast to your own Mom. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Feb 28 1996 23:32 | 24 |
| You want women informed, Dave? Ok.
If you want women to be informed, show them films of women screaming
in pain during labor and delivery, too. Show them films of women's
skin being SLICED to make the vaginal opening large enough to avoid
being torn open by the baby's head (and then show the women getting
stitches sewn into this tender area of their bodies and being in too
much pain to wipe the area with toilet paper for weeks.) Show women
the little squirt bottles they'll be given to clean this tender area
(and the way they'll have to 'dab' it dry unbelievably carefully
for weeks afterward.) Tell them they'll be really sore when they
sit down, too.
If you think women ought to be 'informed', why stop with showing
abortion? Show them what they'll go through if they take a
pregnancy to term. (Include c-sections, too, of course.)
If the woman really and truly wants to be pregnant and have a baby,
she won't mind what it will take to go through the process.
If the woman really and truly does NOT want to be pregnant, she
may not want to go through the pain and risk of a full-term
pregnancy. The 'realities' of abortion may not seem so extreme to
her, in that case.
|
| 20.4023 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Feb 28 1996 23:45 | 31 |
| Very, well (is it Suzanne? forgive me if it isn't) I think it's in
*everybody's* interest that *all* parties involved are aware of *all*
the options. This may sound stupid, but I used to watch G.I.Joe on
weekday afternoons and they would always have a little public service
announcement where one hero explains to kids why they shouldn't drink
bleach, throw a hair dryer in the bathtub,etc. Well it would always end
like this:
HERO: ...and that's why you should never play in the street.
KIDS: ... Now we know!!!!!
HERO: ...And knowing is half the battle.
Stupid, I know, but I really make an effort to learn about
everything I do before I do it. I don't know if it's because of that
show or my parents or what, but any decision should be weighed and
people should know what they are getting themselves into whether it's
determining what type of car to buy or whether they are going to carry
a baby to term or abort it. I know 3 girls(probably more, but 3 that
are close enough friends to trust me with the information that they've
had an abortion) who have had abortions, and all 3 are still
uncomfortable that they made the right choice. Maybe both videos should
be shown. Certainly the one you mentioned should be shown in high
school health classes. It's not like this issue will ever be solved in
this country, or this world for that matter, you are always going to
have 2 sides screaming and barely rational. I'm all for knowledge and
education.
dave
|
| 20.4024 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Feb 28 1996 23:59 | 10 |
| Dave, don't presume that women (in general) don't already know
what is happening in women's own bodies (unless you're talking
about 14 - 16 year olds, perhaps.)
Women are faced with the monthly realities of female reproductive
systems at puberty, and believe me, it's a matter that can't easily
be avoided for the next several decades.
You're a 20 year old male. Perhaps you need to see these videos
more than most women do.
|
| 20.4025 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 00:20 | 13 |
| I don't want to give the impression that I don't think women know their
bodies or can take care of themselves. I am not anti-woman, anti-womens
rights , etc. I would think that anybody interested in womens rights
would support a bill like this. Women have been decieved at abortion
clinics, like the woman I referred to earlier when I stumbled into this
topic quite by accident. What is it about knowledge that you are
opposed to? If I was involved with somebody and they became pregnant
and wanted an abortion I would certainly watch the video, and if she
wanted me there I would be in the room to hold her hand for the
procedure, regardless of how I feel about it morally. If women know
their bodies well enough nothing in the video will upset them.
dave
|
| 20.4026 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Feb 29 1996 00:42 | 17 |
| RE: .4025 Dave (Lunchbox)
> I would think that anybody interested in womens rights would support
> a bill like this.
Oh really.
Do you think Americans (in general) should be forced to watch videos
before they are allowed to have medical procedures?
How far do you go to enforce this? Do witnesses have to be there
to make sure people's eyes are actually focused on the screen (and
their ears are not filled with earplugs) in order to get approved
for medical procedures?
What if the person is blind and/or deaf? Should they not be allowed
to have medical procedures at all?
|
| 20.4027 | Personally, I trust the clinics more than I'd trust the UT video. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Feb 29 1996 00:50 | 11 |
| By the way, Dave, I don't share your view that women's health clinics
are enemies to the women who go there for health services.
On the contrary, they are there to help.
If you ever worry that you might have a sexually transmitted disease
(or want to be tested for AIDS), you can go to Planned Parenthood
for these tests, even though you are a man. They may be the most
economical resource for you to have such tests, in fact, and they
will be courteous to you. If you're poor, they will charge you
on a sliding scale based on your ability to pay.
|
| 20.4028 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Feb 29 1996 01:35 | 7 |
| After hearing about this law to force people to watch a videotape,
I'm reminded of "A Clockwork Orange" (when Alex was connected to a
machine which held open his eyelids while people kept putting eye
drops in his eyes to keep them moisturized.)
It was a very strange series of scenes in the movie. (Not that
the movie itself wasn't strange thoughout.)
|
| 20.4029 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Thu Feb 29 1996 01:51 | 15 |
| suzanne,
My major concern is what "state sanctioned video" they will make women
watch. "silent scream?" which as already been discredited as it is a
later term abortion than was pretended to be, as well, as magnified.
One other problem with that is will they have a film for each week of
gestation? will it be a generic 4-6 week d&S or a 24 week intact D&E?
Will they pay any attention to the woman, or just treat her like a blob
of tissue the way they do in SS?
Given that this is a state that is willing to boot kids off football
teams to avoid allowing a small percentage of children to meet in a
suppport group, I pick the latter with the woman totally ignored.
meg
|
| 20.4030 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Back from meeting Elvis | Thu Feb 29 1996 01:56 | 24 |
| <<< Note 20.4022 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> Show them films of women's
> skin being SLICED to make the vaginal opening large enough to avoid
> being torn open by the baby's head (and then show the women getting
> stitches sewn into this tender area of their bodies and being in too
> much pain to wipe the area with toilet paper for weeks.)
Excellent point, Suzanne. Did you know that this procedure is
not REQUIRED for vaginal birth? Did you know that most times
the procedure is performed for the benefit of the physician
and not for the benefit of the mother? Did you know that most
(all) midwives do not use this procedure? (Why would that be...)
If more women knew what this procedure involved, they would
demand that the OB-GYN perform it only as the exception nd
not the rule.
I think your example perfectly demonstrates what Dave is
trying to say.
As for films of birth in general (and screaming deliveries)
it seems to me that some of these pregnant high schoolers could
use a dose of this reality too.
|
| 20.4031 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Back from meeting Elvis | Thu Feb 29 1996 01:58 | 7 |
| <<< Note 20.4024 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> Dave, don't presume that women (in general) don't already know
> what is happening in women's own bodies
Then what were you going on about back in .4022 then? You
made it seem like women don't know what's going on...
|
| 20.4032 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Back from meeting Elvis | Thu Feb 29 1996 02:03 | 26 |
| <<< Note 20.4026 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> Do you think Americans (in general) should be forced to watch videos
> before they are allowed to have medical procedures?
"Forced"? I wouldn't argue with "required for elective
procedures". Elective means just that, and therefore their
watching the video is also elective. (And abortion is an
elective procedure -- if the term 'choice' is to have any
meaning...)
It could certainly reduce some of the litigation that bogs
down this society...
> How far do you go to enforce this? Do witnesses have to be there
> to make sure people's eyes are actually focused on the screen (and
> their ears are not filled with earplugs) in order to get approved
> for medical procedures?
This is already done for procedures like vasectomies. Nobody
suggests such hysterical things in those cases. Spare us the
dramatics. Common sense ought to be good enough. At least
it is now.
Why do you argue for ignorance? Why must you insist that
women considering abortion should not be fully-informed?
|
| 20.4033 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Back from meeting Elvis | Thu Feb 29 1996 02:06 | 3 |
| re .4029
Let the AMA make it. Surely you can trust them, Meg. No?
|
| 20.4034 | What? Where? And When? | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Feb 29 1996 02:08 | 3 |
| > This is already done for procedures like vasectomies.
'scuse, please? 'splain?
|
| 20.4035 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Back from meeting Elvis | Thu Feb 29 1996 02:14 | 10 |
| Not that I know a whole bunch of guys with v's, but those I
know had to watch a video (WITH THEIR WIVES) that outlined
the risks, possibilities of reversals, etc. Then both partners
had to sign a waiver.
Can't say whether it is REQUIRED or not. If not, I consider
it a smart move on the part of the doctor to insist upon it
(to protect him from liability suits, etc.)
And I thought the box had this discussion a while ago...
|
| 20.4036 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Thu Feb 29 1996 03:27 | 9 |
| Gee Joe,
I fail to see where it included watching a VT of the procedure itself.
While such thing don't bather me, I bet the number of V's would go down
drastically, knowing how many people actually get ill at watching the
simple eye safety film I had to watch in shop classes.
meg
|
| 20.4037 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Feb 29 1996 04:26 | 9 |
| RE: .4031 Joe Oppelt
> Then what were you going on about back in .4022 then? You
> made it seem like women don't know what's going on...
No, I was trying to get through to our 20-year-old Lunchbox
about the realities of labor and delivery (and the fact that
they may look far MORE extreme than an abortion to a woman who
really, really does NOT want to carry a pregnancy to term.)
|
| 20.4038 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Feb 29 1996 04:34 | 29 |
| RE: .4032 Joe Oppelt
> Why do you argue for ignorance? Why must you insist that
> women considering abortion should not be fully-informed?
First off, I don't presume women are ignorant about abortion.
Second, I do believe in providing abortion materials to any
woman who wants to read about this legal medical procedure.
(Abortion pamphlets should be made more easily available,
in fact.)
Forcing women to watch a video as a condition to get a particular
medical procedure?? I think women should have the option of
looking at videos or reading pamphlets published by the resource
they choose to believe.
If they're going to force women to watch videos, then I think they
should take the women's word for it that the video was watched
(so that women can choose not to watch it.)
When did our culture get to the point where a TV program could be
made mandatory for a medical procedure? (What if the woman is blind?
What if the woman is deaf? What if the woman has made the personal
choice to NEVER, EVER, EVER watch television?)
Planned Parenthood has some nice pamphlets about abortion. Let the
women take a pamphlet home after speaking to a counselor. That should
suffice.
|
| 20.4039 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Thu Feb 29 1996 06:07 | 18 |
| Somehow it strikes me as strange that the very people who want
discussion of abortion off the internet complain that women arent
"fully informed" about abortion. If you want graphic details try any
book stor, and read any feminist health text, and no, they don't all
refer to POC's as just tissue. One clinic I volunteered for had no
problem when a woman wanted to see what had come out. It also listed a
lot of information on before the procedure, developmental stages, and
after care for oneself, including the fact tht some women mourn deeply
while others are merely relieved after a pregnancy is terminated.
I really don't know where people get the idea that clinics don't give
this information out, and give some hearts and flowers song and dance.
The clinics and Dr's I have been familiar with, including one private
Dr have been quite informational and forthcoming with information. The
unspoken rule I saw was that no one should make a decision important to
them and their health without full information.
meg
|
| 20.4040 | That old canard again? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Feb 29 1996 10:24 | 3 |
| I don't know of anyone who wants discussion of abortion off the Internet.
/john
|
| 20.4041 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Thu Feb 29 1996 10:36 | 9 |
| John,
As has been pointed out to you in the past the law was spelled out.
Abortion, reproductive organs, etc. are indecent according to this law.
Either you have forgotten that it was pointed out to you, or no, I
couldn't subscribe to the idea that you aren't perfect and would
deliberately prevaricate, now could I?
meg
|
| 20.4042 | The "indecency" bill was introduced by a DEMOCRAT, btw: Exon | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Feb 29 1996 10:59 | 16 |
| Oh, baloney. There's nothing to do with indecency in the new law unless
you can be proven to have _intended_ to harass someone or deliberately
made materials indecent by community standards available to people under
18. No information that can be passed out to seventh graders in school
is going to be considered indecent.
Get it right Meg. A 100-year-old law that forbids shipping porno or
abortion materials by telephone or express carrier was amended to
include the Internet.
The porno portion is enforceable; the abortion section is no more enforceable
on the Internet than it is on the telephone.
Stop being Chicken Little.
/john
|
| 20.4043 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Feb 29 1996 11:02 | 12 |
| > And I thought the box had this discussion a while ago...
Oh. Yeah - now I recall. We did have it. I think that the outcome was that
those of us with first hand knowledge indicated that it's NOT required,
and there's no general (i.e. other than possibly local or individual doctor)
requirement for wives to sign waivers or even necessarily be aware of the
procedure being done. I also recall pointing out the ludicrous nature of the
idea of any woman charging a doctor with liability for her inability to
have some gentleman's sperm. You apparently forgot how that discussion
ended up, but don't let those of us with first-hand knowledge confuse the
matter for you.
|
| 20.4044 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Thu Feb 29 1996 15:30 | 13 |
| Re: .4019, Dave
>I don't think it's as extreme as Lorena Bobbitt, but I think if women
>are going to make a decision as major as abortion, it should be an
>informed one.
Absolutely right. The problem is allowing the government to dictate the
"appropriate" information. A vast amount of information Material is available
to those contemplating an abortion. To add additional tax burden to the general
public so that the government can force additional information should not be
allowed. Take a moment to evaluate the quality of information already forcefully
distributed by the government, and I think you will decide to obtain your
abortion information elsewhere.
|
| 20.4045 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Back from meeting Elvis | Thu Feb 29 1996 15:35 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.4043 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>ended up, but don't let those of us with first-hand knowledge confuse the
>matter for you.
I am among that group too, so you do not hold some sort of
magical trump card in your experience.
I am also among the group who has had the procedure reversed.
|
| 20.4046 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 17:24 | 19 |
| Well, it's been pretty busy in here since I left. Suzanne mentioned
Planned Parenthood. I'm quite familiar with PP, as I went with my
girlfriend in October for birth control purposes. They were very good
and informative, and I'm glad there's a place for women, girls and
couples to get information and services regarding reproduction.
Suzanne, I still don't see why you're so opposed to the video. It's as
if you know the truth will persuade women NOT to have an abortion, and
you'd rather they think of the zygote as a "blob of cells", and be
oblivious to how quickly it develops. You also made some references to
my age, as if I'm naive about womens anatomy. I may have failed to
mention that I was a nursing major my first 3 semesters, and while I'm
certainly not an OB-GYN, I had enough A&P to have, IMO, a better than
average understanding of the human body, both male and female.
Certainly 3 semesters are only a drop in the bucket to study something
that NOBODY completely understands, it's more than the general society
has seen.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4047 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Feb 29 1996 17:27 | 8 |
| Ok Lunchbox - if you're so anxious to have women be forced to see a
video, then I'm certain you'll be more than anxious to make sure women
are forced to see a PLANNED PARENTHOOD video, too.
The women could be given a video from the state of Utah and a video
from Planned Parenthood (to watch afterward.)
You do want the proper 'balance' of the truth, I presume.
|
| 20.4048 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 17:36 | 15 |
| I can see why you'd be concerned about how the information on the video
can be exaggerated or distorted, perhaps the medical community can
agree on the format and even produce the film.
Utah is a little bit too conservative, in case anybody hasn't read-
they recently banned all extracurricular clubs in high schools (chess
club, science club, etc.) instead of allowing a gay club. So I would be
less than trusting for them to produce a neutral video on the topic.
I'm not trying to keep women out of abortion clinics- truly it is a
woman's choice what is to occur in her body. I do want people to be
informed, and I want them to have the right information. I think my
comments could have been read into a little too deeply, and people
misconstrued them.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4049 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Thu Feb 29 1996 17:40 | 3 |
| lunchbox, if you're just 20 years old then how come you
spell so good and why is your grammar so good? where'd you
go to school anyway? if you don't mind me asking.
|
| 20.4050 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 17:45 | 6 |
| I attended Boston public schools, and I now go to Bunker Hill Community
College. I don't know where the grammar/spelling/vocabulary come from.
I read a lot. Maybe I just have a good memory for such things. Anyway,
Boston schools aren't exactly hailed as the model school system.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4051 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 17:48 | 2 |
| I guess my manners still need work; I forgot to thank you for the
compliment!!! Thanx!!!
|
| 20.4052 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Thu Feb 29 1996 17:52 | 3 |
| lunchbox, you're okay, you know? thinking back on it,
it should have been obvious to me that you are a reader.
mine name's oph.
|
| 20.4053 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Thu Feb 29 1996 17:53 | 1 |
| my my my
|
| 20.4054 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 17:55 | 6 |
| I'm a lot different than I was 4 years ago. I guess that's why I argue
so adamantly about programs for troubled youth. Too many people give up
on kids with a lot of potential, and it gets wasted when they get shot
or end up in prison.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4055 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Feb 29 1996 18:51 | 9 |
| Lunchbox:
Try to emulate me. I was a vindictive individual when I first
participated here. I now tend to use wisdom and discernment in my
thoughts and how I express them.
Rgds.,
-Jack
|
| 20.4056 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 18:54 | 3 |
| I know how well respected by all you are too, Jack.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4057 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Thu Feb 29 1996 18:54 | 6 |
| >>I now tend to use wisdom and discernment in my
>>thoughts and how I express them.
Jack, really. Can't you wait until tomorrow to post something like
that?
|
| 20.4058 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Back from meeting Elvis | Thu Feb 29 1996 19:08 | 10 |
| <<< Note 20.4047 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> The women could be given a video from the state of Utah and a video
> from Planned Parenthood (to watch afterward.)
Does this imply that you admit that PP distorts to the same
degree that you believe Utah would? If not, how would that
be 'balance' of truth that you seek.
FWIW, I could support your suggestion.
|
| 20.4059 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Feb 29 1996 19:09 | 5 |
| No, it means that I believe that the state of Utah would be
presenting the pro-life position (only).
In order to reach balance, women should hear both sides of the
issue.
|
| 20.4060 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 19:12 | 3 |
| As long as women hear what they need to hear, I'm satisfied.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4061 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Thu Feb 29 1996 19:17 | 4 |
| actually, i'd like men to view films on vasectomies.
maybe that would alleviate some of their fears about
having the procedure. it would certainly add to their
knowledge.
|
| 20.4062 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Thu Feb 29 1996 19:21 | 5 |
|
<-----
I agree...
|
| 20.4063 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 19:22 | 9 |
| This is what I'm saying. If people make educated decisions, the
chances for regret later are less. I cannot imagine that a woman
contemplating abortion would want to refuse to see a film about it. She
will remember for the rest of her life that she had the abortion, and
if she has all the facts her mind is more likely to be at peace than if
she goes to a clinic scared and desperate and comes out two hours later
wondering if she rushed into it.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4064 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:04 | 1 |
| Suzanne's apparent phobia toward education makes her position suspect!
|
| 20.4065 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:09 | 6 |
| I'm hesitant to agree with you for fear of getting blacklisted, but I
keep asking her what she has against knowledge and she sidesteps the
question.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4066 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:10 | 3 |
|
You're learnin', boy...
|
| 20.4067 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:13 | 5 |
|
not learnin' that fast, lunchbox, if you think Suzanne has anything against
knowledge. she has something against forcing women to do things.
those are quite different things, i'm sure you'll agree.
|
| 20.4069 | Don't sprain your arm or anything... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:15 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.4070 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Happy 35th Birthday, Frederic | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:16 | 20 |
|
Look, far be it from ME to agree with Suzanne 8^), but she hasn't
sidestepped any question. She appears to think that a pregnant woman
usually has a good idea about what she's doing and what's going on.
And she's questioning WHO will provide this "video". Considering that
much information on abortion provided by "pro-life" groups has been
found to be greatly exaggerated and full of falsehood, I tend to agree
with her.
I wouldn't have a problem watching an information video about an
elective medical procedure if it could be presented truthfully and
fairly.
In fact, I watched one while considering elective surgery a few years
ago, and it put me RIGHT off the idea, hoo boy did it ever 8^).
|
| 20.4071 | (Di was right in her note, too.) | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:21 | 3 |
| RE: .4070
Thanks. You are right on the money about my views on this video.
|
| 20.4072 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:30 | 14 |
| Well, at least we all agree on something. I am completely in favor of a
truthful, informative video regarding abortion, which is why I
suggested it be produced or at least approved by the medical community.
I also said I didn't trust Utah as far as I can pick it up and throw it
across the Pacific. If anybody disagrees with a neutral, informative
video speak now so we can move on.
lunchbox
p.s.-suzanne, I'm very impressed with you and your families
artillary of degrees!!! What schools did you get yours from? I'm hoping
to go on to a "real" school in the fall, but it's so expensive!!! I
don't want to dig a hole for myself by taking out loan after loan. I
don't want to be in debt until I'm 60!!!
|
| 20.4073 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:32 | 5 |
| Z (My first degree was a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy. But could I
Z stop there?? Of course not!
That was a mistake. I'm glad you saw the error of your ways and got
another degree in Computer Science.
|
| 20.4074 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:33 | 2 |
| Correction...you feel your brainwashing is better than our
brainwashing!
|
| 20.4075 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:36 | 1 |
| there goes jack, talking to himself again!!
|
| 20.4077 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Back from meeting Elvis | Thu Feb 29 1996 20:46 | 16 |
| <<< Note 20.4070 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Happy 35th Birthday, Frederic" >>>
> Look, far be it from ME to agree with Suzanne 8^), but she hasn't
> sidestepped any question. She appears to think that a pregnant woman
> usually has a good idea about what she's doing and what's going on.
Yet in the 4000-some previous replies there have been ample
examples to counter that belief.
> And she's questioning WHO will provide this "video". Considering that
> much information on abortion provided by "pro-life" groups has been
> found to be greatly exaggerated and full of falsehood, I tend to agree
> with her.
I thought we settled on one tape by a pro-life group, and one
from PP. Anything wrong with that?
|
| 20.4078 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Happy 35th Birthday, Frederic | Thu Feb 29 1996 21:02 | 32 |
|
>Yet in the 4000-some previous replies there have been ample
>examples to counter that belief.
Examples to counter the belief that a pregnant woman knows what she's
doing? Or examples that that's not what Suzanne thinks? Be specific.
>I thought we settled on one tape by a pro-life group, and one
>from PP. Anything wrong with that?
I don't think two tapes, each slanted in a different direction, is a
good idea at all. Then the viewer has to decide who's telling the
truth, who's lying, bla bla bla. If there's going to be a video, there
should be one unbiased unemotional medically factual video, and that's it.
The video I watched while trying to decide whether or not to have
elective surgery was exactly that. It described the medical
procedure, the benefits, the drawbacks, what to expect, all in
unemotional medically factual language. I made an informed decision
against the procedure based on it. The doctor could have told me the
very same things, but he chose to use a video.
Imagine if there had been two videos, one produced by, for example,
The Anti-Surgeon League and the other by the League to Promote Small
Breasts. The first video would have shown scars, disfiguration,
bruises, and blood, and ranted on about slicing off nipples and
stuff. The second would have shown happy, smiling perfect women
enthusing about how there was no pain and everything was wonderful now
that they had small breasts.
Who needs that?
|
| 20.4079 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Back from meeting Elvis | Thu Feb 29 1996 21:09 | 13 |
| <<< Note 20.4078 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Happy 35th Birthday, Frederic" >>>
> Examples to counter the belief that a pregnant woman knows what she's
> doing? Or examples that that's not what Suzanne thinks? Be specific.
The first. Most recent was Dave's example.
> I don't think two tapes, each slanted in a different direction, is a
> good idea at all.
You're probably right. I also suggested way back there that
the AMA produce it. Just one tape. Surely they can be
unbiased enough.
|
| 20.4080 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Thu Feb 29 1996 21:12 | 5 |
| >You're probably right. I also suggested way back there that
>the AMA produce it. Just one tape. Surely they can be
>unbiased enough.
NO! Not those damn commie, pinko doctors!!! :)
|
| 20.4081 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Feb 29 1996 22:24 | 4 |
| > I am among that group too
Yeah? Didja go to confession on the way home?
|
| 20.4082 | Formation of conscience later in life | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Feb 29 1996 23:12 | 5 |
| re .4081
Why do you think he had it reversed?
/john
|
| 20.4083 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Feb 29 1996 23:32 | 21 |
| I knew I could count on you to be the straight man tonight, /john. :^)
This is surely the wrong topic, but pardon my pagan viewpoint while I
query the logic here.
Devout Catholic has a big V, apparently oblivious to the "sinful nature"
of his actions in the eye of his Church. He can now screw with impunity.
At a later time, "sensing the error of his ways", said devout Catholic
has procedure surgically reversed. He is repentant. He can no longer
screw with impunity.
What if the reversal failed? Does said devout Catholic now get to close
the door on the confessional after having said "Bless me, Father, but I
_tried_ - _really_ I did!", and then walk out saying "YES!", with a big
smile on his face and a fist raised to Heaven, and go on to screw with
impunity?
Sorry. This concept of granting jurisdiction of your gametes to anyone
else is far too weird for me to logically accept.
|
| 20.4084 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Mar 01 1996 00:59 | 7 |
| regarding the AMA, one certainly cannot count on their producing a
factual and unbiased video. They were FOUNDED by using the abortion
issue as a smokescreen to get non-medical-school-graduates prohibited
from any practice of medicine. Politicising the abortion issue in this
country started with them, back in the 1850s.
DougO
|
| 20.4085 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Mar 01 1996 01:10 | 10 |
| >What if the reversal failed? Does said devout Catholic now get to close
>the door on the confessional after having said "Bless me, Father, but I
>_tried_ - _really_ I did!",
Yes.
>and then walk out saying "YES!", with a big smile on his face and a fist
>raised to Heaven,
No.
|
| 20.4086 | Talk about losing philosophies | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 01 1996 01:35 | 23 |
| re: <<< Note 20.4085 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>>and then walk out saying "YES!", with a big smile on his face and a fist
>>raised to Heaven,
>No.
Ahh. So, now it _really_ gets interesting.
The normally fertile married Catholic male is perfectly free to play
"crap shoot" in his love life. Do it by chance at the right time - no
conception, ergo no prob, shake again. Do it by chance at the wrong
time - conception, wait for bebbe, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
The big V reversal failure plays the same crap shoot and wins every time.
Right time, wrong time, day time, night time, your time, my time, daylight
savings time, you name it. The dude can't lose!
So, if I've got this straight, all he has to do is "BE REPENTANT", but
he still gets to screw with impunity.
Great structure, there.
|
| 20.4087 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Mar 01 1996 01:51 | 27 |
| No, you don't have it straight at all.
Deliberately committing a sin with the foreknowledge that you're going
to flout Church teaching compounds the sin and begins the process of
the destruction of supernatural life.
That wasn't the case we were talking about before. Before, your example
was of a person whose conscience was not properly formed, of a person who
did not realize that such a drastic method of interfering with the conjugal
act was forbidden.
You changed the situation. All of a sudden, you came back with a person
deliberately breaking the rules, in hopes that the operation would not
be reversable, and then being glad he got away with something.
Jesus, through the Church, of course, is not in the business of saying
"gotcha". Think about what Jesus came to do -- he came to remove sin
from the world. He came to forgive people who commit sins, and to keep
them from sinning again in the future. And he left behind the Church
he founded and his Holy Spirit to continue his work until he comes again.
Instead of asking me that question, why don't you try to encounter the
Jesus of the Bible, and see how he would approach the situations you
described. Think about what he stands for, and what he wants for all
people.
/john
|
| 20.4088 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 01 1996 01:57 | 14 |
| >You changed the situation. All of a sudden, you came back with a person
>deliberately breaking the rules, in hopes that the operation would not
>be reversable, and then being glad he got away with something.
Horse foofey. I did no such thing. No one has any control, wishfully or
otherwise, whether their accomplished vasectomy reversal will work or not.
The fact remains that some won't. And the guys for whom it doesn't seem to
have an advantage, in terms of pleasure of the flesh, over those for whom
it might. How the hell could I have broken any rules? The reversal
operation is as much of a crap shoot as is conception. It matters not
at all what anyone hopes, but it sure as hell does make a difference
as to what someone might or might not be glad about.
|
| 20.4089 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 01 1996 02:22 | 13 |
| You see, what this gets down to , /john, is the lack of rationality in
the Church's viewpoints surrounding fertility, sex, and conception.
Whether the guy or his wife are clinically sterile to begin with, clinically
sterile due to intentional surgical methods, or clinically sterile due to
failed attempts to correct surgically accomplished sterility, the end result
is the same. They can bang like bunnies without any concern, presuming that
they "are repentant".
The fertile are less fortunate in this respect.
I still see a lack of balance.
|
| 20.4090 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Mar 01 1996 02:40 | 10 |
| The true "lack of balance" is in a philosophy of sex that deliberately
completely separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal
act, making it no longer a sharing of both the love of the two spouses
for each other and the respect for the potential power to create life.
Once either of its two natural purposes are deliberately destroyed or
circumvented, it leads down the slippery slope to all sorts of abuses.
All you have to do to see the proof of this is look around you.
/john
|
| 20.4091 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 01 1996 02:54 | 14 |
| That's an absolute load of crap.
By that reasoning, any couple who know themselves to be sterile
and thus incapable of bringing about life shouldn't engage in sex,
as they are obviously not performing in the act with the proper
intentions in mind.
If you don't buy that, then you haven't much recourse but to admit that
the sterile are dispensed from that responsibility, which gets back to
my original point.
You'd best stop while you're ahead of the game. Your Church pales
more by the byte.
|
| 20.4092 | Absolutely amazing, Covert. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Fri Mar 01 1996 02:54 | 3 |
| It astounds me how anyone could believe he knows what does (or does
not) constitute a sense of 'balance' in the private sexual relations
between OTHER sets of adults.
|
| 20.4093 | carnal knowledge is legitimate | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Mar 01 1996 04:12 | 45 |
| > The true "lack of balance" is in a philosophy of sex that
> deliberately completely separates the unitive and procreative
> aspects of the conjugal act, making it no longer a sharing of both
> the love of the two spouses for each other and the respect for the
> potential power to create life.
Well, that's an interesting opinion. I myself see a *lot* of
benefit in deliberately separating the procreative from the
recreational aspects of sex. There's all sorts of economic
motivations to do so, partly because your system, the default,
religiously-imposed patriarchy, imposes such drastic economic
penalties upon recreational sex which inadvertantly causes
conception. Its hard to see any justification for your claim
that your philosophy is any more 'balanced'.
> Once either of its two natural purposes are deliberately
> destroyed or circumvented, it leads down the slippery slope
> to all sorts of abuses.
"it" does, does it? Sex is *such* an evil and nasty habit, eh?
No. It isn't. Sex is only as pure as any person wants it to
be. Your cute little formula, so 'balanced' between "unitive"
and "procreative" neglects entirely that aspect of sex which is
"carnal". In reality, carnality has a place; don't deny it. Your
philosophy is so dreadfully incomplete without it.
> All you have to do to see the proof of this is look around you.
So, I don't share it. The evidence "all around you" is the
evidence that repression fails, and ruins in the process. Your
philosophy, neglecting the place of carnality in human relations,
strips the earthier passions from legitimate place, sentencing all
who experience them to 'guilt' and 'repentance'. The effects are
all around you.
Don't be claiming my philosophy is unbalanced, and not expect a
rebuttal. Your philosophy of sex is bankrupt in my eyes, John
Covert. I would never follow it.
But you do as you will- in your own life.
Leave me to mine.
DougO
|
| 20.4094 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Fri Mar 01 1996 04:27 | 14 |
| /John
You mean like the lack of balance when people are doing nothing but
trying for a conception? I mean that is then demeaning the unitive
funtions and mystery of sex every bit as much as trying to avoid a
conception would to me.
As for joe O, I am totally shocked. All those years he was talking
about the mysteries of avoidance of conception by papal roulette, and
it turns out, until recently he had had a V?
|
| 20.4095 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Fri Mar 01 1996 04:37 | 14 |
| so /john
I have a question I have never seen YOU answer.
How do you really feel about the current Republican welfare reform,
which gives lip service to the pro-life stance, but at the same time
denies "pre-born" and shortly afterwards, born children the basic
funding for life? Yes, I am talking about denying payments for
children who are born, through NO fault of their own, to families
already on AFDC.
meg
meg
|
| 20.4096 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Fri Mar 01 1996 10:44 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.4087 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| No, you don't have it straight at all.
Jack is not gay.
nnttm
|
| 20.4097 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Fri Mar 01 1996 11:38 | 10 |
|
re: .4095
Would you be kind enough to cite and/or quote the aforementioned
"Republican welfare reform" please?
Just a pointer to the wording will do...
Thanks ever so much...
|
| 20.4098 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Mar 01 1996 12:18 | 5 |
| >By that reasoning, any couple who know themselves to be sterile
No. That's why the word "deliberately" was included.
/john
|
| 20.4099 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Mar 01 1996 12:23 | 14 |
| > You mean like the lack of balance when people are doing nothing but
> trying for a conception?
If the uniative function is being bypassed (such as with the use of
donor sperm or eggs), yes. Or if there is no love between the spouses
(as in the case of creating an heir to a throne), yes.
While this frequently proceeds without difficulty, the stories of sad
outcomes and lawsuits over parental rights in these cases are terrible
as well.
Better to adopt. Or have the monarchy die out.
/john
|
| 20.4100 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Mar 01 1996 12:25 | 9 |
| We need to take care of the needy without creating a dependent underclass.
I'll support any program which does that.
In the meantime, I'll support any program which takes care of the needy
and will also support programs to bring more responsibility into the
system.
/john
|
| 20.4101 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Mar 01 1996 13:03 | 7 |
| Re: .4087
>Deliberately committing a sin with the foreknowledge that you're going
>to flout Church teaching compounds the sin and begins the process of
>the destruction of supernatural life.
Soooo then, this is a good thing.
|
| 20.4102 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 01 1996 13:21 | 13 |
| >No. That's why the word "deliberately" was included.
Deliberate, my eye. Admit it - sterile couples get a free ride in your
Church. The stregth of your Church lies in it's ability to subjugate its
membership in terms of controlling their sexual activities (no abortions,
no artificial birth control, no sex outside of marriage, no sugical
sterilization, no artificial insemination, etc.) If it were to relax its
stance in these areas, it would weaken its grasp on the flock so severely
that it would quickly fall apart. Except that the sterile couples get away
with "bloody murder" so to speak, and the Church has yet to rationalize
why this should/could be allowable, but is powerless to do much about
it without making an even bigger fool of itself.
|
| 20.4103 | Completely wrong | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Mar 01 1996 13:26 | 4 |
| .4102 is nothing but blather by someone who hasn't read and understood
the teaching.
/john
|
| 20.4104 | spare me | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Mar 01 1996 14:31 | 2 |
| Well. I guess _that_ settles it, then.
|
| 20.4105 | Pro-Choice that is | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Mar 01 1996 15:49 | 3 |
| Abortion Web Site:
http://www.calyx.net/~refuse/ab/StopAntis.html
|
| 20.4106 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Fri Mar 01 1996 15:57 | 12 |
|
>StopAntis
From what???
Hmmm.... Pro-Choice and then StopAntis??
Oxymoron topic perhaps??
|
| 20.4107 | Sometimes I just kill myself. :) | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Mar 01 1996 16:13 | 2 |
| So, I assume you checked out the site. After all I'm sure you wouldn't make any
judgement without first having all the information?
|
| 20.4108 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Fri Mar 01 1996 16:32 | 15 |
|
>After all I'm sure you wouldn't make any judgement
Of course I wouldn't!! Just ask Di!
That's why I put question marks after my questions and used the word
"perhaps"...
>Sometimes I just kill myself. :)
is that why your head is so flat???
:)
|
| 20.4109 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Mar 01 1996 19:07 | 5 |
|
>is that why your head is so flat???
Used to be, then I joined SOAPBOX. Caused my head to swell. :)
|
| 20.4110 | | SMURF::BINDER | Manus Celer Dei | Fri Mar 01 1996 20:06 | 1 |
| Having your head swell is clearly not the same as having a swell head.
|
| 20.4111 | | TROOA::BUTKOVICH | running on empty | Fri Mar 01 1996 20:08 | 4 |
| >> Used to be, then I joined SOAPBOX. Caused my head to swell. :)
I was going to ask, "which head?", but figured that would be too rude,
so I won't ;-)
|
| 20.4112 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Mar 01 1996 21:33 | 7 |
| Just being in the presence of all you fine people would make one swell
at every swellable (I made up a word) place.
{snicker}
|
| 20.4113 | | USAT05::HALLR | God loves even you! | Sat Mar 02 1996 10:37 | 1 |
| swollen perhaps?
|
| 20.4114 | (over) heard in west virginny. | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Mon Mar 04 1996 15:38 | 3 |
| > swollen perhaps?
yep. swole up like a ole horny toad gettin' ready to holler.
|
| 20.4115 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Mon Mar 04 1996 19:01 | 14 |
| RE: .4095
> How do you really feel about the current Republican welfare reform,
> which gives lip service to the pro-life stance, but at the same time
> denies "pre-born" and shortly afterwards, born children the basic
> funding for life? Yes, I am talking about denying payments for
> children who are born, through NO fault of their own, to families
> already on AFDC.
I have yet to see any baby sign a welfare check or use food stamps.
Which begs the question, who's getting the checks? Could it be the
very same people who ARE responsible for the children being born?
-- Dave
|
| 20.4116 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Mar 04 1996 19:04 | 5 |
|
Just remember, more lip service leads to less childbirth.
So if you can't beat 'em, lick 'em.
|
| 20.4117 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 04 1996 19:44 | 8 |
| Heard on Claptrap and Witless last Friday -
If storks bring babies, what sort of bird doesn't bring babies?
Swallows.
|
| 20.4118 | {gulp!} | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Mon Mar 04 1996 19:46 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.4119 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Mon Mar 04 1996 20:13 | 16 |
| regarding who signs the checks and uses the food stamps. What do you
think they are using them for? WIC in CO has a waiting list, breast
feeding requiren extras a glass of milkk and peanut butter and jelly
sandwich to maintain health and a good milk supply. formula, if you
send mothers to work with no provision for nursing adds 2.50 on up/day
+ the cost of child care, unless you want mom's leaving their kids in
cars while they work. (Cause of at least three deaths last year in CO
alone.)
Or are you planning to institutionalize all born babies whose parents
can't afford them? BTW under the best circumstances, orphanages have
over 1/3 higher infant mortality rate than the general populace, so
this isn't what I would call a pro-life situation. Most orphanages in
the world have an IMR of at least 2X that of the surrounding area.
meg
|
| 20.4120 | sorry; I had to do it.. it was too good to pass up.. | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Mon Mar 04 1996 20:17 | 10 |
| > WIC in CO has a waiting list, breast feeding requiren extras a glass of
> milkk and peanut butter and jelly sandwich to maintain health and a
> good milk supply.
You know, this might explain the craving I've had for a glass of
milk and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich I've had all day..
*8)
|
| 20.4121 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Mar 04 1996 20:18 | 9 |
| Meg:
So what we have here is the following.
Orphanages with a high mortality rate.
Abortion which is obviously 100% mortality rate.
|
| 20.4122 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Smelly cat, it's not your fault | Mon Mar 04 1996 20:19 | 1 |
| .4120 excessive I've had alert
|
| 20.4123 | whoop! whoop! whoop! alert! danger will robinson. danger! | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Mon Mar 04 1996 20:22 | 4 |
| > ...excessive I've had alert
well, i've had it up to here with i've had alerts!
|
| 20.4124 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Mon Mar 04 1996 20:23 | 19 |
| jack,
allowing women to make their own reproductive choices and offering the
wherewithal for them to make them. If you are a pro-life person,
supporting women who make the choice to carry a child to term and keep
him or her, should be as important to you as ending abortion.
I want to see abortion ended, but I realize that unless you make it
possible for people on the margins to continue to carry to term and
help with getting them and their kids off to a good start, you are
going to wind up raising the death rate of children, either intra or
extra utero.
I believe in working to improve contraception, encourage abstinence,
and also working to make every baby a welcome baby in this world.
Anyuthing less to me is only going to increase the number of unwanted
pregnancies and as such abortions.
meg
|
| 20.4125 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Mar 04 1996 20:46 | 5 |
| re .4124
Of course, pro-life activists do all those things.
/john
|
| 20.4126 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | cuddly as a cactus | Mon Mar 04 1996 20:47 | 4 |
| /john,
Ask a couple of people who say they are pro-life in this file how they
really feel about babies born to poor families.
|
| 20.4127 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Mar 04 1996 20:56 | 10 |
| z Ask a couple of people who say they are pro-life in this file how they
z really feel about babies born to poor families.
I feel babies born in poor families are born in unfortunate
circumstances. A baby is a baby is a baby...now ask me what I think
about fathers who run away from their responsibilities, dead beat dads,
moms who are abusive, moms who prefer their fix over a one week supply
of formula. THEN...the word pond scum comes to mind.
-Jack
|
| 20.4128 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Mar 04 1996 21:09 | 31 |
| re: .4127
So what you're really saying, Jack, is that not everyone who has
children is emotionally and/or financially ready to handle
the responsibility. I'll buy that, I don't know of one parent
who has not been profoundly affected by the experience of having
and/or raising a child, some positively, some negatively. I've
known some childless couples who would have made wonderful parents,
and I've known some parents who never should have bothered to get
pregnant. But the point that flows through all this is that
no matter what situation you find yourself in, from conception
through college, you have a choice as to how you can handle it.
Your choices may be defined by your spiritual beliefs, or they
may be defined by your financial or emotional situation. They
may be defined by what your family "expects" of you, or by what
you expect from yourself. They may not be rational, practical
or even successful. But they are as different for each parent,
each woman, each couple, as night and day. And that is why
choice should not be defined by a government, or a culture
or a religion. It should be a decision made by the person
or the couple who is most affected by that choice, most responsible
for that choice, and has the most to lose or gain by that choice.
Choice belongs in your heart and on your own conscience, not
in a dusty lawbook on a Supreme Court Justice's shelf.
Choice isn't limited to whether a woman has an abortion or not.
Choice is about how to choose to build your family, live your
lives, teach your children. Limit one, as you may stand to
eventually limit them all.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.4129 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Mon Mar 04 1996 21:35 | 11 |
| RE: .4119
> regarding who signs the checks and uses the food stamps. What do you
> think they are using them for?
So the people who are responsible for the child being born are getting
to spend the money. Congratulations Meg, you made my point. Now tell
me why we should reward parents on AFDC for going out and creating
another burden to the tax-payer?
-- Dave
|
| 20.4130 | Pre-natal care is also required from us for all pregnant women | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Mar 04 1996 21:43 | 17 |
| re .4129
Unfortunately, unless we allow parents to kill their children (up to the
age of 16 if we allow abortion, for that matter), we have to help them
raise them as well.
I don't know how to fix the welfare system, but I do believe society
has the responsibility to take care of children if parents can't do it.
Maybe it does mean taking them away and putting them in orphanages.
Let the parents visit, and take their children back home when they
can afford to support them.
That way the taxpayer money will at least be going directly to the
children, and not to deadbeat parents.
/john
|
| 20.4131 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 04 1996 21:52 | 7 |
| RE: .4129 Dave
> Now tell me why we should reward parents on AFDC for going out
> and creating another burden to the tax-payer?
How is it a 'reward' for parents to spend money to feed and clothe
a newborn?
|
| 20.4132 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Mar 04 1996 21:58 | 4 |
|
I guess his point is that they can't even afford the N kids they
have, never mind the N+X they seem to have their hearts set on.
|
| 20.4133 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:04 | 3 |
| It still isn't a 'reward' to make it possible to feed and clothe
a newborn.
|
| 20.4134 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:04 | 26 |
| Because Mary Michael, we are dealving into relativism again and this is
not a private choice. Somehow, somebody else is being effected, not
just you.
Consider in China for example. If a child is brought into the world
and it is a girl, would a mother have the right to tell the doctor to
drown her in a bucket of water...simply because she wanted a boy? The
point is Mary Michael, policy and ideology cannot simply go unchecked.
Once it goes unchecked, then the rules are at the whim of the
participants. If this actually does happen in China, then by your
logic nobody has any right to intervene in such a matter...as it would
be an acceptable practice under the law of the state. By your logic,
the Chinese in this case would establish the right to choice based on
what is in their heart...and yet such a practice would be considered
cold blooded murder in our society, right?
So the question is raised yet again, by what measurement do you define
viable choice? Do you honor the choice a woman would make over in
China? I would think so by your logic. Deplorable...yes, but it's
choice and the state sanctions it; therefore it is reduced to post
birth contraception and nobody has any say in it except the mother.
Sorry, I simply believe that in a society as advanced as ours, we don't
need to establish barbarianism as a viable choice.
-Jack
|
| 20.4135 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:07 | 7 |
|
Suzanne, you want my opinion?
New birth control method: a needle and some very strong thread.
Need I say more?
|
| 20.4136 | Ouch! | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:09 | 2 |
| Shawn - how would a man be able to urinate after this procedure, though?
|
| 20.4137 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:12 | 1 |
| Good one!!
|
| 20.4138 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:12 | 8 |
|
[I'll pretend, just for a minute, that that was a serious quest-
ion.]
I was under the impression that the female was the primary inc-
ubator for a fetus, and therefore my solution was aimed at the
female reproductive system.
|
| 20.4139 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:13 | 3 |
|
Tom, don't encourage her. 8^)
|
| 20.4140 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:14 | 2 |
| I don't think she needs encouragement from me. Her response to your needle
and thread comment made me laugh!
|
| 20.4141 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:15 | 5 |
|
I have to admit that for Suzanne, it was pretty funny.
8^)
|
| 20.4142 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:21 | 2 |
|
Thank you. (I guess.) :)
|
| 20.4143 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:31 | 7 |
| Ouuu...just thinking of it makes me squeemish.
Meg was discussing a procedure of some kind promoted in parts of
Africa. Apparently it is a tradition where woman at the age of 14 or
so have something done that causes damage to the reproductive system.
-Jack
|
| 20.4144 | 8) ouch! ouch! 8) | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:35 | 13 |
| > Meg was discussing a procedure of some kind promoted in parts of
> Africa. Apparently it is a tradition where woman at the age of 14
> or so have something done that causes damage to the reproductive
> system.
In this country (it) is a tradition where women at the age of 14 or
so have something done that causes damage to their mental processes...
*8).bob
(let the hate noting begin...)
|
| 20.4145 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:39 | 6 |
|
Bob, it would be much less painful for you to paint a bullseye on
your back and stand out at 300yds so I can practice for this springs
DCM match (it'd save me some money on targets also).
:)
|
| 20.4146 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:39 | 6 |
| The operation Meg has described here is no joke.
It involves the torture and mutilation of 12 year old girls to prevent
them from being able to have sex before they are permitted to do so,
and to prevent them from being able to enjoy sex at ANY time in their
lives.
|
| 20.4147 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:46 | 4 |
|
yes, the operation is horrible and very real.
|
| 20.4148 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:53 | 9 |
| > yes, the operation is horrible and very real.
I believe the word 'operation' should be substituted with the word
'mutilation'. One helps. The other don't.
of course to hear the guy in this cube row describe his
hemorrhoidectomy (I just checked the spelling, it's right) I sure do
wonder about the state of medical science these days...
|
| 20.4149 | Badoom, doom, doom. | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Mar 04 1996 22:58 | 5 |
|
Was he telling _you_ about it because yer a proctorogist?
|
| 20.4150 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Mon Mar 04 1996 23:03 | 32 |
| RE: .4131
> How is it a 'reward' for parents to spend money to feed and clothe
> a newborn?
You're making the assumption that the additional AFDC funds are going
toward caring for the child; you're also making the assumption that the
additional funds are not freeing up other funds for other spending
(i.e., the $50 I was going to spend on the child is now freed up to
spend on booze because of the AFDC money can cover the child).
RE: .4130
>Unfortunately, unless we allow parents to kill their children (up to the
>age of 16 if we allow abortion, for that matter), we have to help them
>raise them as well.
There is a difference between having four kids and then losing your job
and ending up on AFDC versus starting with one kid, going on AFDC and
then producing three more. I don't object so much to helping the
former; I do object to helping the latter.
>Maybe it does mean taking them away and putting them in orphanages.
Why orphanages? Especially if we're talking about children born to
families on AFDC or to mothers under the age of 18. In these
situtations why not place the child up for adoption with the
grandparents being first in line to adopt (assumming that they meet the
adoption criteria)?
--Dave
|
| 20.4151 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 04 1996 23:24 | 25 |
| RE: .4150 Dave
> You're making the assumption that the additional AFDC funds are going
> toward caring for the child;
We're talking about an extra $35 - $60 per month for an extra child.
At most, it's about $2 per day, per child. What sort of splurging
would you do with an extra $2 per day? A trip to Paris is probably
out of the question, don't you think?
> you're also making the assumption that the additional funds are not
> freeing up other funds for other spending (i.e., the $50 I was going
> to spend on the child is now freed up to spend on booze because of
> the AFDC money can cover the child).
Are you really willing to refuse food support for a newborn on the basis
that SOME parents MIGHT have an extra $50 somewhere?
> There is a difference between having four kids and then losing your job
> and ending up on AFDC versus starting with one kid, going on AFDC and
> then producing three more. I don't object so much to helping the
> former; I do object to helping the latter.
The children being fed are no different from one another, though.
They're all innocent. They all need to eat.
|
| 20.4152 | $2 per day, per child (at most) is still not a reward. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Mon Mar 04 1996 23:36 | 12 |
| If you threaten to take away any children born while on Welfare,
then many mothers would hide their pregnancies (which means they
would not get pre-natal care.) The newborns would not be born
in hospitals and they would not get medical care of any kind.
The existing children would share their rations with the new
arrivals, and none of the children would really get enough to eat.
And all this would be for the purpose of saving an extra $2 per
day (at most) in AFDC payments for these newborns.
No thanks.
|
| 20.4153 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Mon Mar 04 1996 23:41 | 8 |
| Suzanne,
I like your idea of a needle annd thread. Maybe we should go in for the
ancient practice of one particular south-sea group that moved the
penile opening of "undesirable males" to the root of the penise?
Undesirable means anyone other than royal descendants.
|
| 20.4154 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Mon Mar 04 1996 23:50 | 11 |
| Better yet, the funding of decent daycare, and training for living-wage
jobs, or the "snip"
A 76-year-old I know is beginiing to believe in mandatory vasectomies
at age 13. Sperm to be stored until they can support a child and find
a partner who can put up with them. Before there are any disparaging
remarks, she was married for over 50 years and raised 4 children, and
the idea of a long-term relationship with a woman other than kids or
sisters makes her gag.
meg
|
| 20.4155 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Mar 05 1996 02:24 | 8 |
| Eventually, it may be considered archaic to leave young males running
around the country like loose cannons on the prowl ('Lock and load!').
Hospitals may start doing the vasectomies at birth, with an easy
procedure set up to harvest sperm when needed later.
At least everyone would have to think about it carefully before
conceiving.
|
| 20.4156 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Mar 05 1996 02:38 | 38 |
| re: .4134
Actually, Jack, conception and abortion both have been private
choices of women for centuries. There are herbs which will induce
a "miscarriage" and they have been used since the middle ages, even
in the face of severe penalties. Choice is a public matter because
some have chosen to make it one, perhaps not even to control womens'
bodies, but to induce a conformity to one set of religious values
through the persistent use of societal pressure. It isn't a new
tactic and it isn't a new argument, it may just be a new slant
(choice) on an old target (women). The struggle of one religion
or one set of religious values to dominate society is as old as
humanity, and will not go away tomorrow - it does, however, provide
a segue to my next point :-)
As much as I may abhor what goes on in China, it may not be my
place to judge the "rightness" or "wrongness" of their behavior.
My European ancestors used their right and might to deciminate and
subjugate entire cultures in North and South American, destroying
their ways and replacing them with something "superior" and
"civilized". We can now only begin to understand what we may
have lost in terms of the understanding of native plants and
animals and natural medicine, not to mention the untold damage done
to unique cultures and heritages. I suppose there is a line of
demarcation where it may be the duty of another country or
culture to step in and say, "stop", but I'm honestly not sure
where that line is anymore. China has been practicing their
form of "selective population control" for centuries. Is it
wrong to kill, live, breathing healthy infants? I think it is.
Do I have the right to tell them they must stop? I don't know.
Do I think that position is weak? No. It is only through the
constant questioning of our own ethics and values that we come
to a greater understanding of why we believe the things we do.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.4157 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Tue Mar 05 1996 11:56 | 1 |
| Oh, oh, can we see the impunity word again?
|
| 20.4158 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Tue Mar 05 1996 12:05 | 6 |
|
re: .4155
And can we also install a reverse type "Thigh-Master" gadget on the
girls so they can't spread their legs open??
|
| 20.4159 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of The Counter King | Tue Mar 05 1996 12:11 | 3 |
|
Let's just sterilize everyone at birth.
|
| 20.4160 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Tue Mar 05 1996 13:45 | 5 |
| Well, put a birth control substance in the water supply, and if you
want to have children, you must go through a screening process in order
and pay for a license to get the antidote.
That would solve the inner city problems anyway.
|
| 20.4161 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Mar 05 1996 13:56 | 13 |
| Forcing people to pass a screening (and get a license) in order to
be allowed to procreate would take a great deal more government
intervention into people's private lives, of course. I'm sure most
here would hesitate to support this.
Rather than requiring screenings and licenses, if it simply took a
deliberate effort to conceive (such as having to have sperm harvested),
it would mean having people think about the matter before they do
try to conceive. This would reduce unplanned pregnancies to zero.
UNWISE decisions to conceive would be another matter, of course,
but even those would be reduced when people are forced by circumstance
to consider conception first.
|
| 20.4162 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:19 | 4 |
| ....(such as having to have sperm harvested),
But, but, but what about all the women that ovulate with impunity!?!?
|
| 20.4163 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:23 | 1 |
| <--- That one deserves a standing ovulation.
|
| 20.4164 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:24 | 3 |
| re: .4163
Don't egg him on.
|
| 20.4165 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:26 | 5 |
| >>>....(such as having to have sperm harvested)
Watch out! Here comes the International Harvester
{thresh, thresh, tresh} {YEOW!}
|
| 20.4166 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:30 | 17 |
| RE: .4162
> But, but, but what about all the women that ovulate with impunity!?!?
Women would promise to try to keep their ovulation down to once per
month (with the egg only being capable of being fertilized for a short
time during that month.)
When we get to one egg per woman (per month) and no sperm at all
(without a deliberate act to harvest sperm), we'll have no unplanned
pregnancies anymore.
It makes more sense to refrain from interfering with the women's
reproductive systems since women will be the ones expected to carry
healthy pregnancies to term. When sperm is harvested, each man
will have millions of sperm at his disposal (which is more than enough
to take care of his procreative wishes.)
|
| 20.4167 | The Solution! | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:30 | 12 |
| RE: 20.4160 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Walloping Web Snappers!"
> put a birth control substance in the water supply...
Funny you should mention this, us humans seem to be doing this by accident.
Without knowing about any antidote.
Might solve a world of problems. Overpopulation, abortion, ...
Phil
|
| 20.4168 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:33 | 10 |
|
re: .4166
>It makes more sense to refrain from interfering with the women's
>reproductive systems...
You mean we'll have to rely on them to keep their legs closed???
Hmmmm... tough call...
|
| 20.4169 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:34 | 4 |
| No, all the men get 'snipped' (so we don't have loose sperm running
around all over this country anymore.)
(Or is that 'swimming around'...?)
|
| 20.4170 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of The Counter King | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:35 | 3 |
|
Flying around! With impunity, moreover!
|
| 20.4171 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:35 | 3 |
| > No, all the men get 'snipped'
been there. done that. didn't like that. not fun.
|
| 20.4172 | (The important question.) | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:36 | 2 |
| ...but did you get the t-shirt? :)
|
| 20.4173 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Tue Mar 05 1996 14:37 | 8 |
|
re: .4169
S_CONLON_BOBBITT!!! Coming to a clinic near you!!!
Stay tuned!!!!
|
| 20.4174 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:00 | 3 |
| No. Ova must be harvested as well and then the tubes tied that wat we
do not have receptive ova rolling around the country side, with
impunity no less.
|
| 20.4175 | | 58379::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:02 | 1 |
| You're ova exaggerating.
|
| 20.4176 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:02 | 4 |
| So, when the harvesting fails, who does the sterile fellow get to sue?
Or, does his partner get to sue?
Or, should we just simply leave Sue out of this altogether?
|
| 20.4177 | ... only outlaws will have ova | HBAHBA::HAAS | floor,chair,couch,bed | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:03 | 1 |
| I think the government should get involved and confiscate all them ova.
|
| 20.4178 | {crackle, pop, snap!} | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:04 | 1 |
| ova and out.
|
| 20.4179 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:04 | 1 |
| especially this johnny fella's.
|
| 20.4180 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:08 | 1 |
| Brian's so Hysterical....
|
| 20.4181 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:09 | 1 |
| Brian commits body dance atrocities with impunity!
|
| 20.4182 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:19 | 29 |
| RE: .4151
> At most, it's about $2 per day, per child. What sort of splurging
> would you do with an extra $2 per day?
Sounds like enough money to support someone's cigarette habit.
> Are you really willing to refuse food support for a newborn on the basis
> that SOME parents MIGHT have an extra $50 somewhere?
And are you willing to create a permanent underclass?
> The children being fed are no different from one another, though.
> They're all innocent. They all need to eat.
And the non-innocent parents are the ones who get the money.
By the way, I challenge your assertion that it's only $35 to $60 a
month. The mother of one of my sister's friends had her kids spaced 5
years apart ... every time that the state was going to force her to go
back to work she deliberately got pregnant again (keeping the whole
family on AFDC).
If you look at the CATO Institute's research on welfare (I have a
synopsis at home), you'll find that in too many states being on welfare
beats out having a job. If I have a chance, I'll post the information
here tomorrow.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4183 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:23 | 12 |
| RE: .4154
> A 76-year-old I know is beginiing to believe in mandatory vasectomies
> at age 13.
Another possibility is mandatory Norplant for females beginning at age
13. Of course both of these proposals assume that a person is guilty
until proven innocent. I'd be willing to wait until a pregnancy is
created that requires welfare of some form and then [temporarily?]
sterilize both individuals involved.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4184 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:33 | 10 |
| > I'd be willing to wait until a pregnancy is
> created that requires welfare of some form and then [temporarily?]
> sterilize both individuals involved.
No doubt, locating the errant sperm donor will be about as successful
a venture as is locating deadbeat dads or getting the responsible
party identified in current AFDC cases. No doubt, the ensuing constipation
of the judicial system resultant from "It wasn't me" defence cries will
be just what we need.
|
| 20.4185 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:33 | 12 |
| RE: 20.4183 by HIGHD::FLATMAN "Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote!"
> Another possibility is mandatory Norplant
Why bother? Just keep ignoring the fact that human sperm levels are
dropping. Don't investigate why animals living in polluted waters have a
similar problem. In a few generations, it will not matter.
And best of all, it's a "free market solution".
Phil
|
| 20.4186 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Mar 05 1996 15:39 | 44 |
| RE: .4182 Dave Flatman
>> At most, it's about $2 per day, per child. What sort of splurging
>> would you do with an extra $2 per day?
> Sounds like enough money to support someone's cigarette habit.
So you want to deny funds to support a newborn just in case
the $2 per day may go for cigarettes instead?
>> Are you really willing to refuse food support for a newborn on the basis
>> that SOME parents MIGHT have an extra $50 somewhere?
> And are you willing to create a permanent underclass?
Do you honestly think that people are flung into the middle class by
having their newborns starved?
In this country, we supposedly have all these voter concerns about how
the middle class lives in such danger from lay-offs and jobs going
overseas. The middle class (with more education and job experience
than the poor) is in all this trouble, but the poor are supposed to
be able to overcome any and all obstacles once you starve their
newborns? I don't think so.
Why don't you simply consider the poor to be PART of the middle class
so that people are allowed to worry about what happens to them?
>> The children being fed are no different from one another, though.
>> They're all innocent. They all need to eat.
> And the non-innocent parents are the ones who get the money.
If the children need the money to survive, their parents are the ones
who need to spend the money to keep them alive (no matter what you
happen to think about them.)
> By the way, I challenge your assertion that it's only $35 to $60 a
> month. The mother of one of my sister's friends had her kids spaced 5
> years apart ... every time that the state was going to force her to go
> back to work she deliberately got pregnant again (keeping the whole
> family on AFDC).
It's $35 - $60 EXTRA per month for additional children.
|
| 20.4187 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Mar 05 1996 16:13 | 10 |
| Suzanne:
Excellent article in National Review last year about the AFDC is
responsible for decimating the cultural practices of African Americans.
Many blacks who were brought over in the slave trade were allowed to
continue many of their practices...shotgun weddings were a part of that
practice or the grandparents assumed responsibility. The AFDC makes it
very convenient for people to shirk their responsibilities.
-Jack
|
| 20.4188 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Tue Mar 05 1996 16:19 | 36 |
| RE: .4186
> Do you honestly think that people are flung into the middle class by
> having their newborns starved?
IF the newborn is in danger of starving there is always the adoption
route.
If the poor really want to move into the middle class, taking on the
financial liability of an additional child is not the route to take;
either adoption or abortion would make far more financial sense.
> Why don't you simply consider the poor to be PART of the middle class
> so that people are allowed to worry about what happens to them?
Who's paying for the bulk of the welfare give aways? The middle class.
Taxing the working class and giving the funds to the non-working class
isn't a way to incent work. Quite the opposite actually. My sister's
family would be better off financially if her husband left her so that
she and her kids could go on welfare. Real bright idea you're
defending there.
> If the children need the money to survive, their parents are the ones
> who need to spend the money to keep them alive (no matter what you
> happen to think about them.)
So let's follow your solution of throwing more money at the people who
created/exacerbated the problem in the first place. You're ideas keep
sounding better (yeah, right).
> It's $35 - $60 EXTRA per month for additional children.
Not in the real life scenario that I laid out. ALL of the AFDC that
the family received was due to the one additional child.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4189 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Tue Mar 05 1996 16:31 | 3 |
| >> Brian commits body dance atrocities with impunity!
Jack, I should be so lucky.
|
| 20.4190 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Tue Mar 05 1996 16:45 | 8 |
|
> >> Brian commits body dance atrocities with impunity!
>Jack, I should be so lucky.
You might... if'n you miss a step whilst slogging up the Notch...
|
| 20.4191 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:03 | 12 |
| RE: 20.4186 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians"
> ... all these voter concerns about how the middle class lives in such
> danger from lay-offs and jobs going overseas.
So better not have regulations about putting nasty chemicals into the
environment, so as to protect the corporate bottom lines. That way we
will not have an abortion problem in a few generations. Or any other
problems, for that matter.
Phil
|
| 20.4192 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:13 | 7 |
| A fresh hot-button for you apparently, eh Phil?
Ackshually, why not leave it be, let the human race systematically
sterilize itself and die off in the short term, and maybe in a few
million years by the time the next intelligent species has evolved
they'll be more reasonable that the sorry mess we all are today.
|
| 20.4193 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:22 | 1 |
| <--- That's what I love about his notes...always so positive. 8^)
|
| 20.4194 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:25 | 10 |
| RE: 20.4192 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"
> Ackshually, why not leave it be, let the human race systematically
> sterilize itself and die off in the short term,
Yea, why not? There is no moral problem with racial suicide, right? And
anyone that doesn't like it, just tell them "tough luck".
Phil
|
| 20.4195 | I've got nothing to lose | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:25 | 5 |
| Well, why not, Steve? We (the human race in general) spend 99% of our time
complaining about everybody else that doesn't agree with us. Quite obviously
we're inherently flawed as a species. Time to give it up and pass the torch
to some different combinations of chromosomes, I say.
|
| 20.4196 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:26 | 1 |
| but then what happens to KingKong Theology?
|
| 20.4197 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:27 | 1 |
| It gets replaced by KingBong Theology?
|
| 20.4198 | The Big Bong Theory doesn't hold water | HBAHBA::HAAS | floor,chair,couch,bed | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:28 | 0 |
| 20.4199 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:32 | 1 |
| DingDong Theology...it tolls for thee.
|
| 20.4200 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:33 | 1 |
| Snarf!
|
| 20.4201 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Lord of the Turnip Truck | Tue Mar 05 1996 17:56 | 3 |
|
Phil Hays woulda loved yesterday's "Non Sequitur"....
|
| 20.4202 | I thought this was a soapbox phenomena | BROKE::ABUGOV | | Tue Mar 05 1996 18:33 | 3 |
|
>Well, why not, Steve? We (the human race in general) spend 99% of our time
>complaining about everybody else that doesn't agree with us.
|
| 20.4203 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Tue Mar 05 1996 20:44 | 67 |
| RE: .4188 Dave Flatman
>> Do you honestly think that people are flung into the middle class by
>> having their newborns starved?
> IF the newborn is in danger of starving there is always the adoption
> route.
People who were starving during the Great Depression did not put their
children up for adoption on a grand scale.
You can't deny support to newborns and then simply dismiss them with
the wave of your 'adoption' wand.
> If the poor really want to move into the middle class, taking on the
> financial liability of an additional child is not the route to take;
> either adoption or abortion would make far more financial sense.
If people really don't want to be laid off, they shouldn't go into
the computer business (or the auto business, or the telecommunications
business, or....)
Do you want people who are laid-off to give their children away, too?
> Who's paying for the bulk of the welfare give aways? The middle class.
Rich individuals and big businesses USED to pay the bulk of our taxes.
They had cool friends in high places, though, so the middle class pays
now.
> Taxing the working class and giving the funds to the non-working class
> isn't a way to incent work. Quite the opposite actually.
Do you really think that living well below the poverty line is so very
attractive? It means you have a lot more time, but you spend it in
really crummy surroundings (with almost NO money to spend if you go
shopping.)
I can't imagine anyone being jealous of people on Welfare. I'm not.
> My sister's family would be better off financially if her husband
> left her so that she and her kids could go on welfare. Real bright
> idea you're defending there.
If your sister is so poverty-stricken that Welfare would be a step UP
for her, why the heck aren't you helping her? Don't you have any
responsibility for your family?
If her children are already starving while she's married, then she
needs help. People on Welfare are still extremely poor.
> So let's follow your solution of throwing more money at the people who
> created/exacerbated the problem in the first place. You're ideas keep
> sounding better (yeah, right).
The newborns didn't create the problem. They have no idea what's
going on. Why deny them support? None of this is their fault.
> Not in the real life scenario that I laid out. ALL of the AFDC that
> the family received was due to the one additional child.
They didn't get a FULL PAYMENT increase with each child, though.
From what you were saying, it sounds as though the woman kept the
family eligible by having a baby every five years. (I think you
should check your facts on this because Welfare families do NOT
lose their eligibility, as far as I know, when the youngest child
reaches 5 years old.)
|
| 20.4204 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Tue Mar 05 1996 22:32 | 19 |
| This doesn't have much to do with abortion, but the last few entries
reminded me of a talk show I saw a few months back. Lest anybody think
I watch talk shows regularly, we were having some terrible weather up
here in Boston and when I woke up for school the radio told me it was
cancelled. Flipping through the TV channels I came across a talk
show(might have been Sally Jessy Raphael Sanchez O'Malley), with
teenage girls attempting to get pregnant because they want to be loved
and their friends all have babies, etc. Somebody from the audience
asked one of the girls how she intended to gather the $10,000 for the
first year of the baby's life, and all the other 17 years, when she
herself was only 14 years old and probably would have a hard time
balancing work/school/baby/social life. The girl said "I will go on
welfare". Aside from the fact that she wants a baby for all the wrong
reasons, I remember thinking that, since I really want a BMW, and since
a BMW is a lot less expensive than a baby, the taxpayers should pay for
my BMW. I'm only using the logic the girl introduced.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4205 | It's my right | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Smelly cat, it's not your fault | Wed Mar 06 1996 00:35 | 1 |
| I could use a Beamer too, now that you mention it.
|
| 20.4206 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 00:36 | 1 |
| I'd settle for a Jeep Cherokee...
|
| 20.4207 | I won't watch shows like that. They're pure garbage. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 00:39 | 13 |
| Lunchbox, the reason people like this MAKE IT to talk shows is that
they are such controversial people.
If you'd tuned in the following day, you may have seen something like
"I'm having my great-grandfather's love child" or "I chopped off my
father's hand for changing the channel on the TV with the remote control."
Would you like to be judged (say, as an American) for the topics on
some of these goofy TV shows? They've gotten so bad that even Oprah
won't do them anymore. She does ordinary shows now (like sending
camera crews around the country to get videos of some viewers'
favorite rooms in their houses), and she probably won't even be doing
these non-controversial shows much longer.
|
| 20.4208 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Smelly cat, it's not your fault | Wed Mar 06 1996 00:43 | 3 |
| Oh, I absolutely live for it!! It's a sick form of entertainment, I
know, but it's a hoot when you're with a friend or two. I really like
insulting and berating my TV.
|
| 20.4209 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 00:44 | 11 |
| As I said, I avoid such shows. I was actually looking for Scooby-Doo,
which is also on at that time. What I was getting at was people
expecting other people to fund whatever they want. If I want a BMW, I
have to pay for the BMW. If you had heard this girl talking, you would
agree that her motivation for a baby is similar to my motivation for my
BMW. She wants an attention getting status symbol and she wants
everybody else to pay for it. She'll be a lot less enthusiastic when a
friday night rolls around and the baby is collicky and she can't go to
a party because she's up to her chin in dirty diapers.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4210 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 00:50 | 6 |
| Lunchbox, you missed the point. Her outrageous attitude was the
reason she was *able* to get on the show.
If you demanded a BMW from American society for no reason, you
might be considered nutty enough to get on the show, too.
|
| 20.4211 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Wed Mar 06 1996 01:12 | 3 |
| So, if I have sex, I can get a BMW?
Where do I sign up?!?!?
|
| 20.4212 | | GMASEC::KELLY | Not The Wrong Person | Wed Mar 06 1996 11:40 | 15 |
| I dunno, Suzanne. I don't see anybody here arguing that they want
the children to pay for their parent's irresponisbility. You seem
to want everyone to believe that every welfare recipient is a poor,
down-trodden, oppressed person who really wants help from society
and will eventually become self-sufficient. Others seem to be saying
that most welfare recipients are scamming the hard-working tax payers.
It's not an either or situation. I think you'd have to be pretty
naive to fail to recognize that there is a lot of abuse in the welfare
system and that throwing more money into it is not the best answer.
Also, Dave Flatman doesn't seem to be jealous of anyone on welfare,
but I do know some folks here at Digital, in contract positions whereby
they were making MORE money on unemployment. Now, unemployment isn't
quite the same, but don't kid yourself, all our bureaucracies are
screwed up. Just because someone is seeking reform doesn't mean they
want to see people suffer, either.
|
| 20.4213 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Wed Mar 06 1996 11:57 | 7 |
| Is it our beauracracies that are screwed up, or is it the value systems
of employers who are holding down wages and laying off benefitted
employees to make more profits that are screwed up. I consider the
latter very immoral, but I don't guess CEO's are too concerned about
their karmic backlogs.
meg
|
| 20.4214 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:04 | 11 |
|
I also don't think anyone here wants to REFUSE aid to children,
but rather avoid bringing the children into the world in the
1st place.
Why would a family that's receiving aid still want to have
kids? I mean, simply put, they want to have kids, and that's
why. But like Dave says, a bunch of people want BMW's also,
but they realize that it's not as easy as that when you can't
afford it. So you don't buy one until you CAN afford it.
|
| 20.4215 | You're comparing children/family to automobiles ??? | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:11 | 0 |
| 20.4216 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of The Counter King | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:17 | 6 |
|
They both cost money to maintain.
Should we give welfare recipients a monthly check to maintain their
cars too?
|
| 20.4217 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:18 | 1 |
| Nah, just crack vouchers.
|
| 20.4218 | this past Sunday | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:26 | 11 |
|
Interesting article in the Globe on the relative success of Weld's
welfare reform. Reduced welfare headcount by 16% so far. Welfare
is still an entitlement - the exodus is thus voluntary. Basically,
what they've done is get people to take work, by a combination of
making various services available to working poor only, and submitting
recipients to constant nagging. The Globe interviewed several former
welfare women. I was surprised to read that they were glad the state
pushed them out to work, and said that they needed the push.
bb
|
| 20.4219 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:29 | 9 |
|
Dave was 1st to mention the BMW correlation.
I just happened to expand on it a bit because I thought it
was quite similar.
Instead of BMW, substitute some other "luxury". And children
are a luxury, since they're not necessary for survival.
|
| 20.4220 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:39 | 31 |
| I truly can't believe anyone would compare children to a brand of
automobile. Actually given the "family values" being promoted by some,
I guess I can. If babies are blessings and every pregnancy is supposed
to come to term, (gods abortuary got more than a few of mine) than we
as a nation have a responsibility to those babies.
For those who see the adoption option, or the orphanage, I will remind
you that orphanges have a VERY high Infant mortality rate, compared to
the general population, so this is not valuing life if that is what you
truly believe you are doing.
Training, education, and good, affordable daycare are needed.
Reliable, safe, and convenient BC is needed. Men need to realize that
they have a responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, instead of
saying (usually after sending several thousands of swimmies into a
vagina) "You are using something, right?" Bobbittable offense IMHO.
When the minimum wage could actually support a family we didn't have
the problems we do now, but since it doesn't we need to look at much
better job training for people who do have kids, or plan on subsidizing
corporate greed by helping to support families forever. Charities
can't handle it all, particularly when certain "pro-family" NP's in
this town don't pay their employees a living wage, yet encourage large
families.
Reminder, at least in CO, the average length of stay on AFDC is 2.5
years, the recidivsm rate is high as people can't get medical and day
care at a rate that the employer base is willing to pay. Many families
are one catastrophic illness, one downsizing, one paycheck away from
AFDC dependency.
meg
|
| 20.4221 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:43 | 10 |
| re: <<< Note 20.4218 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
I wish I'd seen that. If anyone has it handy and could interoffice a copy
to me I'd appreciate it.
I don't often buy or read Boston papers, but I'm still hanging onto the
copy of the Herald from last year after Weld announced the reform plan -
it's the one with the angry gimme-girls snarling for the cameras on the
front page.
|
| 20.4222 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:45 | 10 |
|
With few exceptions, people KNOW about birth control and they
just refuse to use it. Either because they're trying to have
another kid, or they're hoping for "luck" in avoiding pregnancy.
I'm glad that you would like to support these idiots for the
next 50 years ... maybe we can poll the country, and the AFDC
and welfare costs can be split equally among all the people
that agree that it's the right thing to do.
|
| 20.4223 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:48 | 3 |
| oh man, procreation is the very nature of survival. Do we forget the
constant war that rages with our sex drive? Every thing on the plannet
wants to procreate.
|
| 20.4224 | almost | HBAHBA::HAAS | floor,chair,couch,bed | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:49 | 0 |
| 20.4225 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:55 | 4 |
| > Instead of BMW, substitute some other "luxury". And children
> are a luxury, since they're not necessary for survival.
Yeah, the Shakers are doing fine.
|
| 20.4226 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:57 | 9 |
|
Procreation is necessary for the survival of the race, but not
for the survival of the individual.
The race, as a whole, is doing just fine in overpopulating the
world. It shouldn't be anyone's concern that Miss Boink over
on Main St. would really like to have a kid but can't afford
it right now.
|
| 20.4227 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Mar 06 1996 13:58 | 3 |
| .4222
Good idea.
|
| 20.4228 | | SMURF::BINDER | Manus Celer Dei | Wed Mar 06 1996 14:33 | 12 |
| .4225
> Yeah, the Shakers are doing fine.
They were, actually, doing VERY well until the orthodox religions put
pressure on state governments to pass laws prohibiting religious
orphanages from taking in children not of their own religious faith.
There was a steady stream of young orphans who, when at age 18 they
were given a choice between a liberal seed fund and a start in the
world where they could practice the trades they'd been taught, or a
life within the Shaker community, chose the latter. That stream of
willing converts dried up, and the Shakers with it.
|
| 20.4229 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 14:37 | 87 |
| RE: .4212 Christine
> I dunno, Suzanne. I don't see anybody here arguing that they want
> the children to pay for their parent's irresponisbility.
Some here regard the support of AFDC newborns to be a 'reward' for
the parents. Denying this support DOES make the children pay for
their parents' mistakes. (AFDC is about supporting families with
dependent CHILDREN.)
> You seem to want everyone to believe that every welfare recipient
> is a poor, down-trodden, oppressed person who really wants help
> from society and will eventually become self-sufficient.
You must have missed the many, many times I've said (in general
discussions about Welfare in notes) that Jesus said we would ALWAYS
have the poor. Perhaps some think that Jesus lied when he said this,
or didn't know what He was talking about. I happen to believe it's
true. We will always have the poor. Period.
We will always have the poor because it's a dynamic group of people.
As some people rise out of poverty, others fall into it (due to
lay-offs, a catastrophic illness in the family, or another serious
problem.)
As a supposedly civilized society, we decide what we want to happen
to our poor. We can let millions of people live in garbage dumps
(thus promoting the spread of cholera in this country), or we can
provide a safety net for our poor.
Other civilized Western nations also provide this safety net.
If we remove the safety net, we will become a virtual third world
nation (and other countries may decide to send their troops here
to give aid to OUR poor.)
> Others seem to be saying that most welfare recipients are scamming
> the hard-working tax payers. It's not an either or situation.
Every aspect of our society is vulnerable to fraud. Do we want to
shut down our entire system to make sure no one will ever have the
opportunity to commit fraud in this country?
Deal with those who commit fraud on an individual basis (the way
we have to do with fraud in every other aspect of our society.)
> I think you'd have to be pretty naive to fail to recognize that there
> is a lot of abuse in the welfare system and that throwing more money
> into it is not the best answer.
Since when does the feeding of children amount to 'throwing more money'
into the problem of destitute children?
When did we become such a money-hungry society that feeding children
is now regarded as a scam? (So much for pro-life and pro-family
America.)
> Also, Dave Flatman doesn't seem to be jealous of anyone on welfare,
> but I do know some folks here at Digital, in contract positions whereby
> they were making MORE money on unemployment.
You have to be laid-off (or fired without being at fault in some way)
to get unemployment. And it doesn't last forever. Do you think
unemployment insurance is a scam, too?
> Now, unemployment isn't quite the same, but don't kid yourself, all
> our bureaucracies are screwed up. Just because someone is seeking
> reform doesn't mean they want to see people suffer, either.
It's easy to just wave it all off with 'government is bad, bad, bad'
as if no one would be hurt without the safety net of a civilized nation.
In a decade when voters seem to think that times are VERY SCARY for
the middle class, it's easy to say 'Well, let's just pretend that
times aren't scary AT ALL for the poor and dump them all into the
street' as a solution for the frightened middle class.
Think about this: If the middle class is truly scared about what will
happen to many of them, the poor will be that much more vulnerable to
whatever happens.
If the somewhat-educated, experienced middle class can be ruined by
corporate lay-offs, etc., then the barely-educated, non-experienced
poor have even LESS of a chance to make it here.
Perhaps it's time to start migrating to other promising countries
by the hundreds of thousands each year (or seek aid and troops from
the truly civilized countries.)
|
| 20.4230 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 14:40 | 67 |
| RE: .4203
> People who were starving during the Great Depression did not put their
> children up for adoption on a grand scale.
:
> Do you want people who are laid-off to give their children away, too?
Congratulations, you missed the point. The problem is not people with
children on AFDC, the problem is people creating new children while on
AFDC.
> You can't deny support to newborns and then simply dismiss them with
> the wave of your 'adoption' wand.
It would be amusing if it weren't so costly. You want it to be the
woman's choice but the taxpayers liability.
> > If the poor really want to move into the middle class, taking on the
> > financial liability of an additional child is not the route to take;
> > either adoption or abortion would make far more financial sense.
>
> If people really don't want to be laid off, they shouldn't go into
> the computer business (or the auto business, or the telecommunications
> business, or....)
And your point is?
> > Who's paying for the bulk of the welfare give aways? The middle class.
>
> Rich individuals and big businesses USED to pay the bulk of our taxes.
> They had cool friends in high places, though, so the middle class pays
> now.
Well, at least you're half right. Taxes in general used to be low
enough that you could merely tax the rich and the middle class paid no
taxes. What changed things was an expanding government that now
consumes sufficient tax revenues that taxing the rich at 100% wouldn't
be sufficient to support it. Even if you taxed the middle class at
the current rate and the rich at 100% the bulk of the taxes paid would
be paid by the middle class.
> If your sister is so poverty-stricken that Welfare would be a step UP
> for her, why the heck aren't you helping her? Don't you have any
> responsibility for your family?
I didn't create her. I didn't bring her into this world. She's where
she's at because of her choices. The people who did bring into this
world are footing the bulk of the bill.
> If her children are already starving while she's married, then she
> needs help. People on Welfare are still extremely poor.
Who said anything about starving? Or does the word "starving" conjure
up such images that you want to over use it and claim everyone that is
poor and not on welfare is starving?
> ... it sounds as though the woman kept the
> family eligible by having a baby every five years. (I think you
> should check your facts on this because Welfare families do NOT
> lose their eligibility, as far as I know, when the youngest child
> reaches 5 years old.)
Welfare is implemented at the state level. It depends on which state
you live in.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4231 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 14:56 | 34 |
| RE: .4210
> Her outrageous attitude was the reason she was *able* to get on the show.
One of those evening news magazines (the one with Jane Pauli (sp?)) did
a piece on unwed-teenage-high school-mothers. The mothers stated things
from "I wanted my own apartment" to "I wanted someone to love" as
reasons they deliberately got pregnant. Very few (less than 20%) of
the class stated that they had not wanted/expected to get pregnant.
The problem/attitude is probably more common than you'd like to think.
RE: .4220
> If babies are blessings and every pregnancy is supposed
> to come to term, ...
> than we
> as a nation have a responsibility to those babies.
Excuse me, but why? If it's the woman's choice why should it be the
taxpayer's financial liability?
> For those who see the adoption option, or the orphanage, I will remind
> you that orphanges have a VERY high Infant mortality rate, compared to
> the general population, so this is not valuing life if that is what you
> truly believe you are doing.
So Meg, you want to paint the adoption option with the orphanage
problem. Sorry, I don't buy it. The advantage of the adoption option
is that you're giving a child to a couple who really wants the child
and can afford the child. Adoption is definitely a win-win situation
for the child and for the adoptive parents.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4232 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 14:57 | 38 |
| RE: .4230 Dave Flatman
>> You can't deny support to newborns and then simply dismiss them with
>> the wave of your 'adoption' wand.
> It would be amusing if it weren't so costly. You want it to be the
> woman's choice but the taxpayers liability.
If we don't provide a safety net for our poor, we will become a virtual
third world nation. I'd rather see us provide for the poor, even if
others in the middle class get their knickers in a permanent twist
over it.
>>> If the poor really want to move into the middle class, taking on the
>>> financial liability of an additional child is not the route to take;
>>> either adoption or abortion would make far more financial sense.
>> If people really don't want to be laid off, they shouldn't go into
>> the computer business (or the auto business, or the telecommunications
>> business, or....)
> And your point is?
Middle-class people make mistakes, too.
>> If your sister is so poverty-stricken that Welfare would be a step UP
>> for her, why the heck aren't you helping her? Don't you have any
>> responsibility for your family?
> I didn't create her. I didn't bring her into this world. She's where
> she's at because of her choices. The people who did bring into this
> world are footing the bulk of the bill.
If people like you would be willing to help your own sister, the rest
of us would never be involved in her support (if she does go on Welfare.)
This is why we have programs like Welfare. This is why we can't
afford (as a society) to end such programs.
|
| 20.4233 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:03 | 7 |
|
1) Guilt your family into helping you afford children
2) Guilt the entire country into helping you afford children
3) Stop having children if you can't afford them
Decisions, decisions.
|
| 20.4234 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:09 | 45 |
| RE: .4231 Dave Flatman
>> Her outrageous attitude was the reason she was *able* to get on the show.
> One of those evening news magazines (the one with Jane Pauli (sp?)) did
> a piece on unwed-teenage-high school-mothers.
The main point of such programs is to really MAKE YOU MAD. This is how
they get ratings. (I see it worked.) :)
> The mothers stated things from "I wanted my own apartment" to "I wanted
> someone to love" as reasons they deliberately got pregnant. Very few
> (less than 20%) of the class stated that they had not wanted/expected
> to get pregnant.
Some people get married for the same reasons.
> The problem/attitude is probably more common than you'd like to think.
While I agree that it's sad when teenage mothers put themselves in the
situation deliberately, I won't agree to put the newborns out onto the
street with their mothers as a way for you to get your revenge against
these mothers.
If you say that the mothers COULD put the children up for adoption,
what if they won't agree to this? (Not everyone in America is willing
to give up their children in tough situations.)
If you say that the mothers could be FORCED to give up their children,
let's here some details on how you want to make it ILLEGAL for poor
people to have babies. (Talk about big government intervention into
peoples' lives.)
>> If babies are blessings and every pregnancy is supposed
>> to come to term, ...
>> than we
>> as a nation have a responsibility to those babies.
> Excuse me, but why? If it's the woman's choice why should it be the
> taxpayer's financial liability?
We are responsible for these babies because we are supposedly a
civilized nation with the resources to keep our poor from living
by the millions in garbage dumps where they would die of cholera
and other diseases (including starvation.)
|
| 20.4235 | Oh, and none of the "fathers" are to be found | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:11 | 17 |
| Front page article in the local paper on teenage mothers in
Lawrence Ma. last week. 40% of all babies born in Lawrence are to
unwed mothers.
One 15 yr old high schooler is pregnant and her mother is
*thrilled*. She's excited that she'll get to be a grandmother and
that she'll have another baby to take care of.
The 15 yr old is her oldest child. She has 6 other children.
She's 30 yrs old.
She's been on welfare for the past 12 years. She claims
she's been unable to work becuase of a "nervous" condition.
Uplifting isn't it?
daryll
|
| 20.4236 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:14 | 8 |
|
That's wonderful! I'm proud to be able to work to continue their
support!
Jim
|
| 20.4237 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:15 | 1 |
| where do you get one of them "nervous" conditions?
|
| 20.4238 | Going back a few notes... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:18 | 15 |
| We've seen what happens when a society falls apart and can no longer
provide for their poor.
We send billions of dollars in aid to such countries (along with
troops, at times) to try to feed those who are nearly dead already
from disease and starvation.
We spend billions to prevent the millions of deaths which would occur
without such help. As a society, we try not to stand by while millions
die of starvation. (We can't always be the best help, but as a society,
we do often try.)
Why on Earth would we deliberately try to allow this devastation to
happen in our own country (when we often try not to let it happen
elsewhere)?
|
| 20.4239 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:22 | 12 |
|
> Why on Earth would we deliberately try to allow this devastation to
> happen in our own country (when we often try not to let it happen
> elsewhere)?
Please tell me who advocates this "devastation" in this country..
Jim
|
| 20.4240 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:25 | 9 |
|
You know, maybe it'd be nice to have to rely on other countries
for help instead of it always being the other way around
30 years old, 6 kids, on welfare, and a grandchild on the way.
She wants a GRANDCHILD and her oldest kid is 15!!
|
| 20.4241 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:29 | 5 |
| The 'popular' view of Welfare people in this country feeds on itself
so much that the media seems to make a big deal out of it every time
they find someone who enjoys being poor on Welfare (because nothing
else ticks off the middle class as much as a person who seems happy to
be on Welfare.)
|
| 20.4242 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:29 | 15 |
|
> 30 years old, 6 kids, on welfare, and a grandchild on the way.
> She wants a GRANDCHILD and her oldest kid is 15!!
Hey! It's the 90's, man!
Jim
|
| 20.4243 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:32 | 78 |
| 20.4244 | This is troubling .... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:37 | 4 |
| > Instead of BMW, substitute some other "luxury". And children
> are a luxury, since they're not necessary for survival.
Are you serious?
|
| 20.4245 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:39 | 4 |
| >The United States has the highest marriage rate in the industrial world, but
>its divorce rate is nearly twice as high.
So eventually nobody in the U.S. will be married, right?
|
| 20.4246 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of The Counter King | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:39 | 6 |
|
I don't have children, and I'm surviving just fine, tyvm.
Now, if EVERYONE did the same, we might have a problem, but that
doesn't appear to be the case.
|
| 20.4247 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:41 | 13 |
|
Yes, I'm serious, and I already told you why ... but I'll repeat
it:
Children are not necessary for the survival of an individual,
they are necessary for the survival of a race. There are al-
ready enough couples contributing to the over-population of
the world without worrying about the childless* status of some
welfare or AFDC families.
* - also included are familes who want more children but can't
afford them.
|
| 20.4248 | Unbelievable. Does your So know this? | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:42 | 28 |
| RE Note 20.4220 Abortion 4220 of 4242
CSC32::M_EVANS "It doesn't get better than......" 31 lines 6-MAR-1996 10:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
>Men need to realize that
>they have a responsibility to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, instead of
>saying (usually after sending several thousands of swimmies into a
>vagina) "You are using something, right?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bobbittable offense IMHO.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>meg
Precious and very telling too. Sexual mutilation huh? An interesting
article in Nat'l Review about getting away with that (from a womans
perspective). And yet all the Bobbitt cheerleaders were agast at OJ
Reap what you sow... What goes around comes around...
Tell me, what should be the punishment for the woman for not using BC
"don't do it again, or maybe do it again..."
Steve
|
| 20.4249 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:43 | 8 |
|
John, has the marriage rate increased or decreased in the last
5 years?
Maybe the ratio of divorces hasn't changed, but rather the
number of divorces has gone down because the number of mar-
riages has gone down.
|
| 20.4250 | | CHEFS::COOKS | Half Man,Half Biscuit | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:43 | 24 |
| Anyone who believes young women don`t get pregnant deliberately is
extremly naive indeed. I can only talk from what I see in my (high
employment) area of Reading,but every lunchtime I see loads and loads
of teenage mothers with prams attached to their arms. These are
girls from tough estates (there`s a few round these parts) and I can
assure you they know exactly what happens when they don`t use the
necessary protection.
So why do they do it?
a) Automatic free flat/house
b) Money for buying furniture
c) Child allowance
d) Welfare cheque to buy their cigarettes and make up. Er,sorry food
etc.
Now I`m not saying these girls should be chucked onto the streets and
have starving kids etc. No way.
But please don`t be so naive that they are some how victims and yet
more money should be thrown at them. Blimey o`reily etc.
|
| 20.4251 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Smelly cat, it's not your fault | Wed Mar 06 1996 15:43 | 5 |
| .4212 Well said, 'tine. I agree 100%.
I'll stay out of this one.
;)
|
| 20.4252 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Wed Mar 06 1996 16:51 | 22 |
| Dave,
I have recent experience in how the "adoption option" works if a
mother makes the mistake of changing her mind and letting a social
worker or Dr. know that she has decided she wants to keep her child
when it is born. The amount of violence perpetrated on women and their
infants in these cases by social workers and Dr's is outrageous! I
understand how some of the baby Jessica, Baby Doe, baby john cases
happen. BTW this violence has cost you and me a lot of money in the
complications that were iatrogenically caused, since medicaid will wind
up picking up most of the costs on this birth.
Adopting out a child is not something a person should choose to do
lightly, and anymore I will counsel young women not to tell anyone they
are even thinking about adoption until after the birth. It is far
better to do it that way than to have someone badgering you and
threatening to remove your other child from your care as well if you
keep this child, not allowing you to touch your newborn, and doing
everything possible to break the parent child bond are only a few of
the lovely things some "caring" people did to a friend.
meg
|
| 20.4253 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 16:57 | 4 |
| Meg, there are lots of cases of pregnant women who string along prospective
adoptive parents solely in order to get them to pay for medical expenses and
living costs. This is so frequent that prospective aparents can buy quite
expensive insurance that will reimburse these costs if the bmom backs out.
|
| 20.4254 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:00 | 5 |
| Kieth,
You don't believe men have a responsibility to use protection?
meg
|
| 20.4255 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:00 | 8 |
| Kind of makes you wonder why this bmom didn't have a job or health
care. And if she's low life scum, should the child suffer? Maybe
healthcare for the needed and shouldn't be a priviledge of the working
class...maybe exposure to birthcontrol and adequate health care might
decrease the need for this "expensive insurance.." then again, there
are no guarentees in life...
|
| 20.4256 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:05 | 11 |
|
I think that the female should be responsible for making sure
than at least 1 of them is using birth control, since she's
the 1 who's going to end up with the majority of the hassles
when it comes time for the baby to be born.
It was mentioned, by someone, that the guy waits 'til he's
done before he asks if the female is "protected". Strange
that the girl let him get that far, if it was such a big
deal.
|
| 20.4257 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:08 | 1 |
| here we go again.
|
| 20.4258 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of The Counter King | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:09 | 3 |
|
Sperm, sperm, sperm, flying with impunity.
|
| 20.4259 | Men have responsibilities for birth control, TOO. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:11 | 18 |
| RE: .4256 Shawn
> I think that the female should be responsible for making sure
> than at least 1 of them is using birth control, since she's
> the 1 who's going to end up with the majority of the hassles
> when it comes time for the baby to be born.
Letting men totally off the hook for birth control is a major reason
for the problem of unmarried, unplanned births in the first place.
As long as two people have sex, TWO PEOPLE are responsible for
birth control (and yes, this includes the man.)
They should both use birth control (with each method working as the
'backup' for the other.) As long as we live in a society where men
are seen as people who get their rocks off without having to worry
if taxpayers are burdened by their actions later, we'll never get
CLOSE to a change about this problem.
|
| 20.4260 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:11 | 1 |
| umbrella time!
|
| 20.4261 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:12 | 2 |
| I think it should be the one who doesn't use birth control that should be
the one who ends up with the pregnancy.
|
| 20.4262 | on the list | HBAHBA::HAAS | floor,chair,couch,bed | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:12 | 6 |
| > You don't believe men have a responsibility to use protection?
Call me new fashioned or whatever but "protection" is way up there on the
list of things I like to talk about afore moving onward and upward.
TTom
|
| 20.4263 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of The Counter King | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:12 | 7 |
|
Oh, puhleeze, Suzanne. Ask them to control their sperm? Ask pigs to
fly first.
|
| 20.4264 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:13 | 12 |
| RE: .4250 Cooks
> Anyone who believes young women don`t get pregnant deliberately is
> extremly naive indeed.
No one here has said such a thing, of course.
Some people do get pregnant deliberately and I regard it as a mistake
for those who aren't in a financial position to support a child.
I'm not willing to throw EVERYONE on Welfare out into the street as
vengeance for this, though.
|
| 20.4265 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:15 | 9 |
| RE: .4261
> I think it should be the one who doesn't use birth control that should be
> the one who ends up with the pregnancy.
That would definitely be interesting.
The vast majority of babies would be born by men, if that could be
accomplished.
|
| 20.4266 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:16 | 1 |
| i think every ova should be armed with a sperm gun.
|
| 20.4267 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:17 | 11 |
| .4240
Do the math, too. 30 years old, and her oldest child is 15. This
means, at the oldest, she was 15 when she got pregnant (and was still
15 when she gave birth). Something is very wrong with this picture.
Now, probably due to her stellar example, she has a daughter who is 15
and preggers...just like mom was at that age.
-steve
|
| 20.4269 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:17 | 5 |
|
ova here
ova there
send the word, send the word
to beware
|
| 20.4270 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:18 | 3 |
| re .4246:
Every ovum yearns to be united with a sperm. The alternative is death.
|
| 20.4271 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:19 | 18 |
|
Re-read what I said and you'll see that I didn't say that men
should have no responsibility. But for all the whining that
is done by females in regards to pregnancy and how they have
it so tough and males don't know what it's like, wouldn't you
expect that females would be more inclined to make sure that
at least 1 of them is protected [which is what I said earlier]?
If you don't see a guy put a condom on before he puts tab A in
slot B [or slot C for that matter, but then this has nothing to
do with pregnancy], there's a good chance he isn't wearing one.
This isn't rocket science.
Females seem to want to make any and all choices concerning
their bodies [IE, abortion], but ask them to be the 1st and
foremost responsible person for same and they get bent right
out of shape.
|
| 20.4272 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:21 | 2 |
| Well, I think if the men knew they were at risk of getting pregnant,
they'd be more carefuller.
|
| 20.4273 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:21 | 2 |
| seems to me every sperm yearns to be united with the ovum.
they're the ones doin' the mark spitz imitation.
|
| 20.4274 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:22 | 3 |
|
mark spitz, manny swallows?
|
| 20.4275 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:22 | 2 |
| I don't think that the problem is so much `sperm flying with impunity'
as much as it is `pelvisseses thrusting with umpunity'.
|
| 20.4276 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:23 | 4 |
| >The vast majority of babies would be born by men, if that could be
>accomplished.
Not for long.
|
| 20.4277 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:23 | 3 |
| Nice job, Shawn. Now we have to listen to more b.s. about how men are
the major problem when it comes to <insert favorite social ill>. Will
someone please reach over and slap him, please?
|
| 20.4278 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:25 | 8 |
| RE: .4271 Shawn
> But for all the whining that is done by females in regards to pregnancy
For all the whining that is done by MALES in regards to paying for
the babies sired out of wedlock by OTHER MALES, wouldn't you expect
that males would be more inclined to make sure that other males got
the message and quit letting their sperm fly around with impunity?
|
| 20.4279 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of The Counter King | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:26 | 8 |
|
That's it, from now on I'm not going to pay any attention to traffic
signals.
I have a large car. Let those with the small cars watch out for me.
They have more to lose, right?
|
| 20.4280 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:26 | 7 |
| >For all the whining that is done by MALES in regards to paying for
>the babies sired out of wedlock by OTHER MALES, wouldn't you expect
>that males would be more inclined to make sure that other males got
>the message and quit letting their sperm fly around with impunity?
How come the sistren don't put pressure on each other not to have
babies they can't support?
|
| 20.4281 | impunity immunity | HBAHBA::HAAS | floor,chair,couch,bed | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:27 | 2 |
| The answer is quite simple: Men need to take matters into their own
hands.
|
| 20.4282 | Men need to get the message now. Birth control takes two. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:28 | 9 |
| RE: .4280 Mark Levesque
> How come the sistren don't put pressure on each other not to have
> babies they can't support?
Where have you been for the past several decades?
Birth control has been promoted *very* strongly to women for over
30 years.
|
| 20.4283 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:28 | 85 |
| RE: .4232
> >> If people really don't want to be laid off, they shouldn't go into
> >> the computer business (or the auto business, or the telecommunications
> >> business, or....)
>
> > And your point is?
>
> Middle-class people make mistakes, too.
Everyone makes some mistakes in their life, but your analogy doesn't
hold. On the one hand you have people getting a job with the aim of
being productive members of society who have a bit of bad luck; on the
other hand you people leeching off of society and having their actions
cause even more of a drain.
Intent and motive have a large part to do with it. I do not begrudge
anyone unemployment benefits who was a victim of corporate down-sizing.
I do not begrudge a family AFDC if they were victims of unfortunate
circumstances such as a death in the family.
> If people like you would be willing to help your own sister, the rest
> of us would never be involved in her support (if she does go on Welfare.)
This ties into the "responsibility for your parents" topic. Why should
my sister be given carte blanc over my bank accounts simply because she
was stupid enough to drop two kids before she was financially ready to
take care of them?
My older sister (who is a responsible, productive member of society)
and I both agree that the best thing that could happen to my little
sister is for her to be kicked out into the street so that she could
realize the consequences of her actions. If this had been done the
first time that she dropped a kid she never would have dropped the
second one.
It's also interesting to note that she dropped the first one because
she knew that if she got pregnant that she would have free room and
board.
RE: .4234
> The main point of such programs is to really MAKE YOU MAD. This is how
> they get ratings. (I see it worked.) :)
Nice hand waving, but unfortunately it doesn't dismiss the issue.
(Most indepth coverage of Buchanan is to make you really dislike him
... glad to see it worked.)
> Some people get married for the same reasons.
And your point is? At least if they get married for those reasons they
aren't becoming a drain on the productive members of society.
> I won't agree to put the newborns out onto the
> street with their mothers as a way for you to get your revenge against
> these mothers.
Who said anything about revenge? I'm talking about not taking more
money from the working people of this country and handing it over to
the non-working class simply so that the non-working class can
procreate.
> If you say that the mothers COULD put the children up for adoption,
> what if they won't agree to this? (Not everyone in America is willing
> to give up their children in tough situations.)
They don't have to give their children up for adoption ... and they
don't have to choose abortion. But it is THEIR choice and therefore
should be THEIR financial responsibility. It is not the taxpayers'
choice and therefore should not be the taxpayers' liability.
> If you say that the mothers could be FORCED to give up their children,
> let's here some details on how you want to make it ILLEGAL for poor
> people to have babies.
I have not seen anyone in this stream propose this.
> We are responsible for these babies ...
No. The people who choose to procreate are responsible for these
babies. A choice on the part of the woman should not create a
financial liability on the part of society.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4284 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:29 | 1 |
| umpunity? silent h?
|
| 20.4285 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:29 | 13 |
| Men have at least 1/2 the responsibility to see that their partners
don't concieve if this is an undesirable thing. Currently men are
limited to two methods, the condom and the vasectomy if they want to
engage in sex without conception. There is NOTHING wrong with teaching
young and old men to use a condom, in order to take his 1/2 of the
responsibility for avoiding unplanned conceptions.
????? Why is it so many men balk at a simple, easy precaution, and
still blame unplanned conceptions on women. last time I checked
parthenogenisis was not a viable option, so women cannot get them
selves pregnant. It takes cooperation in some way by a sperm donor.
meg
|
| 20.4286 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:31 | 5 |
| > seems to me every sperm yearns to be united with the ovum.
> they're the ones doin' the mark spitz imitation.
I think I read something recently about some substance given off by ova
that helps the sperm find them.
|
| 20.4287 | umpunity: referees in agreement | HBAHBA::HAAS | floor,chair,couch,bed | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:31 | 0 |
| 20.4288 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:32 | 1 |
| Nonono! It's what you get when you divide umpteen by itself.
|
| 20.4289 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:37 | 2 |
|
.4288 hee.
|
| 20.4290 | | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:39 | 4 |
| If you're 30 yrs old, never married, with 6 bastards from more
than one father, at some point, the blame lies with the mother.
daryll
|
| 20.4292 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:39 | 37 |
| RE: .4283 Dave Flatman
> My older sister (who is a responsible, productive member of society)
> and I both agree that the best thing that could happen to my little
> sister is for her to be kicked out into the street so that she could
> realize the consequences of her actions.
Well, I'm glad to see you admit that you DO advocate throwing people
out into the street. (Most people against Welfare deny this, even
though the removal of Welfare would do precisely this.)
> If this had been done the first time that she dropped a kid she never
> would have dropped the second one.
The death of her first child would have been a rather bitter victory
for you and the older sister, though.
> It's also interesting to note that she dropped the first one because
> she knew that if she got pregnant that she would have free room and
> board.
She got MARRIED, in other words.
So she was damned if she did, and damned if she didn't. (And your
sister's children aren't your nieces or nephews, they're just things
that she 'dropped' to get married.) So much for family values.
> But it is THEIR choice and therefore
> should be THEIR financial responsibility. It is not the taxpayers'
> choice and therefore should not be the taxpayers' liability.
It is our liability if we do not wish to live in a virtual Somalia
or Bosnia. (I don't.)
If you want to live in a country where the poor live by the millions
in garbage dumps (and die of diseases) instead of dying on the nation's
sidewalks, I can give you directions on how to get there.
|
| 20.4293 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:39 | 3 |
| re: Substance emitting ova...
It's either Obsession or Channel N0. 5
|
| 20.4294 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:40 | 22 |
|
Eesh, what can be said to idiot males that they don't know al-
ready? Would it do your heart well to see me on TV telling
males [who should know better] to use condoms when having sex?
Probably.
Would it make a difference to the idiot males?
Doubtful.
Is it the idiot males who are complaining about the cost of
welfare-related taxes?
Doubtful. A good portion of them are probably receiving aid
of 1 kind or another.
Will I do whatever I can to avoid these same problems in my
life?
Of course.
|
| 20.4295 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:41 | 1 |
| Channel No. 5? Isn't that Fox TV?
|
| 20.4296 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:42 | 21 |
| RE: .4279
> That's it, from now on I'm not going to pay any attention to traffic
> signals.
>
> I have a large car. Let those with the small cars watch out for me.
> They have more to lose, right?
That's what no fault insurance is all about. ;^)
RE: .4285
> Men have at least 1/2 the responsibility to see that their partners
> don't concieve if this is an undesirable thing.
And that's only if you look at the pregnancy portion of the equation.
If you look at the STD portion then the importance of the man's
protection goes way up.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4297 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:43 | 15 |
| RE: .4290 Daryll
> If you're 30 yrs old, never married, with 6 bastards from more
> than one father, at some point, the blame lies with the mother.
Are men so brain-dead that a man can look at a woman with 1, 2, 3,
4 or 5 children (with absent fathers) and NOT say to himself before
sex, "Gee, I wonder if she has the birth control situation covered
for MY encounter with her?"
Do you think those men didn't know what they were risking?? (Even
the first one had to realize that a 15 year old girl probably isn't
on the pill.)
All 6 men were responsible for what happened.
|
| 20.4298 | heard it | HBAHBA::HAAS | floor,chair,couch,bed | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:43 | 7 |
| > Is it the idiot males who are complaining about the cost of
> welfare-related taxes?
Shore is!~
Clinton, Newt, Dole, and about all the other of them idjits are
complaining.
|
| 20.4299 | | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:46 | 5 |
| You have no idea whether the men knew her situation.
She, of course, was all too aware of her situation.
daryll
|
| 20.4300 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:46 | 8 |
| re: .4290
One could also make the argument that, had the father
owned up to his responsibility and stuck around, there might
not be an additional 5, and if there were, they'd at least
all have the same father.
|
| 20.4301 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:47 | 6 |
|
RE: HAAS
Ummm, "idiot males" refers to non-BC users, not stupid members
of the male sex.
|
| 20.4302 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:48 | 11 |
| Shawn, it is the duty of responsible men like you to help promote
men's birth control responsibilities to the men who are NOT so
responsible.
They certainly aren't going to listen to women about this, but if
they do listen to men like you, a large portion of the unplanned
(out-of-wedlock) pregnancies could be avoided in the first place.
We shouldn't even THINK about cutting off funding for AFDC until
we've gotten men (as a group) to be more responsible about birth
control.
|
| 20.4303 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:48 | 2 |
| Channel No. 5, Gerald is a navigational scent. Not to be confused with
Chanel No. <whatever>.
|
| 20.4304 | Oh. Never mind... | HBAHBA::HAAS | floor,chair,couch,bed | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:48 | 0 |
| 20.4305 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:49 | 9 |
|
RE: 30 years old, 6 kids
And who's to say she didn't claim to be on the pill, and never
contacted the biological father[s] when she got pregnant?
She might have gotten pregnant again and again just to be able
to collect aid.
|
| 20.4306 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:50 | 8 |
| Basically, for BC use, it comes down to this:
She could ask if he uses it, he could lie.
He could ask if she uses it, she could lie.
Given the problems of pregnancy, STDs and AIDS,
isn't everyone who doesn't use it to protect themselves
pretty stupid, regardless of their sex?
|
| 20.4307 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:51 | 9 |
| RE: .4299 Daryll
> You have no idea whether the men knew her situation.
So, these men had UNPROTECTED SEX with a woman without knowing if
she had kids out of wedlock already (or if she had AIDS or sexually
transmitted diseases, for that matter)?
I take it that you are saying that the men were indeed brain-dead.
|
| 20.4308 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:51 | 3 |
|
What're the current failure rates for the pill and the condom?
|
| 20.4309 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:51 | 1 |
| Woo hoo! MM has won the ceegar!
|
| 20.4310 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:53 | 3 |
| > Woo hoo! MM has won the ceegar!
"I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth sometimes."
|
| 20.4311 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:54 | 4 |
| The most important reason for BOTH parties to use birth control
is to do everything s/he can do to prevent unplanned pregnancies
and diseases (to cover the other partner's failures and/or lies
about it.)
|
| 20.4312 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:54 | 8 |
| Odds are if she's 30 and her oldest is 15( thus making her concieved
around 1980-81) AIDS wasn't really a question for them , as it was
mainly a homosexual issue, and still was widely believed to be
exclusive to homosexuals. As for other STD's, with the exception of
herpes and genital warts, most can be taken care of with pennicillin.
I guess nobody was worried.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4313 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:54 | 48 |
| RE: .4292
> The death of her first child would have been a rather bitter victory
> for you and the older sister, though.
Wrong. The concept was for either my parents or another relative
(probably my older sister) to take the kid in when my sister and her
husband were tossed onto the street.
> > It's also interesting to note that she dropped the first one because
> > she knew that if she got pregnant that she would have free room and
> > board.
>
> She got MARRIED, in other words.
Bzzzt. Wrong. She got married a year or so before dropping the kid.
She and her leech, er husband, were living with my parents. My parents
finally said they had to move out ... that's when she got pregnant
(knowing that my mother wouldn't toss her and the leech out if she was
pregnant.)
> So she was damned if she did, and damned if she didn't. (And your
> sister's children aren't your nieces or nephews, they're just things
> that she 'dropped' to get married.)
See above.
> So much for family values.
I value MY family (but perhaps not my parents' family). I would have
been willing to spring for half the cost of either abortion if that had
been her choice. I also volunteered to pay for half of his vasectomy
... that is until he decided that he wanted the ultra-new laser surgery
one that costs 10 times what the traditional vasectomy costs.
> > But it is THEIR choice and therefore
> > should be THEIR financial responsibility. It is not the taxpayers'
> > choice and therefore should not be the taxpayers' liability.
>
> It is our liability if we do not wish to live in a virtual Somalia
> or Bosnia. (I don't.)
We didn't live in a virtual Somalia nor Bosnia before Johnson's not so
Great Society programs that created this welfare mess to begin with.
Your dooms day predictions would make a good b-rated science fiction
movie ... b-rated because of a lack of believability.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4314 | whoops, make that 'degrees' | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:55 | 6 |
|
.4297 i'd say there are probably varying degress of doodleheadedness
amongst the seven of them, but she is the most doodleheaded
of them all. the queen doodlehead, if you will.
|
| 20.4315 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:55 | 6 |
| |I think I read something recently about some substance given off by
|ova that helps the sperm find them.
yes, and then the ova creates a chemical field around herself
allowing only the strongest of the sperm to get through. the
ova's no dummy, it is she who calls the shots.
|
| 20.4316 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 17:58 | 3 |
| re .4314:
Was \nasser one of the fathers?
|
| 20.4317 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:01 | 8 |
| And what self-respecting male is going to jump unprotected into bed
with a woman with 6 kids all by different fathers? Or are you saying
men cannot control their "urges?" Given the fact that one man can
create up more than a few pregncies in a year, but a woman at best,
only 1.3 I would say there is a slightly skewed problem with labelling
the problems on women.
meg
|
| 20.4318 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:03 | 2 |
| Meg, you're assuming he knows about all her kids. What if she said "Yours" to
his "My place or yours?"
|
| 20.4319 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:05 | 29 |
| RE: .4313 Dave Flatman
> My parents finally said they had to move out ... that's when she got
> pregnant (knowing that my mother wouldn't toss her and the leech out
> if she was pregnant.)
See??? Threatening to toss people out into the street doesn't get
them to leap into the middle class.
> We didn't live in a virtual Somalia nor Bosnia before Johnson's not so
> Great Society programs that created this welfare mess to begin with.
> Your dooms day predictions would make a good b-rated science fiction
> movie ... b-rated because of a lack of believability.
Apparently, you haven't heard of the Great Depression. This country
was very much a virtual Bosnia or Somalia (except for the help of the
government.)
In the mid-1800s, *TEN THOUSAND* babies and children lived on the
streets of big cities like New York (where they begged, prostituted,
and died of diseases together) until the 'Orphan Trains' started
trying to get them off the streets.
The 'Orphan Trains' ran from the mid-1800s until the beginning of the
Great Depression. Over 100,000 children were removed from the streets
during this effort.
If you think America is immune to the problem of people dying in the
streets (in large numbers) again, you're deluding yourself.
|
| 20.4320 | | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:07 | 3 |
| .4314 is right on.
daryll
|
| 20.4321 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:07 | 8 |
|
.4317 in the scenario given, none of the males jumped into bed
with a woman with 6 kids, and in fact, each man jumped
into a different situation from the others. we don't know
what each of these men knew, but we do know that she
knew how many children she had. she is a doodlehead.
the problem is not strictly with the woman, but in this
case, i do think it's _mostly_ with the woman.
|
| 20.4322 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:13 | 21 |
| Failure rate of a condom without the use of spermicide is 12%
The failure rate of the pill is 3% for conceptions, but unlike the
condom can have life-threatening complications, including, but not
limited to thrombosis, pulmonary edema, liver tumors, blood sugar
disturbances, stroke, heart attack....... The pill should not be used
by women with a family history of liver disease, diabetes, heart
disease, stroke, thrombosis, high blood pressure, alcoholism, ......
and may be rendered useless by use of antibiotics, anti-depresents,
barbiturates, lithium, heroin or anything else that accelerates liver
function. This is true of NORPLANT and depoprovera as well.
The safest methods for women from a complications standpoint are the
Diaphram, spermicide, and cervical cap However the failure rates for
these are around 18%. If you do the math, you can see how a man
who truly cares about his partners' health and wants to avoid pregnancy
should be using a condom.
meg
|
| 20.4323 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:14 | 6 |
| >she is a doodlehead.
>the problem is not strictly with the woman, but in this
>case, i do think it's _mostly_ with the woman.
heretic
|
| 20.4324 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:16 | 1 |
| you could say she was the head doodlehead.
|
| 20.4325 | Plenty of doodleheadedness to go around, probably... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:17 | 12 |
| We don't know how many other women these men may have had unprotected
sex with, of course.
It could be that this woman made the same mistake at least six times,
while the men had unprotected sex with 5 or 6 different fertile women
per week for any number of years (with any number of pregnancies
resulting from these encounters.)
(If the woman gave birth to 6 children within a 15 year span, it
means that she spent only 63 out of 180 months pregnant. So she
spent 117 non-pregnant months without getting pregnant That's
almost 10 years she spent *not* getting pregnant.)
|
| 20.4326 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of The Counter King | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:18 | 4 |
|
No, of course it's the woman's fault. What else is new? End of
discussion.
|
| 20.4327 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:19 | 6 |
| > If you do the math, you can see how a man
> who truly cares about his partners' health and wants to avoid pregnancy
> should be using a condom.
Men who engage in sex with women they barely know probably don't care about
their partners' health except insofar as it effects _them_.
|
| 20.4328 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:22 | 6 |
| > No, of course it's the woman's fault. What else is new? End of
> discussion.
er, well i surely didn't say that. did somebody say that?
|
| 20.4329 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:25 | 10 |
| > It could be that this woman made the same mistake at least six times,
> while the men had unprotected sex with 5 or 6 different fertile women
> per week for any number of years (with any number of pregnancies
> resulting from these encounters.)
According to a recent study, women are fertile for something like 3 days
per cycle. Assuming he didn't give each of them an ultrasound or ovulation
test, he'd have to boink (28/3)*5.5 women per week in order to boink 5.5
different fertile women per week. That's over seven per day. Not even
in Hugh Hefner's imagination....
|
| 20.4330 | | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:28 | 13 |
| <<< Note 20.4325 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
-< Plenty of doodleheadedness to go around, probably... >-
> (If the woman gave birth to 6 children within a 15 year span, it
> means that she spent only 63 out of 180 months pregnant. So she
> spent 117 non-pregnant months without getting pregnant That's
> almost 10 years she spent *not* getting pregnant.)
Something to be proud of I suppose.
Unbelievable.
daryll
|
| 20.4331 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:28 | 6 |
| Gerald, I meant 'fertile' in the sense of the women being within their
child-bearing years.
Most likely, these men (the ones who got this woman pregnant when she
was somewhere between 15 and 30 years old) were not out ALSO trying
to boink their grandmothers' female friends.
|
| 20.4332 | Nope, no birth announcements for me! | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:30 | 7 |
| > That's almost 10 years she spent *not* getting pregnant.)
What's the problem? I've spent my entire life *not* getting pregnant.
Been pretty successful at it too.
.bob
|
| 20.4333 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:32 | 7 |
| >(If the woman gave birth to 6 children within a 15 year span, it
>means that she spent only 63 out of 180 months pregnant. So she
>spent 117 non-pregnant months without getting pregnant That's
>almost 10 years she spent *not* getting pregnant.)
Er that would be not _being_ pregnant. In either case, it's a truly
astounding accomplishment.
|
| 20.4334 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:35 | 22 |
| RE: .4330 Daryll
> Something to be proud of I suppose.
> Unbelievable.
In strict Catholic countries, it isn't unusual for families to have
between 12 and 18 children (whether they can afford them or not.)
My Irish Catholic grandparents had 10 children (including my father),
and they would have had A LOT MORE children if they hadn't started
late in life. (They moved to this country to work and to send their
salaries back home to bring more siblings over to the United States.
My father was the 6th child - out of 10 - and he was born when his
parents were close to 40 years old. If they'd started having children
when they were younger, they would have easily had 15 - 18 children.)
My grandmother was pregnant about 2/3rds of her married life (until she
stopped getting pregnant.) All her sisters went through the same
thing.
Pretty shocking, eh?
|
| 20.4335 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:37 | 1 |
| She probably spent about half an hour total getting pregnant (6*5 minutes).
|
| 20.4336 | | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:42 | 10 |
| re:4334
Was your grandmother single?
It's pathetic that you think this woman who mothered 6 bastards
over the past 15 years while on the public dole should be
commended because she actually managed to remain unpregnated for
any period of time.
daryll
|
| 20.4337 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:42 | 5 |
|
But Daryll, she was pregnant for LESS THAN 1/2 OF THE TIME.
I'm impressed.
|
| 20.4338 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:43 | 2 |
|
.4336 aye.
|
| 20.4339 | The woman and the men are not being judged equally. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:48 | 24 |
| RE: .4336 Daryll
> Was your grandmother single?
My grandparents couldn't really afford 10 children (although they
did manage it.) The older children helped support the family and
helped to care for the younger children.
> It's pathetic that you think this woman who mothered 6 bastards
> over the past 15 years while on the public dole should be
> commended because she actually managed to remain unpregnated for
> any period of time.
She has only been 'on the dole' for 12 years (which means that the
first child(ren) were born OFF the dole), actually.
I wasn't suggesting commending her. I was trying to put her actions
in perspective with the actions of the men who got her pregnant.
How many other women did they have unprotected sex with (and possibly
impregnate) over the same period?
They may have impregnated dozens of women for all we know. Is it fair
to judge the woman more harshly when her whole life is compared to a
single night in each of the men's lives? I don't think so.
|
| 20.4340 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:48 | 23 |
|
Someone, a ways back, said that the 1 that doesn't use contrac-
eption should be forced to carry the fetus to term, if possible.
Well, thanks to Meg's info:
Male, no contraception, female, pill - 3% pregnancy rate
Femle, no contraception, male, condom - 12% pregnancy rate
So this says that when a male uses no contraception and the
female is on the pill, the female is less likely to get preg-
nant than if the male uses a condom and the female uses no-
thing.
Strange, isn't it?
To sum it up ... females, it's in your best interest to use
birth control to avoid pregnancy, since you are more likely
to prevent it than a male wearing a condom.
|
| 20.4341 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:50 | 7 |
|
Suzanne, how many guys did she boink that didn't get her preg-
nant?
But in the grand scheme of things, the scheme that says "women
are right and men are wrong", I guess that doesn't matter.
|
| 20.4342 | | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:51 | 10 |
| You're comparing a known, the woman's actions, to an unknown,
what the other men may have done.
You have no idea whether these men went right out the next day
and impregnated someone else or got run down by a bus crossing a
street minutes later.
So try dealing with HER and stop creating straw men.
daryll
|
| 20.4343 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:53 | 11 |
| Shawn, when you compare this woman's WHOLE LIFE against ONE NIGHT
IN A GIVEN MAN'S LIFE, obviously her life will look worse.
Each of these men may have gotten countless other women pregnant
(or sick from STDs.)
If you let men off the hook on a night-by-night basis, you might
as well let them off the hook for their whole lives (while blaming
women for THEIR whole lives.)
It simply isn't equitable (and it does nothing to solve the problem.)
|
| 20.4344 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:53 | 9 |
| >If you do the math, you can see how a man
>who truly cares about his partners' health and wants to avoid pregnancy
>should be using a condom.
And there's the problem. If they "truely cared", unplanned pregnancy
wouldn't be a problem!
Now back to reality ....
|
| 20.4345 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:54 | 6 |
| Daryll, if the men were only made of 'straw', they would not have
gotten this woman pregnant.
If you want to claim that this woman GOT HERSELF pregnant, you'd
better provide some sound biological evidence for this capability
in our species.
|
| 20.4346 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:57 | 15 |
| RE: .4340 Shawn
> Male, no contraception, female, pill - 3% pregnancy rate
> Female, no contraception, male, condom - 12% pregnancy rate
> So this says that when a male uses no contraception and the
> female is on the pill, the female is less likely to get preg-
> nant than if the male uses a condom and the female uses no-
> thing.
WRONG!!! This says: Imagine how non-existent the problem of
unplanned pregnancy would become if BOTH PARTNERS used protection!
It's such a simple idea. Why do so many men fight it?
|
| 20.4347 | | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:58 | 10 |
| I see you have no intention of dealing with her actions over the
past 15 years.
Clear now. thanks.
Ms. Deb had it right a few back.
Not her fault. She's a victim.
daryll
|
| 20.4348 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 18:59 | 13 |
|
>Shawn, when you compare this woman's WHOLE LIFE against ONE NIGHT
>IN A GIVEN MAN'S LIFE, obviously her life will look worse.
OK, then let's compare the night of conception for each of
them:
He had sex.
She had sex.
And when we crunch them through YOUR "fault machine", we see
that he's a slimeball and she's a victim.
|
| 20.4349 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of The Counter King | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:00 | 4 |
|
eh?
|
| 20.4350 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:01 | 12 |
| Daryll, we don't really know what her actions have been in the past
15 years (other than the fact that she's been on Welfare for 12 years
and she's had sex at least 6 times in 15 years.)
Perhaps the men have had unprotected sex 20,000 times each during
this period (if they play basketball at all) - but we don't really
know.
You have no basis at all to judge the woman more harshly than the men
in this situation. Both partners should have used birth control.
It isn't either partner's fault more than the other's. They're both
responsible.
|
| 20.4351 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:02 | 8 |
| RE: .4348 Shawn
> And when we crunch them through YOUR "fault machine", we see
> that he's a slimeball and she's a victim.
I've said that both parties are responsible for birth control.
(Which part of this don't you understand? I'd really like to know.)
|
| 20.4352 | Re: .4326 | SALEM::DODA | Spring training, PLEASE! | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:03 | 7 |
| <<< Note 20.4349 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Little Chamber of The Counter King" >>>
> eh?
|
| 20.4353 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:05 | 19 |
| re: .4340
Shawn, think of it like this:
Male, no contraception, female pill - rate of conception 3%
Both partners at risk for STDs and AIDS
Female, no contraception, male condom - rate of conception 12 %
Both at greatly reduced risk for STDs and AIDS
Now:
Male, condom, Female pill & spemicide - rate of conception probably near 0
Both at greatly reduced risk for STDs and AIDs.
Personally, I like the odds on the third choice.
|
| 20.4354 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:06 | 31 |
|
>> Male, no contraception, female, pill - 3% pregnancy rate
>
>> Female, no contraception, male, condom - 12% pregnancy rate
>
>> So this says that when a male uses no contraception and the
>> female is on the pill, the female is less likely to get preg-
>> nant than if the male uses a condom and the female uses no-
>> thing.
>
>WRONG!!! This says: Imagine how non-existent the problem of
>unplanned pregnancy would become if BOTH PARTNERS used protection!
So you're saying that the numbers are wrong, and that the
pill is less effective than the condom?
>It's such a simple idea. Why do so many men fight it?
I'm not fighting this idea at all. I'm hoping that one of
these days you'll realize that the pill does more to avoid
pregnancy than a condom does. And, once that idea is firmly
grasped by you, maybe the next logical step would be to agree
that, since the female would be the 1 taking the pill, and
that the female would be the 1 caring for the baby in absence
of the aforementioned pill, that the female would be more apt
to ensure that she is the one who should be responsible for
birth control.
But I'm certainly not holding my breath.
|
| 20.4355 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:07 | 6 |
| > Male, condom, Female pill & spemicide -
So does this imply that I am supposed to don a condom, take my female
pill and commit spemicide (I think that's supposed to be speRmicide).
makes for a busy day!
|
| 20.4356 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:08 | 1 |
| Spamicide. NNTTM.
|
| 20.4357 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:08 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 20.4350 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
> It isn't either partner's fault more than the other's. They're both
> responsible.
given what we know, each of the six men is half responsible for
producing one of her children. she, on the other hand, is half
responsible for producing six of them.
|
| 20.4358 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:09 | 5 |
|
Spamicide?
What does that do to your meat?
|
| 20.4359 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:10 | 3 |
| Actually, since this is the abortion topic, she's more than half responsible.
Given current U.S. law, she had lots of opportunities to abort without so
much as a "howdy-do" from the father(s).
|
| 20.4360 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:11 | 18 |
| RE: .4353
>Now:
>Male, condom, Female pill & spemicide - rate of conception probably near 0
>Both at greatly reduced risk for STDs and AIDs.
>Personally, I like the odds on the third choice.
It makes the most sense, definitely.
For some reason, many men can't fathom the notion of TWO people using
birth control (at the same time) when TWO people have sex.
It's some sort of mental block. There's no way to get some of these guys
to make any sense at all of this notion.
It's like trying to speak to them in a language they don't understand.
|
| 20.4361 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:12 | 5 |
| > Spamicide?
> What does that do to your meat?
Put some Adolf's Meat Tenderizer on it!
|
| 20.4362 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:12 | 7 |
|
Oh, no you don't, Gerald.
She owns her body, and can do as she darn well pleases with
it [and anything within], but she DOES NOT own the responsib-
ility for anything that happened in there.
|
| 20.4363 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:15 | 17 |
| re: .4354
A condom isn't going to give you a stroke. Using a condom does
not cause health problems for the wearer. Wearing a condom will
reduce the risk of getting STDs and/or AIDS for the wearer, and
reduce the risk of transmitting the same to one's partner.
Using the pill carries inherent health risks for the woman.
Some woman cannot use the pill at all due to side effects.
If you wish to become pregnant you need to come off of it
at least six months prior to conception. The pill will not
keep you from getting STDs or AIDs from your partner. You will
need to combine it with another method of birth control to
get that protection. You have to take it everyday, whether or
not you have sex. It's a lot more expensive than a condom.
Believe me, it's a lot easier for a guy to use a condom.
|
| 20.4364 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:15 | 7 |
|
Suzanne, in your mind, these guys had sex 10,000 times and the
woman had sex 6 times in that same 15-year span.
It's obvious that they're baby machines looking for incubators,
and that the woman is a helpless victim.
|
| 20.4365 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:19 | 7 |
| re: .4364
Well, if each of those six guys had said "No" when she
asked, there wouldn't be six kids.
Maybe they should have broadened their vocabulary. :-)
|
| 20.4366 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:19 | 38 |
| RE: .4354 Shawn
>> WRONG!!! This says: Imagine how non-existent the problem of
>> unplanned pregnancy would become if BOTH PARTNERS used protection!
> So you're saying that the numbers are wrong, and that the
> pill is less effective than the condom?
No, I'm saying that it's close to 100% effective when BOTH methods
are used. (This is the message.)
> I'm not fighting this idea at all. I'm hoping that one of
> these days you'll realize that the pill does more to avoid
> pregnancy than a condom does.
This is NO EXCUSE for men to refuse to use a condom. Men have
the responsibility to provide their own protection (even if it
is slightly less effective than the woman's protection.) When
used together, they're pretty much 100% effective.
> And, once that idea is firmly grasped by you, maybe the next logical
> step would be
Shawn, you aren't stupid. You have to realize that when only ONE
PERSON is left responsible for birth control, the precautions are
not followed as diligently as when TWO people are concerned about
it.
> to agree that, since the female would be the 1 taking the pill, and
> that the female would be the 1 caring for the baby in absence
> of the aforementioned pill, that the female would be more apt
> to ensure that she is the one who should be responsible for
> birth control.
This attitude is a big part of the problem.
Letting men off the hook is not the answer. Their being off the
hook is a big part of the problem.
|
| 20.4367 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:22 | 20 |
| Re .4339:
> I was trying to put her actions in perspective with the actions of
> the men who got her pregnant. How many other women did they have
> unprotected sex with (and possibly impregnate) over the same period?
While your attempt to implicate men for their greater ability to sire
children is quite amusing, some simple thought directed to the matter
will reveal that the ratio of children born of women from irresponsible
sex to children born of men from irresponsible sex is pretty darn close
to 1-to-1. You see, each child generally has one female parent and one
male parent, so there's going to be about the same number of each
involved in each undesired/negligent/irresonsible birth.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.4368 | | 43GMC::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:26 | 7 |
| Do you believe that that should be the punishment?
I do believe that they have a responsibility
Steve
|
| 20.4369 | | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | Longnecks and Short Stories | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:30 | 12 |
|
> This is NO EXCUSE for men to refuse to use a condom. Men have
> the responsibility to provide their own protection (even if it
> is slightly less effective than the woman's protection.) When
> used together, they're pretty much 100% effective.
Just as there is NO EXCUSE for her having sex with these men
if they didn't wear a condom.
ed
|
| 20.4370 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:32 | 9 |
|
Ed, she's not listening.
Remember, it's her body but it isn't necessarily her respon-
sibility.
Society as a whole will gladly pay for her mistakes. Sign
me up and tell me where to send the money.
|
| 20.4371 | used twenties and fifties please... | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:33 | 5 |
| > Society as a whole will gladly pay for her mistakes. Sign
> me up and tell me where to send the money.
---------------
bss::proctor_r
|
| 20.4372 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:35 | 5 |
|
Hey, I'm not sending money to baby machines like you, Bob,
typical US male ... I'd rather send it to the victimized
incubators.
|
| 20.4373 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:37 | 8 |
| > Hey, I'm not sending money to baby machines like you, Bob
and just what's wrong with being an almost successful baby machine?
(I just keeps tryin', but I can't seem to be succeedin'!)
> typical US male.
careful, you'll step on my cape!
|
| 20.4374 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:47 | 2 |
| Well, I personally think that the very idea of these six fathers running
around indiscriminately breeding like cockroaches is simply disgusting.
|
| 20.4375 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:49 | 3 |
| I think the seven parents of these kids are disgusting.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4376 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:50 | 14 |
| RE: .4364 Shawn
> Suzanne, in your mind, these guys had sex 10,000 times and the
> woman had sex 6 times in that same 15-year span.
In your mind, it's a real threat to men if we do anything whatsoever
to interfere with the prime objective of allowing them to get their
rocks off (above all else.)
> It's obvious that they're baby machines looking for incubators,
> and that the woman is a helpless victim.
It's obvious that you consider men to be sexual beings who must
be allowed to spread their seed (despite the costs.)
|
| 20.4377 | The sound of them little carapices rubbin' together... | BSS::PROCTOR_R | A wallet full of ones | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:50 | 6 |
| > Well, I personally think that the very idea of these six fathers
> running around indiscriminately breeding like cockroaches is simply
> disgusting
Ever seen a cockaroach breed? It IS disgusting!
|
| 20.4378 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:51 | 1 |
| Do cockroaches do anything that isn't disgusting?
|
| 20.4379 | The men are not less responsible than she is. True! | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:53 | 6 |
| RE: .4367 edp
Agreed!
This gives the woman precisely 50% of the responsibility for these
pregnancies (no more, no less.)
|
| 20.4380 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:53 | 3 |
| re: .4327
Exactly.
|
| 20.4381 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:54 | 14 |
| RE: .4369 Ed
>> This is NO EXCUSE for men to refuse to use a condom. Men have
>> the responsibility to provide their own protection (even if it
>> is slightly less effective than the woman's protection.) When
>> used together, they're pretty much 100% effective.
> Just as there is NO EXCUSE for her having sex with these men
> if they didn't wear a condom.
Fine. As long as you agree that the men STILL do not have an
excuse to refrain from wearing a condom, I agree.
50/50. They are each responsible for birth control.
|
| 20.4382 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:55 | 14 |
| RE: .4370 Shawn
> Ed, she's not listening.
> Remember, it's her body but it isn't necessarily her respon-
> sibility.
I've said numerous times that they are BOTH responsible.
You've REFUSED to explain to me which part of this you don't
understand.
Let's work it word by word. Do you understand what the word
'both' means?
|
| 20.4383 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:57 | 5 |
| The money goes to feed the children that BOTH people are responsible
for creating.
We pay the money because we don't want millions of Americans living
in garbage dumps and spreading diseases like cholera.
|
| 20.4384 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:59 | 31 |
| RE: .4319
> > My parents finally said they had to move out ... that's when she got
> > pregnant (knowing that my mother wouldn't toss her and the leech out
> > if she was pregnant.)
>
> See??? Threatening to toss people out into the street doesn't get
> them to leap into the middle class.
Bzzzt. Wrong again. Knowing that there was free room and board if she
got pregnant was the impetus to get pregnant. Remove the free room and
board and she wouldn't have deliberately gotten pregnant.
What would have gotten her into the middle class was for her to NOT
have gotten pregnant (or to abort or to put the kid up for adoption)
and then gone to school in order to be employable. Free handouts are
not going to get her into the middle class.
> Apparently, you haven't heard of the Great Depression. This country
> was very much a virtual Bosnia or Somalia (except for the help of the
> government.)
The Great Depression ... you mean when Clinton won?
Seriously though, you're wrong if you think that FDR's spending brought
us out of the depression. WWII pulled us out. Having our economic
competitor's manufacturing capability destroyed by the war helped us
work off the debt load after the war. With strong economic competitors
we are no longer are in a position to carry that kind of national debt.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4385 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 19:59 | 9 |
| Women do not get themselves pregnant any more than children can
create food for themselves to eat when they are born into a very
poor family.
Let's move toward encouraging more men to use birth control to
prevent unplanned pregnancies.
It makes a lot more sense than letting these guys off the hook
and then trying to throw their children out into the street.
|
| 20.4386 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:00 | 11 |
| re: .4365
Who's to say that they weren't just the "unlucky 6" out of a crowd of
her bed-partners.
If each of these 6 men said no, there's probably a pretty good chance
that she would still have 6 kids- only they would look a little
different.
-steve
|
| 20.4387 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:10 | 24 |
| RE: .4384 Dave Flatman
>>> We didn't live in a virtual Somalia nor Bosnia before Johnson's not so
>>> Great Society programs that created this welfare mess to begin with.
>>> Your dooms day predictions would make a good b-rated science fiction
>>> movie ... b-rated because of a lack of believability.
>> Apparently, you haven't heard of the Great Depression. This country
>> was very much a virtual Bosnia or Somalia (except for the help of the
>> government.)
> ...you're wrong if you think that FDR's spending brought us out of the
> depression. WWII pulled us out.
You have no idea what I said. I was pointing out that the Great
Depression EXISTED in the first place (and that this country was
a virtual Bosnia or Somalia when it happened.)
I'd be the first to agree that WWII pulled us out. The Depression
lasted over a decade, though. Times were very, very bad for most
Americans during this decade or so.
You can pretend that it's impossible for America to go through
something like this, but it DID happen (and it could happen again.)
|
| 20.4388 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:10 | 11 |
| re: .4386
And if she had said "No" to each of those six men, chances
are they would have found a different woman to have sex with,
and there would still be six children, they'd just look a little
different.
You can go round and round for hours, however, the point is
if the men and the woman used birth control, there wouldn't
be six kids no matter what.
|
| 20.4389 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:11 | 20 |
| RE: .4385
> Let's move toward encouraging more men to use birth control to
> prevent unplanned pregnancies.
You can add to that making the men responsible for the kids they sire.
Under the current system which you are defending, the man can escape
his responsibilities by foisting the care onto the woman and the
taxpayer.
Why should the irresponsible man care? You're going to have society
take care of his children. The more kids he creates (without having to
take responsibility for), the more of his genes are passed on. From an
evolutionary stand point, he's won.
Start proposing ways to make the man financially responsible for his
offspring (and not the taxpayer) and you'll probably only find
encouragement from me.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4390 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:17 | 35 |
| RE: .4389 Dave Flatman
> You can add to that making the men responsible for the kids they sire.
> Under the current system which you are defending, the man can escape
> his responsibilities by foisting the care onto the woman and the
> taxpayer.
Under the system YOU want, the woman and the kids would be out on
the street. Paternity tests cost money. If the woman can't feed
her kids in the first place, how will she pay the $1000 or so that
it takes to establish paternity?
> Why should the irresponsible man care? You're going to have society
> take care of his children.
If he's irresponsible, then he'll care as little as you do if his
children end up in the street.
> The more kids he creates (without having to
> take responsibility for), the more of his genes are passed on. From an
> evolutionary stand point, he's won.
THIS is why men fight it so hard when asked to promote the idea of
men (in general) using birth control. Men are EXPECTED to want to
spread their genes. It's UNTHINKABLE to expect them to stop doing
this.
> Start proposing ways to make the man financially responsible for his
> offspring (and not the taxpayer) and you'll probably only find
> encouragement from me.
We already have a way to do this. Men are chased down (in some states)
and forced to PAY BACK the Welfare that was given for their children.
Feed the children first. Then go after the fathers. Simple enough.
|
| 20.4391 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:17 | 7 |
| How can you make a man financially responsible? If a woman meets John
Doe at a party,and he introduces himself only as John, they get
hammered and end up in bed. She misses a period, she never knew
his last name, he lives 40 miles away so she probably won't bump
into him anyplace, he's home-free.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4392 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:19 | 6 |
| Tell men that there's a disease that will make their dicks fall off
(but it has no effect at all on women), and more men may consider
using condoms. :/
At the very least, don't let men off the hook. That only makes
matters worse for everyone.
|
| 20.4393 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:21 | 35 |
| RE: .4387
> I'd be the first to agree that WWII pulled us out. The Depression
> lasted over a decade, though. Times were very, very bad for most
> Americans during this decade or so.
>
> You can pretend that it's impossible for America to go through
> something like this, but it DID happen (and it could happen again.)
The quickest way to put us into another depression is to create a
permanent welfare class that is incapable of any work beyond cashing
welfare checks and have that permanent welfare class out breed the
working class.
Take the case of the 30 year old with 6 kids with the oldest being 15
and pregnant. Assume for argument sake that all of her offspring
follow her example (note that the first is off to a good start). When
she dies at 80, there will be over 42 people that call her ancestor
(without knowing what age the various kids were born at it's a little
hard to predict; 42 is a very conservative number based on all of her
descendents waiting to 30 to drop 6 kids).
Compare that with a person that waits until 30 to have two kids that
they can afford (and assume that their descendants follow suit). When
they die at 80 there are only 6 people that call them ancestor.
In one person's life time the unproductive member of society has
produced 42 descendents collecting welfare compared to the productive
members 6.
It won't take too many generations of this before the economy can no
longer afford to carry the permanent welfare underclass that you've
created.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4394 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Smelly cat, it's not your fault | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:21 | 7 |
| <<< Note 20.4235 by SALEM::DODA "Spring training, PLEASE!" >>>
}}The 15 yr old is her oldest child. She has 6 other children.
Where does it say that each of these kids had a different father?
???
|
| 20.4395 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:23 | 7 |
|
And under the current system of "handouts", there is little
incentive for a receiving individual to provide for him/her-
self. So why would they want to work for a living, and once
they start receiving "handouts", why should they consider
working their way towards self-support?
|
| 20.4396 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:26 | 9 |
|
Suzanne, you seem to imply that I don't believe that men are
responsible. I never said that.
What I did say, or if I didn't say, imply [and Ed said a few
replies ago] was that the female has more to lose, and there-
fore has no excuse to engage in unprotected sex on the part
[pun not intended ... OK, it was] of the male.
|
| 20.4397 | Yikes. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:29 | 34 |
| RE: .4393 Dave Flatman
> The quickest way to put us into another depression is to create a
> permanent welfare class that is incapable of any work beyond cashing
> welfare checks and have that permanent welfare class out breed the
> working class.
We have 260 million (or so) people in the United States.
We have 5 million parents and 9 million children on AFDC (for an
average of 2.5 years.)
How do you expect the 5 million parents to "out breed" the portion
of the remaining 246 million people in the U.S. who happen to be
parents?
And do you really and truly believe that going through increasing
GENERATIONS of Welfare families (with each generation taking at
least 15 years or so) is the FASTEST way on Earth for America's
economy to go down the toilet? (Try thinking this one through
again.)
> It won't take too many generations of this before the economy can no
> longer afford to carry the permanent welfare underclass that you've
> created.
An econmy can collapse almost overnight (given the right circumstances.)
The 30 year old woman won't be 80 years old for 50 years. (And you
think this is the FASTEST way for our economy to go into the toilet?)
(Oh, and by the way, I didn't **CREATE** Welfare or any permanent
population of people on Welfare. It was all here before I was born,
and the average family only stays on Welfare for 2.5 years. Ok?)
|
| 20.4398 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:31 | 16 |
| RE: .4396 Shawn
> Suzanne, you seem to imply that I don't believe that men are
> responsible. I never said that.
You keep pushing the responsibility onto women more than men,
though. I believe the responsibility to be equal.
> What I did say, or if I didn't say, imply [and Ed said a few
> replies ago] was that the female has more to lose, and there-
> fore has no excuse to engage in unprotected sex on the part
> [pun not intended ... OK, it was] of the male.
Men have NO EXCUSE, EITHER.
50/50
|
| 20.4399 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:33 | 4 |
| I think what Shawn is trying to say is that if a couple creates a baby,
it's a lot easier for the man to disappear, while the woman is "stuck"
with the baby, and women should keep that in mind when having
unprotected sex.
|
| 20.4400 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:38 | 26 |
| RE: .4395 Shawn
> And under the current system of "handouts", there is little
> incentive for a receiving individual to provide for him/her-
> self. So why would they want to work for a living, and once
> they start receiving "handouts", why should they consider
> working their way towards self-support?
Dave Flatman probably doesn't realize this, but I'm sure YOU KNOW
that a number of people in this very topic have lived through the
process of moving from 'very poor' to 'successful' (while raising
young children as single parents at the time.)
I'm not sure if any of said people have been on Welfare itself,
but I know for a fact that other programs were available (and
used to some degree) by more than one person here.
Why don't you ask a person who has gone from 'very poor with at least
one child to feed' to 'successful'. How it was possible? What was she
thinking at the time (and how did she make it work?)
Don't you think you'd find out more from those who got OUT of poverty
(with their children) than those who never had to actually face it
themselves?
Just wondering...
|
| 20.4401 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:38 | 38 |
| RE: .4390
> Under the system YOU want, the woman and the kids would be out on
> the street.
Both would be on the streets only if the woman makes that choice. The
choice is hers: abort the kid before it's born, put the kid up for
adoption, or financially support the kid.
It is fundamentally wrong and immoral to make the taxpayer financially
liable for HER CHOICE.
> Paternity tests cost money. If the woman can't feed
> her kids in the first place, how will she pay the $1000 or so that
> it takes to establish paternity?
She can start by stating "this man is the father". A paternity test
would only be required if the man denies that he is the father. In
such cases make both parties put the cost of the test in escrow with
the loser paying. If she can't afford the test and she's pointed out
the father then she won't have to pay. Therefore, the issue of whether
or not she can afford the test is only relevent when she incorrectly
identifies the who the father is.
> THIS is why men fight it so hard when asked to promote the idea of
> men (in general) using birth control.
I suppose that you can point to where I've ever fought the idea of
birth control?
> Men are EXPECTED to want to
> spread their genes. It's UNTHINKABLE to expect them to stop doing
> this.
Nothing quite like the feeling of painting with a broad sexist brush
now is there? Now do you feel better?
-- Dave
|
| 20.4402 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:39 | 25 |
|
RE: Dave
Yes, of course that's what I'm saying. N-1 people in this
conference know what I'm saying.
RE: Suzanne
Try this on for size:
Him: Let's have sex
Her: OK
[15 seconds of foreplay]
Him: Can I come in now?
Her: Sure. Are you wearing a condom?
Him: No
Her: We're not having sex unless you wear one
Him: But I didn't bring one with me
Her: Oh, well come on in anyways
He's stupid, but she's even more stupid. Any variation that
involves protesting on the part of the female and force on
the part of the male and you're talking rape, which is beyond
the scope of this discussion.
|
| 20.4403 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:43 | 12 |
|
Suzanne, I said "little incentive" for that very reason. Of
course some people are reasonably motivated by a will to suc-
ceed, and will make a serious attempt to "climb out of the
gutter", so to speak.
And I think thats great, and was no doubt the mindset when
welfare/AFDC was instituted.
But gut feel tells me this is not happening the majority of
the time.
|
| 20.4404 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:45 | 36 |
| RE: .4401 Dave Flatman
You left out a choice: Keep the child with the belief that you'll
make it somehow! (This is America, where everyone keeps telling
the poor that it's their own fault if they're poor. What if the
mother thinks 'Hey, I'll keep the baby and stop being poor, that's
all!')
> It is fundamentally wrong and immoral to make the taxpayer financially
> liable for HER CHOICE.
You think so. Not everyone does.
> She can start by stating "this man is the father".
To who? Her neighbors? The bagboy at the grocery store? It costs
big money to sue someone for paternity.
> A paternity test would only be required if the man denies that he is
> the father.
Required by whom? If the woman can't afford to go to court, no one
can require the man to do anything.
> In such cases make both parties put the cost of the test in escrow with
> the loser paying. If she can't afford the test and she's pointed out
> the father then she won't have to pay.
What if she doesn't have the money to put in escrow in the first place?
> Therefore, the issue of whether or not she can afford the test is only
> relevent when she incorrectly identifies the who the father is.
It's relevant if she doesn't have the $1000 to put in escrow (and can't
afford the cost of going to court to make him TAKE the test in the
first place.)
|
| 20.4405 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:48 | 11 |
| RE: .4402 Shawn
In your little skit, you have the WOMAN expected to be responsible
for the MAN using his own form of birth control.
The idea is for the MAN to be responsible for himself (without
putting the responsibility on the WOMAN to ***MAKE*** him be
responsible for himself.)
If he doesn't use birth control on his own, he's not being
responsible. (This is the problem.)
|
| 20.4406 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:50 | 5 |
| There is too much faith in condoms in here. Basically, one night stands
aren't cool anymore, they're stupid. If you don't trust who you are
with then you shouldn't be with them.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4407 | It isn't immoral to be poor. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:53 | 26 |
| RE: .4403 Shawn
> Suzanne, I said "little incentive" for that very reason. Of
> course some people are reasonably motivated by a will to suc-
> ceed, and will make a serious attempt to "climb out of the
> gutter", so to speak.
'Climb out of poverty', you mean.
> And I think thats great, and was no doubt the mindset when
> welfare/AFDC was instituted.
We never had a guarantee that poverty would be abolished.
(Remember? Jesus said the poor would always be with us and
He was right about that.)
> But gut feel tells me this is not happening the majority of
> the time.
Those who can't pull themselves out of Welfare poverty would
probably not fare much better at pulling themselves out of
'on the streets' poverty.
We will always have the poor. Unless we want to live in a virtual
Bosnia or Somalia, we need to provide a safety net for those who
simply can't make it (for an average of 2.5 years) without help.
|
| 20.4408 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:55 | 27 |
| There is, of course, a fair and equitable solution to the problems
caused by the nature of human reproduction, such as the difficulty of
locating the father after pregnancy becomes evident.
Pregnancy is a risk, and human beings have invented a method for
evening out risk. It is called insurance. Obviously, each woman who
wishes to engage in, hmm, shall we say, adventurous sex, should
purchase a pregnancy insurance policy, as well as insurance for
whatever other risks she wishes to cover. Naturally, the men should
participate in this coverage as well. Since the male participation
occurs at the time of sexual intercourse, so should their payment.
Each woman should divide her insurance premium by the her expected
number of sexual acts during the coverage period and should charge each
partner half that amount.
In this way, each party will contribute equally to the solutions of the
problems they are both responsible for. Of course, in a free market,
the actual payments may include additional premiums or discounts for
quality of service and other factors; the parties involved will have to
compete and negotiate.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.4409 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:56 | 3 |
| So what about the girl who insisted on getting pregnant, with the pre
concieved idea of going on welfare? That isn't a safety net, that's
somebody saying "Me, me, me, take the invoice, me, me".
|
| 20.4410 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:57 | 10 |
|
Suzanne, you did it again.
I didn't say the male wasn't responsible, I said the female
was more irresponsible.
And I repeat ... worst case is that she's the one who has to
bear the cost [emotional/financial] of the mistake, so who
better to make the final decision?
|
| 20.4411 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Wed Mar 06 1996 20:59 | 6 |
|
edp, that's warped.
How is that different from sleeping with a prostitute at a
reputable brothel?
|
| 20.4412 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:01 | 20 |
| RE: .4408 edp
Good note, Eric! (The stipulation about 'quality of service and
other factors' was especially cute!) :)
A legal transaction at the time of sex sounds like a good idea.
(A big advantage to this would be if the prospective father had to
present some form of ID at the time of insurance premium payment.
It would be the easiest way to find him later should a pregnancy
occur.)
New credit cards are coming out (in the near future, I think) with
fingerprint IDs on them.
How about a DNA ID (which would be stored on the credit card receipt
saved by the woman)? This way, paternity could be proven easily
without requiring the man to take a test.
We'd need cheaper paternity tests, too, of course.
|
| 20.4413 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:01 | 6 |
| > How is that different from sleeping with a prostitute at a
> reputable brothel?
How is any form of sex that isn't committed to raising the resulting children
different from sleeping with a prostitute at a brothel?
|
| 20.4414 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:03 | 10 |
| >
> A legal transaction at the time of sex sounds like a good idea.
>
I agree. We, the two people getting ready to boink, agree
to raise any children who result from this boinking to the
age of at least 18.
|
| 20.4415 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:03 | 20 |
| RE: .4410 Shawn
> Suzanne, you did it again.
No, you did. I keep saying it's 50/50 and you won't accept this.
> I didn't say the male wasn't responsible, I said the female
> was more irresponsible.
50/50, Shawn. Two people have sex. Two people are responsible.
> And I repeat ... worst case is that she's the one who has to
> bear the cost [emotional/financial] of the mistake, so who
> better to make the final decision?
They should BOTH make the final decision. They should BOTH
decide to use birth control (or to refrain from having sex
if it's not available at the time.)
50/50 (What could be more fair?)
|
| 20.4416 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:06 | 8 |
| RE: .4411 Shawn
> How is that different from sleeping with a prostitute at a
> reputable brothel?
If the insurance premium goes to the Insurance company, the man
and the woman are on equal terms. Neither one is a prostitute
(or else, they both are.)
|
| 20.4417 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:08 | 12 |
| RE: .4413 John Covert
>> How is that different from sleeping with a prostitute at a
>> reputable brothel?
> How is any form of sex that isn't committed to raising the resulting
> children different from sleeping with a prostitute at a brothel?
Let's presume that you are speaking of MALE prostitutes, too.
(Surely you don't regard women as being the only ones who sin - in
your eyes - when they have sex without intending to reproduce.)
|
| 20.4418 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:09 | 43 |
| RE: .4397
"Quickest" was an exaggeration. However, the current welfare system
will eventually create a cost structure that the country will no longer
be able to maintain.
> We have 260 million (or so) people in the United States.
>
> We have 5 million parents and 9 million children on AFDC (for an
> average of 2.5 years.)
You're assuming that they only go on welfare once.
>
> How do you expect the 5 million parents to "out breed" the portion
> of the remaining 246 million people in the U.S. who happen to be
> parents?
Let's assume for argument sake that of the remaining 246 million, 200
million are hard working parents. This will be a gross over
simplification, but ...
Welfare Descendents Working Class Descendents
Generation born total born total
1 5 200
2 30 35 400 600
3 180 215 800 1400
4 1080 1290 1600 2800
5 6480 7635 3200 5400
The problem is expontential growth.
> (Oh, and by the way, I didn't **CREATE** Welfare or any permanent
> population of people on Welfare. It was all here before I was born,
But here and now you're the biggest defender of an obviously flawed
system.
> and the average family only stays on Welfare for 2.5 years. ...
2.5 years at a time you mean.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4419 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:10 | 6 |
| >
> Let's presume that you are speaking of MALE prostitutes, too.
>
Certainly.
|
| 20.4420 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:10 | 11 |
| RE: .4409 Lunchbox
> So what about the girl who insisted on getting pregnant, with the pre
> concieved idea of going on welfare? That isn't a safety net, that's
> somebody saying "Me, me, me, take the invoice, me, me".
Are you mad enough at her to throw 9 million children into the streets
(along with their 5 million parents) to get back at her for what she
said?
I'm not.
|
| 20.4421 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:22 | 37 |
| RE: .4418 Dave Flatman
> "Quickest" was an exaggeration.
Thank you. We finally agree on something. :)
> However, the current welfare system will eventually create a cost
> structure that the country will no longer be able to maintain.
How soon? You're talking about 50 years. Why throw today's children
out into the streets based on a speculation about what could happen
several generations from now?
What I think will happen is that we will always have a small percentage
of people who need help in our society. I don't see any evidence that
the (rough) percentage of people needing help will increase much.
Welfare isn't attractive enough to draw large numbers of converts.
> Let's assume for argument sake that of the remaining 246 million, 200
> million are hard working parents. This will be a gross over
> simplification, but ...
> The problem is expontential growth.
The problem is that you way, way, way, WAY (and incorrectly) simplified.
You presumed that each person on Welfare would have 6 (or so) children.
We have 14 million people on Welfare. Of these 14 million, 9 million
are children and 5 million are parents. This means that there are
fewer than TWO CHILDREN for every adult who is on Welfare.
> But here and now you're the biggest defender of an obviously flawed
> system.
I'm one of the people here who doesn't want 9 million children thrown
out into the streets.
|
| 20.4422 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:25 | 5 |
| It's amazing that people can KNOW that we have 14 million people
on Welfare (9 million children and 5 million adults), and still
believe that most people on Welfare have 6 kids.
It must be the Political Math. :)
|
| 20.4423 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:29 | 44 |
| I don't want to throw any mothers, fathers or children on the street. I
think that the US Welfare System is the best in the world, despite how
easily it can be abused.There is nobody in the world who can come up
with a solution to any of the problems we discuss in this topic; people
are always going to be stupid and ignorant and even the ones who are
not make mistakes. All we argue about in here is how to deal with them.
There will never be a common ground between pro-life and pro-choice,
compromise is out of the question. We all sit here and argue until
we're blue in the face because each individual thinks they are correct.
Maybe if a big DNA computer/registry is created, some of the questions
will be answered. Even this is unfeasable due to cost and the way
immigration changes our population daily.
Summary:
There are always going to be scumbag guys who take women
home and have unsafe sex with them despite all of the diseases and the
risk for pregnancy. The scumbag will always skip town if the woman is
pregnant.
There are always going to be naive women who let guys
smooth talk them into bed and for whatever reason have unsafe sex with
them. These are the women who are left with the uncomfortable options
of abortion, adoption, or single motherhood.
There are always going to be idiot teenagers who want to
get pregnant to seem more adult. A lot of times one or both of them
drop out of school to care for the child, end up flipping burgers at
McDonalds and ultimately end up on Welfare because $5.00 an hour
doesn't make it for 3 people.
There are always going to be people who either get caught
up in the heat of the moment and end up getting pregnant, and people
who make a good honest effort but the birth control fails.
No amount of education is going to change certain people in society.
You can tell people all day not to smoke crack, it will kill them.
People will still smoke crack. You can tell people all day not to have
unprotected sex because they'll contract a fatal or pesky disease or
get pregnant but people will still have unprotected sex. There is no
tangible answer to these problems.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4424 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:36 | 17 |
| Re .4411:
> edp, that's warped.
Have you had your humor detector calibrated?
> How is that different from sleeping with a prostitute at a
> reputable brothel?
I give up, how?
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.4425 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:39 | 25 |
| Re .4413:
>> How is that different from sleeping with a prostitute at a
>> reputable brothel?
> How is any form of sex that isn't committed to raising the resulting
> children different from sleeping with a prostitute at a brothel?
Oh, oh, can I answer!? Let's see, if two people have sex with no
other exchange of goods or services or commitment, then they are doing
it to please each other and maybe even for love and it is a wonderful
thing.
On the other hand, if there is a commitment to raise children, there is
some amount of bondage and servitude involved. The same applies if
there are other marital commitments. This introduces an aspect of
exchanging sex for value to the relationship, a dirty, debasing insult
to the human spirit.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.4426 | Another good one! | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:42 | 3 |
| RE: edp
Your humor generator is right on the mark today. :)
|
| 20.4427 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:46 | 22 |
| RE: .4404
> You left out a choice: Keep the child with the belief that you'll
> make it somehow!
Well, either you're not reading all of the notes that you're responding
to, or you're not reading for comprehension, or you just missed it this
time:
.4401> Both would be on the streets only if the woman makes that choice. The
.4401> choice is hers: abort the kid before it's born, put the kid up for
.4401> adoption, or financially support the kid.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > She can start by stating "this man is the father".
>
> To who?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe the person she's trying to collect a welfare
check from?!?
-- Dave
|
| 20.4428 | Beliefs and reality are not the same things, Dave. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:51 | 31 |
| RE: .4427 Dave Flatman
>> You left out a choice: Keep the child with the belief that you'll
>> make it somehow!
> ...or you missed it this time:
.4401> ...or financially support the kid.
Dave, BELIEVING you can 'make it somehow' is not the same thing as
actually 'financially supporting the kid'.
Believing you can make money is not the same thing as making money.
>>> She can start by stating "this man is the father".
>> To who?
> Oh, I don't know. Maybe the person she's trying to collect a welfare
> check from?!?
Oh, so now you want to KEEP Welfare going. I thought you were talking
about things to do INSTEAD of Welfare.
Most (all?) states already require women to name the fathers. The
states themselves go after the fathers to REPAY the money given to
support the children.
I've already said that I agree that the fathers should pay back the
states for Welfare payments. I don't agree with stopping the payments
which support children.
|
| 20.4429 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 21:58 | 12 |
| By the way, I'm not knocking the BELIEF that one can 'make it somehow'
at all.
How else would we actually make it in life?
Not everyone succeeds, though (especially when some in our society
are willing to go to the ends of the Earth, almost, to dump on such
people as alleged 'scum'.)
If you want people to 'make it somehow', trashing them as alleged
'scum' is a stupid way to go about trying to convince them they
can rise out of poverty.
|
| 20.4430 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 22:06 | 7 |
| I don't know if you were referring to my references to "scumbag" in
.4429. But I didn't mean scumbag as a derrogatory statement about the
poor. There are rich scumbags, too. These are the guys that go around
hopping off one woman to the next and never concern themselves with
consequences.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4431 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 22:16 | 15 |
| No, I wasn't referring to what you said, Lunchbox.
It seems to be getting more and more popular in our culture to dump
on Welfare families. (This is what I was talking about.)
Those who want Welfare people to rise out of poverty are making it a
lot less possible by trying to KILL any perception these parents may
have about themselves as decent human beings. (The 9 million children
on Welfare can't do a thing about their own poverty, of course. We
have Child Labor Laws which prevent them from working until they are
almost grown.)
Some people don't seem to realize that their attitude towards people
on Welfare does more harm than good.
|
| 20.4432 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Wed Mar 06 1996 22:22 | 4 |
| So, are we talking about abortion here?
Are we advocating abortion as a solution to flying sperm/fertile
womb/welfare/people on the street/scumbag syndrome?
|
| 20.4433 | I'm not looking to push women into abortimg by denying support. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Wed Mar 06 1996 22:24 | 2 |
| Well, I'm not.
|
| 20.4434 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Wed Mar 06 1996 22:30 | 8 |
| I think the recent theme in this topic has been responsibility:
Some have argued that we are taking responsibility for welfare families
and we shouldn't, and others have argued that by taking responsibility
temporarily we give the poor something to lean on until they can get on
their feet. More importantly, Suzanne and I have been agreeing in topic
#20, an unprecedented first.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4435 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Wed Mar 06 1996 22:36 | 6 |
| We're not progressing in one way, yet we are.
Sex has become more of a recreational activity in our society than a
need to reproduce. But, the end result is the same. OUr brains are
telling us that we're having sex for fun, but our bodies are telling us
that procreation is the name of the game.
|
| 20.4436 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Wed Mar 06 1996 22:39 | 32 |
| RE: .4428
> Oh, so now you want to KEEP Welfare going. I thought you were talking
> about things to do INSTEAD of Welfare.
Is this statement based on not reading the notes you're responding to
or not comprehending them?
As a quick review:
.4283> Intent and motive have a large part to do with it. I do not begrudge
.4283> anyone unemployment benefits who was a victim of corporate down-sizing.
.4283> I do not begrudge a family AFDC if they were victims of unfortunate
.4283> circumstances such as a death in the family.
.4230> Congratulations, you missed the point. The problem is not people with
.4230> children on AFDC, the problem is people creating new children while on
.4230> AFDC.
Again, you're viewing the government actions (giving AFDC) in a vacuum
and not looking at the results of the governments actions (increased
unplanned pregnancies).
It makes an awful lot of sense to stop a problem now while it is still
small and manageable rather than waiting until it cannot be brought
under control. The same type of arguments can be made with regards to
medicxxx. It will still be a while before the baby-boomers start
retiring in mass and completely overloading the system, but that
doesn't mean we should bury our heads in the sand and not start doing
something about it now.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4437 | Whatever... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 03:18 | 53 |
| RE: .4436 Dave Flatman
>> Oh, so now you want to KEEP Welfare going. I thought you were talking
>> about things to do INSTEAD of Welfare.
> Is this statement based on not reading the notes you're responding to
> or not comprehending them?
The 'thread' began with my suggestion of something we could do to solve
the problem at hand (OTHER than Welfare.) Apparently, you got lost
somewhere. <Whoooooooosh.>
> Again, you're viewing the government actions (giving AFDC) in a vacuum
> and not looking at the results of the governments actions (increased
> unplanned pregnancies).
So you think that the government is directly responsible for conceiving
babies? (And some people say the government can't do anything!) :/
Our society is way too complex to attribute unplanned pregnancies
to one specific aspect of our society. Some people in my parents'
generation used to blame everything on the Beatles. It's never that
simple.
> It makes an awful lot of sense to stop a problem now while it is still
> small and manageable rather than waiting until it cannot be brought
> under control.
The percentage of U.S. families on Welfare is not spinning wildly
out of control. It's the attacks on Welfare recipients that has
spun wildly out of control (even though 9,000,000 children on
AFDC have done nothing at all to deserve these attacks.)
It's too EASY to bitch about 9,000,000 children and their mothers
as though they are the scum of the Earth and need to be stamped
out (or, if not the mothers or 9,0000,000 children themselves, then
the children's future siblings.)
The typical family on Welfare is a mother with two children [although
the average for all Welfare families is fewer than two children].
The average AFDC payment for this family of three is $380 per month
(which is still below the poverty line for a family of three.)
More than 50% of the recipients remain on Welfare for less than
two years.
Full-time minimum wage work would still leave this family $3,000
below the poverty line for a family of three (with the difficult
problems of paying for daycare for two children and health care
for all three family members.)
You can get away with demonizing these families (they don't have the
lobbies to speak for them), but remember, you are talking about the
support of 9,000,000 children in a society of 260,000,000 people.
|
| 20.4438 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 03:19 | 19 |
| Well, I read an article and an editorial about Welfare this evening,
and I'm reminded that trying to protect the benefits of 5,000,000
families on AFDC is only one of the things we can (and should, IMO)
do to help these families.
Although we should probably discuss these things in the Welfare topic
(243.*), I thought I'd mention a few here (as mentioned in the
editorial I read this evening): "child care facilities - open 24
hours a day and not just for those who can afford it...Safe,
affordable housing, education, skills training, and jobs that pay
a living wage,...addressing domestic violence, enforcing payment
of child support...and so many more core issues..."
It's not hopeless for individual families, although not every person
or family will rise out of poverty. It would benefit us all if we
helped make the path out of poverty smoother rather than simply trying
to discard the safety net (via the method which Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun
criticizes as being "the Field of Dreams approach. If you kick them off
welfare, the jobs will appear.")
|
| 20.4439 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 03:19 | 24 |
| Dave Flatman - about your suggestion that the government's "giving
AFDC" is the cause of an increase in unplanned pregnancies (babies
born out of wedlock, to be more specific, right?)
Perhaps you missed the article posted in 20.4243 (titled "Study
shows divorces, out-of-wedlock births declining.")
"--Nearly one in three births -- 1.2 million babies -- was to an
unmarried mother. After five decades of a rise in unmarried
childbearing -- 6 percent a year in the 1980s -- the pace of
increase slowed to 2 percent by the early 1990s."
Out of a population of 260,000,000 people, only 5,000,000 women
are on Welfare. It seems very unlikely to me that these women
are giving birth to almost ONE THIRD of all babies born in the
United States every year (especially since Welfare mothers have
an average of fewer than two children each for a total of
9,000,000 children on Welfare.)
It would be interesting to see the stats on how many pregnancies
(among married and unmarried working people who never do go on
Welfare) are unplanned each year. Obviously, if they were never
at risk of going on Welfare at all, the existence of AFDC wasn't
really a factor in their unplanned pregnancies.
|
| 20.4440 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Thu Mar 07 1996 10:06 | 8 |
| >Actually, since this is the abortion topic, she's more than half responsible.
>Given current U.S. law, she had lots of opportunities to abort without so
>much as a "howdy-do" from the father(s).
They REALLY don't like to hear this, insisting instead that despite the
disparity in opportunities to prevent the introduction into the world
of a child without the resources to support it, that conception is all
that matters and everything else is just "a matter of biology."
|
| 20.4441 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | the dangerous type | Thu Mar 07 1996 10:10 | 7 |
| >And if she had said "No" to each of those six men, chances
>are they would have found a different woman to have sex with,
>and there would still be six children, they'd just look a little
>different.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Maybe their other partners have taken
control of their own uteruses into their own hands.
|
| 20.4442 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:26 | 20 |
| re: .4407
>We never had a guarantee that poverty would be abolished.
I beg to differ. FDR claimed that his welfare programs would abolish
poverty within a decade.
Guess he was wrong, eh? (boy was he ever wrong)
People swallowed this hook, line and sinker, though. The SC,
who knew that these socialist policies went against the Constitutional
limitations of the federal government, did not buy into this mentality,
however...of course, a few key replacements in justices fixed that right
up.
Just another example of how emergency can be used to benefit
government. But I digress...
-steve
|
| 20.4443 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Thu Mar 07 1996 12:44 | 13 |
| |I beg to differ. FDR claimed that his welfare programs would
|abolish poverty within a decade.
sometimes, steve, you take such a limited view. yes, FDR probably
did claim that welfare programs would abolish poverty - and yes,
it was probably a purely political statement.
do you know how strong the socialist and communist parties were
becoming during the great depression? their ranks were growing
at a faster rate in this country than ever before. what better
way to dampen their cause than to institute what you call welfare
programs for those who really needed at the time. don't think
for a moment that FDR did not take this into consideration.
|
| 20.4444 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Thu Mar 07 1996 13:24 | 48 |
| Shawn,
Getting back to your thing on the pill, I am one of millions of women
in this country who CANNOT use it, unless I am willing to risk death
from a stroke or thrombosis. That leaves me (in the us) with the
choices of spermicide, diaphrams, and cervical caps. I have had three
children, and my pevic floor will not support a diaphram fit. The
current only variety of cervical cap available in the US doesn't work
well for multipara's, which I am. that leaves me spermicide with an
18% or greater failure rate, and papal roulette which has a failure
rate of 20% and up.
Now my partner's use of a condom means a failure rate of 12%. Adding
spermicide lowers our risk for pregnancy substantially, (Suzanne do you
do stat's? My skills with them are beyond rusty) This is statistical,
if you use condoms with care and a lubricating spermicide, your chances
of an accidental conception are almost nil.
Without his use of same, we could be adding yet another little bastard
to the world for you to dump on, even though our kids are raised by two
loving parents and are in little danger of becoming dependant on the
government at this point.
BTW I am one of those evyl teen parents. The dangerous child of that
product should graduate from college next December, and is not/has not
been arrested, sold drugs, gotten pregnant, killed anybody, robbed
stores or any of those other things children of impovershed parents
are supposed to do. Need I say that we were VERY poor for the first 8
yers of her life? I bootstrapped with the help of a Carter-era
program, and lots of help with daycare. That program is dead now and
congress is working to cut more educational/training programs as well
as Welfare. do the math, you need to supply one or the other, as well
as teach men to do their fair share in not contributing to accidental
conceptions.
Getting back to the pro-choice, pro-life piece. Unless we stop
unplanned conceptions, or make it possible for women to support the
products of cunplanned conceptions, and stop with the attempts at
stigmatizing women who carry to term and work to care for their OWN
children, we will continue to have abortion.
NJ's birth rate for AFDC families has dropped. The pregnancy rate has
not. Do the math, and see what this program does to some peoples
beloved fetuses.
meg
meg
|
| 20.4445 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Thu Mar 07 1996 13:42 | 16 |
|
Meg, it's obvious that you're smart enough to know the dif-
ference between safe and unsafe sex ... unfortunately, that
can't be said about everybody.
You know what works for you, for whatever reason, and I have
no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the
female that says "I can't take the pill, so I guess I'll just
boink with impunity and hope for luck in not getting pregnant".
That's most of the problem. And before Suzanne yells at me
again, that goes for the male as well. But I still stand by
my opinion that the female should be the referee at all times.
No condom? No boinking. If she gets pregnant, it IS no one's
fault but her own.
|
| 20.4446 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Thu Mar 07 1996 13:46 | 14 |
|
Suzanne, I have a bit of a problem with your use of the word
"only". ONLY 5M women are on welfare, ONLY 9M children are
on welfare.
Do you realize that 14M is more than 1/20 of the country's
population? I mean, I realize that's ONLY 5% of the popul-
ation, but it sure sounds like a whole bunch to me.
Last I knew, 9M was NYC's population. In effect, that means
that the current situation is the equivalent of all of NYC
being on welfare. But that's ONLY 1 city, so I guess it
could be worse.
|
| 20.4447 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Mar 07 1996 13:47 | 16 |
| re: .4443
Limited? I was just showing that someone indeed promised to end
poverty- a president of the US no doubt. This certainly contradicts
the claim made a few notes back, and is related to the current string.
As far as the socialist party goes (forget the communists for now), how
did FDR dampen their resolve by passing socialistic programs? I don't
understand this logic at all. Seems the socialists claimed a HUGE
victory with New Deal. This was a key turning point in American
history with regards to constitutional law. This was the era of huge
government growth, a growth that has not been squelched or slowed in
over 60 years.
-steve
|
| 20.4448 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Thu Mar 07 1996 13:55 | 10 |
| |As far as the socialist party goes (forget the communists for now),
|how did FDR dampen their resolve by passing socialistic programs?
well, it goes like this steve. when you're jobless and hungry
and someone comes along and tells you he's going to put you
back to work so that you can live like a human being again,
you tend to be loyal to that person, like millions were to FDR.
hearts and minds, steve, hearts and minds. put 'em back to
work before they get so desperate that communism starts looking
mighty good.
|
| 20.4449 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:01 | 8 |
| It doesn't matter how good communism looks, we are a Republic. The
Constitution makes no allowance for a communist form of government.
Now, please tell me how the resolve of the socialists were dampened by
passing socialistic programs. I'm genuinely curious.
-steve
|
| 20.4450 | | CHEFS::COOKS | Half Man,Half Biscuit | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:34 | 4 |
| Reading all this,I think i`ll stick to having a tommy-tank. It sure
makes things a lot easier.
|
| 20.4451 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:36 | 3 |
| re .4450:
See .4281.
|
| 20.4452 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | tools are our friends | Thu Mar 07 1996 14:51 | 5 |
| | Now, please tell me how the resolve of the socialists were dampened
| by passing socialistic programs.
i've tried in my last two replies, steve. really, i honestly
have.
|
| 20.4453 | 50/50 - no more, no less. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 15:42 | 37 |
| RE: .4445 Shawn
> But I still stand by my opinion that the female should be the referee
> at all times. No condom? No boinking. If she gets pregnant, it IS
> no one's fault but her own.
Letting men totally off the hook is a big part of the problem.
(Remember the flying sperm? This is the attitude which gives
them 'lift off', so to speak, in the first place.)
When you have too amorous people with one thinking 'Hey, all I have to
do is to keep pushing for what I want because if she says OK, then
whatever happens is *HER FAULT ENTIRELY*, not mine' - it's a matter of
one person going at sex with little or nothing to lose. This simply
doesn't help this couple's chances of preventing conception.
If they do conceive and the mother & child end up on Welfare, other
people will bitch like crazy about it (while the man still thinks,
'Hey, she should have stopped me. I'm an idiot who can't be expected
to stop myself, so it can't possibly be my fault.')
Shawn, men being 50/50 responsible for birth control is THE RIGHT
THING TO DO. For the woman. For a possible baby. For society.
(For the man, too, if there's a chance he will be nailed for child
support.)
It doesn't matter who might have the choices of abortion or adoption.
Being responsible for a ones own sperm is a good thing to do (in and
of itself.)
If the man and the woman talk about it ahead of time (and they both
agree to make an effort to prevent pregnancy), their dual efforts
will be virtually 100% effective.
Isn't this reason enough for men to be responsible? In an age where
so many people seem to be demanding responsibility, it's perfectly
reasonable to expect men to be responsible for their own sperm.
|
| 20.4454 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | It doesn't get better than...... | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:35 | 13 |
| Shawn,
I can't believe how sexist you are being about men!
do you really believe men are nothing more than hormone-guided
missles?
I prefer to think that men, like women, can learn to take
responsibility for avoiding unwanted conceptions. The few that do
behave like hormone-seeking missles should probably be removed from
society forever.
meg
|
| 20.4455 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:37 | 6 |
| >> do you really believe men are nothing more than hormone-guided
>> missles?
I'd be willing to bet that Shawn does not think this but I can point
you to at least one contributor that would portray men as such, with
impunity.
|
| 20.4456 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:38 | 8 |
| > The few that do
> behave like hormone-seeking missles should probably be removed from
> society forever.
Or, as Glenn would say -
If you screw that dame, then Mud's your name.
|
| 20.4457 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:39 | 11 |
|
My attitude is NOT sexist in nature ... it's practical.
Pregnancy, planned or not, happens. Lack of condom use,
lack of female birth control, whatever.
My point is, and has been, that the female has the final
say in the matter. You say the male is a jerk for insist-
ing on unsafe sex. I agree, but I also say that the female
is a jerk for not insisting on safe sex.
|
| 20.4458 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:43 | 4 |
|
Mudd
nnttm
|
| 20.4459 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 16:49 | 14 |
| RE: .4453
> Shawn, men being 50/50 responsible for birth control is THE RIGHT
> THING TO DO. For the woman. For a possible baby. For society.
> (For the man, too, if there's a chance he will be nailed for child
> support.)
Actually, the right thing to teach people is that they (which ever sex)
are 100% responsible for insuring that birth-control is used.
It is an interesting paradox of life that after conception it is 100%
the woman's choice, but the man needs to be held 50% accountable.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4460 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:07 | 3 |
| re .4458:
Roger, Di.
|
| 20.4461 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:12 | 1 |
| oh er MISSUS!
|
| 20.4462 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:14 | 1 |
| Glenn, that comma was _not_ superfluous.
|
| 20.4463 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:16 | 1 |
| Aw come on! Live a little eh?
|
| 20.4464 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:16 | 5 |
| >The few that do
>behave like hormone-seeking missles should probably be removed from
>society forever.
How about those hormone seeking targets?
|
| 20.4465 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:19 | 19 |
| RE: .4457 Shawn
> My point is, and has been, that the female has the final
> say in the matter.
Thus, males are off the hook. If their sperm ends up creating
a baby who goes on Welfare, it can't possibly be their fault.
Duh! ("Hey, I'm a guy! I'm supposed to do everything possible
to get my rocks off. She's supposed to stop me.")
> You say the male is a jerk for insisting on unsafe sex. I agree,
> but I also say that the female is a jerk for not insisting on safe sex.
It's the man's responsibility to see to his OWN form of birth control.
If someone else has to MAKE him do it, he's not being responsible
(even if the condom does manage to make it onto his penis.)
He's still not being responsible because it was HIS PLACE to make sure
he was using protection (and no one else's.)
|
| 20.4466 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of The Counter King | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:21 | 11 |
|
.4462
We are prone to say
"This thing is Needful -- that, Superfluous"--
Yet they invariably co-exist!
We find the Needful comprehended in
The circle of the grand Superfluous,
Yet the Superfluous cannot be brought
Unless you're amply furnished with the Needful.
|
| 20.4467 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:21 | 4 |
| Actually, men and women are each 100% responsible for their own
birth control.
They are each 50% responsible for pregnancy prevention as a whole.
|
| 20.4468 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Dia do bheatha. | Thu Mar 07 1996 17:50 | 8 |
| re: .4452
Okay, as long as you've been trying. 8^) The logical quandary had to
do with the suggestion that you can dampen someone's spirits by giving
them what they want.
-steve
|
| 20.4469 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Thu Mar 07 1996 18:06 | 4 |
|
Aborted 69 snarf....so a life may have been saved, and some sperm
stored
|
| 20.4470 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Thu Mar 07 1996 18:10 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.4455 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "Keep hands & feet inside ride at all times" >>>
| you to at least one contributor that would portray men as such, with impunity.
Who? :-)
|
| 20.4471 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Don't like my p_n? 1-800-328-7448 | Thu Mar 07 1996 19:24 | 9 |
|
Suzanne, I didn't say males were off the hook. I'm all for
child support from the father, and accountability, etc. It
is 1/2 his responsibility that the kid was conceived.
Could you answer a question? In any situation not even close
to resembling rape, why would a female have sex with an un-
protected male if she were aware of the potential consequences?
|
| 20.4472 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Walloping Web Snappers! | Thu Mar 07 1996 19:49 | 2 |
| In Canada most of the males are unprotected because of the gun laws.
Only criminals are prepared for safe sex here.
|
| 20.4473 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Mar 07 1996 19:52 | 1 |
| Boy, and I thought dating was tough in the US!!!!
|
| 20.4474 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Wallet full of eelskins | Thu Mar 07 1996 20:27 | 5 |
| > Boy, and I thought dating was tough in the US!!!!
It IS! trust me
{grump}
|
| 20.4475 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Smelly cat, it's not your fault | Thu Mar 07 1996 20:28 | 2 |
| -1 I second that. It's especially tough after being married for a few
years....
|
| 20.4476 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | Don't Care? Don't Know? Don't Vote! | Thu Mar 07 1996 20:35 | 4 |
| > It's especially tough after being married for a few
> years....
Why? Does you spouse object? ;^)
|
| 20.4477 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Wallet full of eelskins | Thu Mar 07 1996 20:37 | 3 |
| > Why? Does you spouse object? ;^)
yeah. every time she sees me!
|
| 20.4478 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Smelly cat, it's not your fault | Thu Mar 07 1996 20:39 | 3 |
| }}Why? Does you spouse object? ;^)
Well, to answer your question....no. ;)
|
| 20.4479 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Mar 07 1996 20:40 | 4 |
| I saw 3 girls brawling in a pool hall last friday. I was thinking it
would be fun to date one of them.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4480 | Yeow! Ouch! {rip... trip...} | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Wallet full of eelskins | Thu Mar 07 1996 20:43 | 8 |
|
> I saw 3 girls brawling in a pool hall last friday. I was thinking
> it would be fun to date one of them.
ummmm. nah. they all work roller derby during the weekends, and
sell EpiLadies during the week.
they're better men than I'll EVER be...
|
| 20.4481 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Mar 07 1996 20:44 | 1 |
| I love roller derby though. T-birds rule, man!!!
|
| 20.4482 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Thu Mar 07 1996 20:58 | 4 |
|
Dave, wouldn't your gymnest girlfriend use you as a horse if you dated
someone else?
|
| 20.4483 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:03 | 5 |
| She uses me more like the uneven bars. I said the combatants looked
like they'd be fun to date. I certainly would date one of them *if* I
wasn't already joined at the hip, as it were.
lunchbox
|
| 20.4484 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:04 | 3 |
|
Must be hard for her to do gymnastics if you're joined at the hip....
|
| 20.4485 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:04 | 2 |
| It's a lot more fun that way, actually. Tell me you wouldn't date Bart
Conners, Glen!!!
|
| 20.4486 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:08 | 3 |
|
Who's that? Chuck's brother?
|
| 20.4487 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:09 | 2 |
| No, he's a gymnast. Well, former gymnast. You can tell I get stuck
watching gymnastics when boxing is on. Quid pro quo.
|
| 20.4488 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:15 | 3 |
|
That's right....blonde, right? My favorite! :-)
|
| 20.4489 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:16 | 2 |
| He broke his ankle a few years ago, that's why he retired. I think the
rest of him is intact, though.
|
| 20.4490 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:17 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.4489 by CSLALL::SECURITY "MADHATTA" >>>
| I think the rest of him is intact, though.
Hmmm.......:-)
|
| 20.4491 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:20 | 1 |
| A little early to start humming, isn't it?
|
| 20.4492 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:21 | 1 |
| it's never too early!
|
| 20.4493 | | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:23 | 1 |
| ...there was also a guy called Mitch Gaylord...
|
| 20.4494 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:24 | 4 |
|
You keep going like this and I'm going to start wondering why you watch
gymnastics. :-)
|
| 20.4495 | whipped | CSLALL::SECURITY | MADHATTA | Thu Mar 07 1996 21:26 | 2 |
| It's forced Glen. I prefer the contact sports like hockey and boxing,
but she always has the remote. Better than Fred Astaire movies, anyway.
|
| 20.4496 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Thu Mar 07 1996 23:55 | 3 |
|
Dave, I agree...contact sports are better. :-)
|
| 20.4497 | He's Taken | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | | Tue Mar 19 1996 13:31 | 1 |
| Bart Conner married Nadia Comaneci (sp?).
|
| 20.4498 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Mar 21 1996 10:16 | 9 |
| I forget whether it was here, or in #14, that we were discussing, last fall,
the issue of the comatose woman in upstate New York who had been raped
and was pregnant. There was controversy as to whether "officials" should
be allowed to abort. The woman's family, responsible for her care over the
10+ years she had been in the coma, argued against that.
I heard a news piece just yesterday, I believe, which reported that the
woman delivered a healthy baby while she was still comatose, and that she
experienced no complications.
|
| 20.4499 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Mar 21 1996 19:24 | 8 |
| I read a news piece that said, while there were no complications, the
baby was born weighing less than 3 pounds, that DNA analysis indicates
the rapist was indeed the suspected former health care worker in that
facility, and that a judge having recently tried him for another
offense, ordered this health care worker immediately to jail as a
flight risk.
DougO
|
| 20.4500 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Mar 21 1996 19:25 | 1 |
| He had just bought a plane ticket to Montreal.
|
| 20.4501 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Full Body Frisks | Thu Mar 21 1996 19:30 | 4 |
|
I posted something about it in News Briefs this morning, didn't I? That
was a long time ago 8^).
|
| 20.4502 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Mar 21 1996 19:55 | 4 |
| Sorry - I only check in here once a day, and have now indeed caught up
to your news briefs posting. at least my summary was fairly accurate.
DougO
|
| 20.4503 | | DYPSS1::OPPER | | Wed Mar 27 1996 20:23 | 10 |
| If this has previously been addressed, please accept my most humble
apologies...
Is the religious community which identifies so closely with the
anti-abortion movement in any way related to the Puritans - who valued
innocent human life so dearly that they executed insubordinate
children?
Just curious...
|
| 20.4504 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Wed Mar 27 1996 20:26 | 3 |
| .4503
Kindly accept this advanced degree in Effective Rhetorical Questions.
|
| 20.4505 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Mar 27 1996 20:42 | 3 |
| ZZZ :OPPER
Could it be??? Nooooooooo.....too sublime but it does start with Opp!
|
| 20.4506 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | A seemingly endless time | Wed Mar 27 1996 20:43 | 3 |
|
From Ohio, if that matters.
|
| 20.4507 | I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my... | DYPSS1::OPPER | | Wed Mar 27 1996 20:46 | 6 |
| .4504
Gee. Thanks, Mr. Oz.
Does it come in an extra large?
|
| 20.4508 | Thankyousoveryverymuch! | DYPSS1::OPPER | Too sublime. But it does start with Opp! | Wed Mar 27 1996 20:52 | 6 |
| .4505
... see Personal_Name. Thanks for the suggestion! I've been laboring
over this for hours today! (Pun intended).
|
| 20.4509 | official | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:14 | 5 |
|
President Clinton yesterday vetoed the "partial birth abortions"
bill.
bb
|
| 20.4510 | | USAT02::HALLR | God loves even you! | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:17 | 1 |
| not surprising, despite overwhelming support both aisles.
|
| 20.4511 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | High Maintenance Honey | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:19 | 4 |
|
The government has no business sticking its nose into medical
procedures.
|
| 20.4512 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but mama, that's where the fun is | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:22 | 3 |
| So medical procedures that just happen to have the desired outcome of
terminating life ought to be unregulated? That's an interesting
proposition.
|
| 20.4513 | | USAT02::HALLR | God loves even you! | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:22 | 7 |
| I agree, government regulation is bad, so bad, let's stop subsidizing
Dole's farmers, let's stop subsidizing those lazy bums on welfare,
let's stop subsidizing those pharmceutical (sp?) companies with
research dollars, let's stop funding teaching hospitals, etc., etc.
etc.
Magically, the deficit goes away.
|
| 20.4514 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | High Maintenance Honey | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:23 | 4 |
|
If it wasn't abortion, the government wouldn't be interested. They
would allow the medical community to regulate itself.
|
| 20.4515 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but mama, that's where the fun is | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:24 | 2 |
| They don't seem to be too disinterested in euthanasia, and that's not
abortion...
|
| 20.4516 | There's a Health Department, after all | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:25 | 11 |
|
Well, it's clear the government currently DOES regulate lots
of medical practices. And it's clearly consititutional to
regulate facilities operating in interstate commerce, such as,
for example, all Digital facilities, and all hospitals.
As to the policy question, there's hardly a portion of commerce
where the justification for regulation is greater (maybe airlines ?).
It involves situations where the consumer is not in control.
bb
|
| 20.4517 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Mr. Logo | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:37 | 10 |
|
Clinton did say he would have signed it if the wording was different.
He said that long before it ever reached his desk. But they would not change
the wording (ie add garuntees), so he vetoed it. Now Dole will use this as a
ploy against Clinton. But if you think about it, did Clinton have the pro-life
vote to begin with? I don't think so.
Glen
|
| 20.4518 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but mama, that's where the fun is | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:39 | 4 |
| >Clinton did say he would have signed it if the wording was different.
Yeah, he said he'd sign if it was worded in such a way that it
couldn't be enforced. BFD. How meaningful is that?
|
| 20.4519 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Thu Apr 11 1996 13:57 | 10 |
|
71% of Americans favor the bill the way it was worded, according to a report
I heard last night.
Jim
|
| 20.4520 | currently used far beyond original intent | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Apr 11 1996 18:10 | 6 |
| "interstate commerce" is becoming what I consider to be a suspect
classification, if a phrase may be borrowed to indicate a dubious
legislative history, and one that the courts have recently begun to
attend with more discretion.
DougO
|
| 20.4521 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | but mama, that's where the fun is | Fri Apr 12 1996 14:09 | 3 |
| Agreed. Interstate commerce seems to be the catch-phrase used by the
government to try to justify putting laws in place that wouldn't
otherwise pass Constitutional muster.
|
| 20.4522 | | ACISS2::LEECH | extremist | Fri Apr 12 1996 14:52 | 3 |
| Add my agreement to this, as well.
Hopefully, DougO can handle the shock of me agreeing with him. 8^)
|
| 20.4523 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | tumble to remove jerks | Wed May 15 1996 16:16 | 13 |
|
Moynihan breaks ranks on abortion
WASHINGTON - Sen. Patrick Moynihan of New York, a long-time abortion
rights supporter, is breaking ranks with his own Democratic Party to
condemn a controversial late-term abortion procedure as tantamount to
infanticide. In interviews over the past week and a half, Moynihan has
become one of the most prominent and influential pro-choice lawmakers
to say they would vote to override President Clinton's veto of
legislation to ban what's been termed "partial-birth" abortions. "It is
as close to infanticide as anything I have come upon in our judiciary,"
Moynihan told reporters Friday. "I would vote to override the veto."
(AP)
|
| 20.4524 | | HANNAH::MODICA | Journeyman Noter | Wed May 15 1996 16:19 | 2 |
| I'm hard pressed to understand how anyone can support
partial-birth abortions.
|
| 20.4525 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Belgian Burgers | Wed May 15 1996 16:20 | 5 |
|
I'm hard pressed to understand how politicians can want to prevent
doctors from using their medical judgment when it concerns women's
lives, but that's just me.
|
| 20.4526 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Wed May 15 1996 16:23 | 7 |
|
> I'm hard pressed to understand how politicians can want to prevent
> doctors from using their medical judgment when it concerns women's
> lives, but that's just me.
I'm hard pressed to understand how a partial birth abortion has anything
to do with womans health ... but that's just me.
|
| 20.4527 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Belgian Burgers | Wed May 15 1996 16:33 | 6 |
|
If you had read anything about the procedure and women who have had it
done and why, you might. If you just listen to the pro-life people
spouting rhetoric rather than facts, you won't understand.
|
| 20.4528 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | tumble to remove jerks | Wed May 15 1996 16:41 | 8 |
|
That dumb Moynihan.... where does he get off listening to just the
pro-life people spouting rhetoric in making such an obviously personal
decision...
Tsk.. tsk...
|
| 20.4529 | 8^) | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Belgian Burgers | Wed May 15 1996 16:44 | 3 |
|
Yeah!
|
| 20.4530 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Wed May 15 1996 16:46 | 25 |
|
I am pro-choice, but I seek to understand this issue.
I have heard that partial birth abortions are performed as a means of
terminating the life of a late term foetus at "birth", since until the head
emerges, the "baby" is not actually born, and therefore is legally
"abortable". A friend, who is medically knowledgeable and very anti-abortion,
tells me that all partial-birth abortions are performed on otherwise healthy
and defect-free foetuses, as a loophole for basically killing an unwanted
baby.
How true is this? Are there documented cases of partial birth abortions
performed for medically sound reasons (e.g., brain-dead, swollen-head foetuses,
etc.)? If the foetus is healthy and viable, why could a caesarian not be
performed?
If reasonable concerns are to be addressed here, it seems as though:
- Banning late term abortions of healthy, viable foetuses, via any method
makes more sense.
- In cases where good medical cause exists, allowing late term aborions, via
any method, should be at the doctors' (and patients' of course, despite
some doctors' attitudes - but this is another subject - don't get me started)
discretion.
|
| 20.4531 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed May 15 1996 16:58 | 28 |
| > A friend, who is medically knowledgeable and very anti-abortion, tells
> me that all partial-birth abortions are performed on otherwise healthy
> and defect-free foetuses, as a loophole for basically killing an
> unwanted baby.
>
> How true is this?
It isn't true.
> Are there documented cases of partial birth abortions performed for
> medically sound reasons
Yes. I've seen several local stories in my newspaper describing the
anguish of families who wanted their pregnancies but found out too late
that their fetuses had fatal defects that would kill them shortly after
birth, if birth itself didn't kill them- who terminated by late-term
abortion instead. Also, several women of similar circumstances
testified before Congress last year- so its documented somewhere in the
congressional record.
> - In cases where good medical cause exists, allowing late term
> aborions, via any method, should be at the doctors' (and patients' of
> course, despite some doctors' attitudes - but this is another subject -
> don't get me started) discretion.
Such is the law now. That's what they're trying to change.
DougO
|
| 20.4532 | not so hard pressed now | HANNAH::MODICA | Journeyman Noter | Wed May 15 1996 17:04 | 7 |
|
DougO
Hi, and thanks for the info.
I understand better now why this procedure might be performed.
Hank
|
| 20.4533 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Wed May 15 1996 17:22 | 24 |
| It should also be pointed out that there are very few (Three the last I
heard) Dr's who do perform intact dialation and evacuation procedures
in the US. It is interesting to note that the people pushing this ban,
refused to put in life or health of the woman as exceptions to the
Ban.
In some serious deformaties the only other alternative is Hysterotomy,
which is basically a c-section. This can and does raise far greater
risks to the woman, than does the vaginal approach, as well as
impacting future pregnancies and births, raising the risk of these
substantially as well. In a perfect world, these deformaties would be
detected early in the first trimester, however, many of the more
serious defects that are life and health threatening to the woman, as
well as being fatal defects to the fetus, do not show up with CVS or
amniocentesis (early 2nd trim), and aren't found until thhe fetus is
sufficiently developed for them to show up on a high definition
ultrasound.
If the fetus is not fatally deformed and it is the mother's health that
is at stake, it has been my experience that the fetus is delivered
live, if there is a shred of hope of vialbility and you and I help out
spending thousands of dollars on neonatal ICU's.
meg
|
| 20.4534 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed May 15 1996 17:40 | 6 |
| The life of the mother clause is included in the legislation, as has
been pointed out previously. You may not like the form that particular
verbiage takes, but it is there nonetheless.
-steve
|
| 20.4535 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | exterminator | Wed May 15 1996 17:48 | 20 |
| >It is interesting to note that the people pushing this ban,
>refused to put in life or health of the woman as exceptions to the
>Ban.
The argument against was that anyone willing to actually do this would
be willing to sign any old paper you wanted that said the mother's life
was endangered, whether or not that was the case.
>If the fetus is not fatally deformed and it is the mother's health that
>is at stake, it has been my experience that the fetus is delivered
>live,
This would seem to run counter to your prior argument that without
the ability to stop in the middle of a birth to kill the infant that
women would die (that wouldn't otherwise.)
In all of the justification of this procedure, I have yet to hear a
compelling argument why this procedure is a medical necessity. I've
heard some claim that "we can't do without it." I haven't heard a
compelling reason why not.
|
| 20.4536 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Wed May 15 1996 18:17 | 12 |
| Mark,
If your wife was pregnant again and there was a fetus with a head big
enough to kill her during a vaginal delivery, and that fetus's head was
filled with nothing but fluid, and the physical disfunctions of that
fetus's body was also shutting down your wife's kidneys, liver, spleen,
and pancreas (This does happen rarely, but so does Intact D&E) what
would your choices be? With the spleen and liver shutting down a
c-section becomes even more of a risk to your wife, than it would be
under normal circumstances. You make the call.
meg
|
| 20.4537 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | tumble to remove jerks | Wed May 15 1996 18:24 | 7 |
|
<----
it should be easy to come up with the exact number of these occurances
and determine whether it's more anecdotal than anything...
|
| 20.4538 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed May 15 1996 18:27 | 3 |
| Anecdotal or not, it doesn't sound like it's medically impossible.
The idea that a law could be passed to prevent such a procedure in
this case, even if it only occurred once, is not a pleasant idea.
|
| 20.4539 | occurrence, btw | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed May 15 1996 18:29 | 4 |
|
It's not anecdotal - it's hypothetical, and so what?
It's still a valid question.
|
| 20.4540 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Wed May 15 1996 18:35 | 17 |
| \re 20.4537
From what I have seen the people pushing the "Partial Birth Abortion
Ban" act, did not want statistics. Why else make a federal law that
will result in the prosecutions of three Dr's in the US, and only stop
a few hundred procedures a year. The law could have been written in
such a way that Two or Three Dr's had to sign off on the fact that the
mother's health, fertility or life were at risk, and written in such a
way that only one of the practitioners could be involved in the
decision (ALA pre 72 Colorado law for any abortion)
The law was badly written, did not address issues that can happen in a
medical situation, and was, as far as I can see only punitive.
Putting in the POS clause that life or health could be used as a
defense, was useless IMNSHO.
meg
|
| 20.4541 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | exterminator | Wed May 15 1996 18:45 | 35 |
| >If your wife was pregnant again and there was a fetus with a head big
>enough to kill her during a vaginal delivery, and that fetus's head was
>filled with nothing but fluid, and the physical disfunctions of that
>fetus's body was also shutting down your wife's kidneys, liver, spleen,
>and pancreas (This does happen rarely, but so does Intact D&E) what
>would your choices be? With the spleen and liver shutting down a
>c-section becomes even more of a risk to your wife, than it would be
>under normal circumstances. You make the call.
I think you missed a few more extenuating circumstances, like the
obstetrician was late for his golf game, and we had no insurance and
the D&E would be cheaper, and... Nothing like stacking the deck, eh?
Frankly, it seems unlikely to me that this particular set of
circumstances would be likely to occur. How often do you figure that it
happens that a woman's body starts shutting down and the baby is
terminally deformed and the baby is too large to be vaginally birthed
and nobody catches on until it's the end of the world? It sounds like
we are into the "if it saves one life" territory.
And excuse me if I don't blindly accept that the D&E is intrinsically
less risky to the woman than a caesarian section, but until I hear a
doctor who is opposed to allowing the procedure admit that this is so
I'm just not going to buy that it is by non medical professionals with
an axe to grind. If there is consensus in the medical community that
this is a lifesaving technique, then let's hear it. And in such a case,
I'll support it's continuing legality. So far, I'm not convinced this
is anything more than a tool used to get rid of unwanted babies well
after the time for such things has passed.
FWIW- I do support the right for women to choose to terminate the life
of congenitally deformed fetuses in the third trimester, if the
deformities are significant. (Ie, not just for your average cleft
palate, but certainly for the condition in which the child is born
blind and deaf and will die by the time it's 12, etc.)
|
| 20.4542 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Wed May 15 1996 19:11 | 26 |
| D&E is not cheap!
Obstetricians and I have our seperate axes to grind about golf-games.
One of the things that cause Hydrocephalic fetuses is a brain that
didn't develop, or was destroyed by a buildup of fluid in the spine and
skull. It is not unknown for a fetus that is/will be dying to also
poison the woman carrying it.
The risks to a woman for abdominal delivery are far higher than the
risks for vaginal delivery, with the exception of dephalo-pelvic
disproportion. one of the other methods for abortion at a late term is
hysterotomy, or abdominal delivery, usually after using an injection to
kill said fetus. The other is also used by veternarians, where the
fetus is cut to pieces inside the uterus and then evacuated. This
method also carries a higher risk of infection and subsequent death or
infertility. It was a used method before intact D&E was devised.
Late term abortions are grusome, as are the resons for same. With the
rare exception of someone in complete denial of pregnancy until the
final months, these were wanted pregnancies, that somehow went horribly
wrong and god(dess)'s own abortuary somehow missed taking care of at an
earlier time.
meg
|
| 20.4543 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Belgian Burgers | Wed May 15 1996 19:21 | 91 |
|
Testimony to the Senate from one woman who had the intact D&E.
Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, and members of the committee, I would like
to really thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. My name is
Coreen Costello. I live in Agoura, California, with my husband, Jim; my
son, Chad; and my daughter, Carlin. Jim is a chiropractor and I am a
full-time wife and mother.
I am a registered Republican and very conservative. I do not believe in
abortion. Because of my deeply held Christian beliefs, I knew that I would
never have an abortion. Then on March 24th of this year when I was 7 months
pregnant, I was having premature contractions and my husband and I
rushed to the hospital.
During an ultrasound, the physician became very silent. Soon, more
physicians came in. I knew in my heart that there was something terribly
wrong. I went into the bathroom and I sobbed. I begged God to let my baby
be okay. I prayed like I have never prayed before in my life. My husband
reassured me that we could deal with whatever was wrong. We had talked
about raising a child with disabilities. We were willing to take whatever
God gave us. I had no problem with that.
My doctor arrived at 2:00 in the morning. He held my hand and informed
me that they did not expect our baby to live. She was unable to absorb any
amniotic fluid and it was puddling into my uterus. That was causing my
contractions. This poor precious child had a lethal neurological disorder
and had been unable to move for almost 2 months. The movements I had
been feeling over the past months had been nothing more than bubbles and
fluid.
Her chest cavity had been unable to rise and fall to stretch her lungs to
prepare them for air. Therefore, they were left severely underdeveloped,
almost to the point of not existing. Her vital organs were atrophying. Our
darling little girl was dying.
A peri--peri--a specialist recommended terminating the pregnancy. This is
not a medical school class, so I do not know the names of the specialties.
A perinatologist recommended terminating the pregnancy. For my husband and
me, this was not an option. I chose to go into labor naturally. I wanted
her to come on God's time. I did not want to interfere. It was so difficult
to go home and be pregnant and go on with life knowing my baby was dying.
I wanted to stay in bed. My husband looked at me and said, Coreen, this
baby is still with us; she is still alive; let's be proud of her; let's
make these last days of her life as special as possible. I felt her life
inside of me and somehow I still glowed.
At this time, we chose our daughter's name. We named her Katherine Grace,
Katherine meaning pure, Grace representing God's mercy. Then we had her
baptized in utero. We went to many more experts over the next 2 weeks. It
was discovered that Katherine's body was rigid and she was stuck in a
transverse position. Due to swelling, her head was already larger than
that of a full-term baby. Natural birth or induced labor were not
possible; they were impossible.
I considered a Cesarean section, but experts at Cedars-Sinai Hospital were
adamant that the risks to my health and possibly my life were too great.
There was no reason to risk leaving my children motherless if there was no
hope of saving Katherine. The doctors all agreed that our only option was
the intact D&E procedure.
That is the procedure this bill will outlaw.
I was devastated. The thought of an abortion sent chills down my spine.
I remember patting my tummy, promising my little girl that I would never
let anyone hurt or devalue her.
After Dr. McMahon explained the procedure to us, I was so comforted. He
and his staff understood the pain and anguish we were feeling. I realized
I was in the right place. This was the safest way for me to deliver. This
left open the possibility of more children, it greatly lowered the risk of
my death, and most important to me, it offered a peaceful, painless passing
for Katherine Grace.
When I was put under anesthesia, Katherine's heart stopped. She was able
to pass away peacefully inside my womb, which was the most comfortable
place for her to be. Even if regular birth or a Cesarean had been
medically possible, my daughter would have died an agonizing death.
When I awoke a few hours later, she was brought in to us. She was
beautiful. She was not missing any part of her brain. She had not been
stabbed in the head with scissors. She looked peaceful. My husband and I
held her tight and sobbed. We stayed with her for hours, praying and
singing lullabies. Giving her back was the hardest moment of my life.
Due to the safety of this procedure, I am again pregnant now. Fortunately,
most of you will never have to walk through the valley we have walked. It
deeply saddens me that you are making a decision having never walked in our
shoes.
|
| 20.4544 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed May 15 1996 20:16 | 4 |
| This sounds like a case that would have been allowed under the "necessary to
save the woman's life" clause of the bill.
/john
|
| 20.4545 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed May 15 1996 20:21 | 6 |
| The problem is that the bill would have allowed the doctor to be
arrested and put on trial in this case, anyway, which would have
put the woman's life in the precarious position of depending that
the doctor would have been willing to risk jail, trial, and
possible career ruination (even if acquitted) to save her life.
|
| 20.4546 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed May 15 1996 20:22 | 4 |
| A prosecutor who puts someone on trial when they have a defense spelled out
in the bill is not going to have the taxpayers paying his salary very long.
/john
|
| 20.4547 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed May 15 1996 20:30 | 6 |
| It depends on the social climate of the area.
If the prosecutor believes that a jury will decide to convict a
doctor even though s/he has such a good defense, the prosecutor
could decide to go for it to make a point.
|
| 20.4548 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed May 15 1996 21:51 | 12 |
| The point is that with this "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" we are
allowing ourselves to be duped by the politicians who want nothing more
then to use good sounding messages to convince us that they are needed.
This ban is SOP for politicians.
1. Create a problem that seldom if ever exists.
2. Create legislation to stop problem
3. Create the illusion that they are working for the public good.
4. Use as re-election ploy.
When all along they want power, control and to keep their lazy jobs and
unearned tax dollars, that are produced by those they work to control.
|
| 20.4549 | It's murder. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon May 20 1996 21:23 | 26 |
|
The partial birth abortion is the clearest example of murder as I can
contemplate. I consider myself pro-choice under specific
circumstances.
I will accept the Congressional testimony of the abortion doctor who
had performed hundreds of these abortions. His testimony was that of
the 100s of these thathe has performed, the overwhelming majority of
them were elective. Meaning that there was no medical reason to abort
the baby that late in the pregnancy.
All of the hypothetical situations proposed are garbage. the bill
allowed for the protection of the mother, it did not leave the gaping
hole that Clinton nad the radical pro-abortion people wanted, namely
the "health" of the mother. Of course, they would not define "health"
so that this was not just a random practice.
This more solidly convinces me that those who are pro-abortion will
never concede that there are any human limits which should be placed on
abortion. As long as there are people like that, then the abortion
debate will never be resolved.
Any one who supports Clinton's veto, and wants to be considered a
"progressive" concerned individal, is nothing more than the lowest form
of hypocrite.
|
| 20.4550 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon May 20 1996 21:55 | 6 |
| Of course, the doctor probably didn't say (at all) that there was no
medical reason for him to perform the procedure.
I've never heard of *ANY* instances where this abortion was performed
for no medical reason at all.
|
| 20.4551 | They were not necessary. It was murder. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon May 20 1996 22:10 | 13 |
| .4550
Let me say this so even you can understand it. The doctor testified
that these were elective abortions. they were not medically required
to save the life of the mother nor was the baby deformed, nor likely to
die shortly after birth. My understanding of his testimony was that
these were as elective as any other abortion he performed. they were
not medically required.
Now this should be simple and direct evough for you to understand. You
can try to put some other pro-abortion spin on it. It does change the
facts nor his testimony.
|
| 20.4552 | You've lied too many times about my words. Let's have QUOTES. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon May 20 1996 22:24 | 20 |
| RE: .4551 Rocush
> The doctor testified that these were elective abortions. they were not
> medically required to save the life of the mother nor was the baby
> deformed, nor likely to die shortly after birth. My understanding of
> his testimony was that these were as elective as any other abortion he
> performed. they were not medically required.
I don't believe you.
> Now this should be simple and direct evough for you to understand. You
> can try to put some other pro-abortion spin on it. It does change the
> facts nor his testimony.
All we have is your word (which goes against everything I've heard
about the testimony given about this procedure.)
Considering your horrible track record with the truth, the only thing
I'll accept is direct quotes of his testimony (from someone other than
you.)
|
| 20.4553 | The doctor testified against himself in this? I don't think so. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon May 20 1996 22:47 | 6 |
| Rocush, what is the name of the doctor you're talking about?
Let's start there. If you can't provide the name, at least, then
forget trying to make claims about what he said in the Congressional
hearings.
|
| 20.4554 | From the Congressional Record | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue May 21 1996 00:26 | 103 |
| NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Washington, DC, April 16, 1996.
President William Clinton,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Clinton:
It is with deep sorrow and dismay that we respond to your April 10 veto
of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Your veto of this bill is beyond comprehension for those who hold human
life sacred. It will ensure the continued use of the most heinous act to
kill a tiny infant just seconds from taking his or her first breath outside
the womb.
At the veto ceremony you told the American people that you `had no choice
but to veto the bill.' Mr. President, you and you alone had the choice of
whether or not to allow children, almost completely born, to be killed
brutally in partial-birth abortions . Members of both House of Congress
made their choice. They said NO to partial-birth abortions . American
women voters have made their choice. According to a February 1996 poll by
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, 78 percent of women voters said NO
to partial-birth abortions . Your choice was to say YES and to allow this
killing more akin to infanticide than abortion to continue.
During the veto ceremony you said you had asked Congress to change H.R.
1833 to allow partial-birth abortions to be done for `serious adverse
health consequences' to the mother. You added that if Congress had
included that exception, `everyone in the world will know what we're
talking about.'
On the contrary, Mr. President, not everyone in the world would know that
`health,' as the courts define it in the context of abortion , means
virtually anything that has to do with a woman's overall `well being.' For
example, most people have no idea that if a woman has an abortion because
she is not married the law considers that an abortion for `health' reason.
Similarly, if a woman is `too young' or `too old,' if she is emotionally
upset by pregnancy, or if pregnancy interferes with schooling or career,
the law considers those situations as `health' reasons for abortion . In
other words, as you know and we know, an exception for `health' means
abortion on demand.
You say there is a difference between a `health' exception and an exception
for `serious adverse health consequences.' Mr. President, what is the
difference--legally--between a woman's being too young and being
`seriously' too young? What is the difference--legally--between being
emotionally upset and being `seriously' emotionally upset? From your study
of this issue, Mr. President, you must know that most partial-birth
abortions are done for reasons that are purely elective.
It was instructive that the veto ceremony included no physician able to
explain how a woman's physical health is protected by almost fully
delivering her living child, and then killing that child in the most
inhumane manner imaginable before completing the delivery. As a matter of
fact, a partial-birth abortion presents a health risk to the woman. Dr.
Warren Hern, who wrote the most widely used textbook on how to perform
abortions , has said of partial-birth abortions : `I would dispute any
statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'
Mr. President, all abortions are lethal for unborn children, and many are
unsafe for their mothers. This is even more evident in the late-term,
partial-birth abortion , in which children are killed cruelly, their
mothers placed at risk, and the society that condones it brutalized in the
process.
As Catholic bishops and as citizens of the United States, we strenuously
oppose and condemn your veto of H.R. 1833 which will allow partial-birth
abortions to continue.
in the coming weeks and months, each of us, as well as our bishops'
conference, will do all we can to educate people about partial-birth
abortions . We will inform them that partial-birth abortions will continue
because you chose to veto H.R. 1833.
We will also urge Catholics and other people of good will--including the
65% of self-described `pro-choice' voters who oppose partial-birth
abortions --to do all that they can to urge Congress to override this
shameful veto.
Mr. President, your action on this matter takes our nation to a critical
turning point in its treatment of helpless human beings inside and outside
the womb. It moves our nation one step further toward acceptance of
infanticide. Combined with the two recent federal appeals court decisions
seeking to legitimize assisted suicide, it sounds the alarm that public
officials are moving our society ever more rapidly to embrace a culture of
death.
Writing this response to you in unison is, on our part, virtually
unprecedented. It will, we hope, underscore our resolve to be unremitting
and unambigous in our defense of human life.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Archbishop of Chicago; James Cardinal Hickey,
Archbishop of Washington, D.C. ; Bernard Cardinal Law, Archbishop of
Boston; Adam Cardinal Maida, Archbishop of Detroit; Anthony Cardinal
Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philadelphia; William Cardinal Keeler, Archbishop
of Baltimore; Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles; John
Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New York; Most Reverend Anthony Pilla,
President, National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
|
| 20.4555 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 00:29 | 4 |
| Well, I've read a number of the transcripts of testimony from the
patients (and their families) about this bill, too, and they make
a very strong case *against* the ban on this procedure.
|
| 20.4556 | Rocush was wrong, of course, but it could've been his ignorance. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 03:37 | 8 |
| Well, I think I know what happened to Rocush on his claim (about
the doctor testifying against himself in the hearings.)
The National Right to Life Committee has made some claims that
this doctor said this (but NOT in the hearings.)
Thank you, AltaVista.
|
| 20.4557 | Still don't get it. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue May 21 1996 15:27 | 13 |
| .4556
This may come as a revalation to you, but I am not very concerned about
whether you believe me or not. Your credibility is next to zero
anyway.
FYI, the report I heard was that this was the doctor's testimony during
the hearings. since I have never heard any contradiction to that
report, I take it as fact. If the information was provided in a
different forum, it doesn't change the information, just the location
or circumstances.
|
| 20.4558 | Ever heard of AltaVista? The information is there. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 15:53 | 18 |
| RE: .4557 Rocush
> FYI, the report I heard was that this was the doctor's testimony during
> the hearings. since I have never heard any contradiction to that
> report, I take it as fact.
Well, it isn't true. (The truth - what a concept, eh?)
> If the information was provided in a different forum, it doesn't change
> the information, just the location or circumstances.
It makes a HUGE difference whether the doctor said this in a
congressional hearing or in casual conversation.
The doctor did NOT say this under oath in a hearing. Some other
people (involved in a campaign to ban the procedure) claim he said
this stuff to them elsewhere. Sorry, but their word does not carry
the same weight as documented Congressional testimony.
|
| 20.4559 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue May 21 1996 16:42 | 6 |
| > FYI, the report I heard was that this was the doctor's testimony during
> the hearings. since I have never heard any contradiction to that
> report, I take it as fact.
Unless you were watching the hearings yourself, do not trust the medias
portrayal of same event ... ever.
|
| 20.4560 | Where's the disclaimer. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue May 21 1996 17:00 | 10 |
| Since this was, and is, a very contentious issue and a clear
battleground for the pro-abortion set, I would expect them to challenge
any information that jeopardizes their position. I recall how quickly
they minimized the position of the original Roe in Roe v Wade when she
changed her position on abortion.
I would assume they would have been just as quick to point out that
this doctor's statements were taken out of context or were inaccurate.
Since this has never happened, I accept the veracity of the reports.
|
| 20.4561 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 17:19 | 10 |
| Rocush, whether or not you believe in the fictitious Congressional
testimony of the doctor in question has no bearing on the fact that
it didn't happen.
If you start believing in the Easter Bunny, a rabbit in a bowtie
won't automatically materialize as a result of your belief, either.
I gave you a way to check out your false story. Have you looked
into AltaVista yet?
|
| 20.4562 | Thanks, but no need. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue May 21 1996 17:28 | 13 |
| .4561
I believe that the doctor made the statements. whether they were in a
Congressional hearing, Pizza Hut or Joe's Bar and Grill makes not a wit
of difference to me. What does make a difference is whether or not he
made the statements.
Since you have not indicated that he never made the statements, and no
pro-abortion group has challenged the information, I take it as fact.
If Altavista contains reference to the fact that he disclaims any of
the information reported, I will be pleased to look it up.
|
| 20.4563 | ... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 18:03 | 34 |
| RE: .4562 Rocush
> I believe that the doctor made the statements. whether they were in a
> Congressional hearing, Pizza Hut or Joe's Bar and Grill makes not a wit
> of difference to me. What does make a difference is whether or not he
> made the statements.
So you're finally backing away from your claim that this was testimony
given to Congress. Good move. You're finally learning a little bit.
> Since you have not indicated that he never made the statements, and no
> pro-abortion group has challenged the information, I take it as fact.
Say, I found information saying you have committed two bank robberies.
Since you haven't disclaimed the information, it must be fact, right?
I'm not going to tell you where this information is, though, because
I'd rather it be considered true. >;^)
> If Altavista contains reference to the fact that he disclaims any of
> the information reported, I will be pleased to look it up.
You know absolutely nothing about the Internet, obviously.
The National Right to Life Committee has a great deal of information
in Web pages. They do not allow disagreements and responses from
their opponents to be posted on these pages.
The doctor does not have his own Web site to refute what they are
writing about him. The Web pages for reproductive rights advocates
don't do step-by-step refutations of the pro-life movement's pages.
People are not guilty until proven innocent by being charged with
something on some group's Web page, you nut.
|
| 20.4564 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | GTI 16V - dust thy neighbor!! | Tue May 21 1996 18:19 | 7 |
|
I know a good amount about the internet, but I know absolutely
nothing about The National Right to Life Committee's web site.
These 2 entities are quite different from each other, except
for the fact that 1 is a subset of the other.
|
| 20.4565 | You actually live on this planet. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 18:22 | 6 |
| Shawn, surely you're smart enough to know that if an accusation
is made on the internet, it isn't "true" unless someone responds
with an opposing Web site to refute it.
People are not guilty until proven innocent for accusations made
in Web pages.
|
| 20.4566 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | GTI 16V - dust thy neighbor!! | Tue May 21 1996 18:28 | 12 |
|
Obviously.
But there could still be a refutation in there [extract from a
magazine article, or a newspaper headline] that would answer
ROCUSH's question ... even though it might not be side-by-side
with the accusations mentioned.
Instead of pointing out ROCUSH's alleged ignorance at every
chance you get, maybe point him in the right direction and show
off your superior intellect at the same time.
|
| 20.4567 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | may, the comeliest month | Tue May 21 1996 18:30 | 3 |
| oh come on, shawn. as if rocush doesn't invite attack
by his pompous "you disagree with me so you must be wrong"
attitude.
|
| 20.4568 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Person 4 | Tue May 21 1996 18:32 | 1 |
| as if the attack server needs an excuse
|
| 20.4569 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | may, the comeliest month | Tue May 21 1996 18:34 | 1 |
| seems to me what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
| 20.4570 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 18:34 | 15 |
| RE: .4566 Shawn
> But there could still be a refutation in there [extract from a
> magazine article, or a newspaper headline] that would answer
> ROCUSH's question ... even though it might not be side-by-side
> with the accusations mentioned.
My initial query search in AltaVista came up with over 3000 references.
Would you care to search these for a line in a possible magazine article?
> Instead of pointing out ROCUSH's alleged ignorance at every
> chance you get, maybe point him in the right direction and show
> off your superior intellect at the same time.
I gave him my source: AltaVista. He knows what to do next.
|
| 20.4571 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | GTI 16V - dust thy neighbor!! | Tue May 21 1996 18:37 | 19 |
|
RE: Bonnie
Oh, I never said he didn't.
But there's very probably a limit as to how long a urinating
contest should be allowed to go on without showing any signs
of a real discussion. "Did too"/"did not" are not very valid,
IMO, at least after the 1st 3-4 repetitions.
With a little cooperation from both sides, the answers could
have been revealed by the more knowledgeable of the 2 [which
would be Suzanne, and if you don't believe that just ask her
8^)] with a source for the less knowledgeable [which would be
ROCUSH, and if you don't believe that just ask Suzanne 8^)]
to verify it.
Estimate: 100 replies [with .00001 content] saved.
|
| 20.4572 | It's all in one word, Shawn. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 18:44 | 4 |
|
AltaVista Seek and you shall find and find and fin...
|
| 20.4573 | Aren't these a rare occurance? | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue May 21 1996 18:46 | 4 |
| I find it difficult to believe that there is a doctor out there that has done
hundreds of these types of abortions, elective or not ....
Doug.
|
| 20.4574 | you get the picture | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Person 4 | Tue May 21 1996 18:46 | 4 |
| >seems to me what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
And any stray pigeons, pheasant, ducks, hummingbirds, wood storks,
towhees, orioles, macaws, ...
|
| 20.4575 | FYI | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue May 21 1996 18:47 | 28 |
| .4563
Well, let's see. First of all I am very familar with the Internet and
use it on a regular basis to get competitive information on
competitor's Web sites. I do not spend a lot of time on hte Web for
other then work related searches, so from that aspect I do not have a
lot of familiarity with specific pages.
I do know that there are numerous pro-abortion groups out there that do
have pages that refute tons of pro-life articles and claims. It would
strike me as odd if one of these groups did not have a refutation of
these claims in their pages. Also, I would be equally surprised that
the media would not have jumped on a misstatement by a pro-life group.
Since none of this has happened, again, i assume it it correct. Also,
your claim that if there was some articvle out there about me robbing
banks, and it appeared on the news, and I was involved in a current
debate, I probably would know about it and respond appropriately.
Also, your comment about my, "since you disagree with me you must be
wrong attitude", once again, is wrong. I do disagree with most of your
positions and take particular issue with many of the things you write
as they are based on inaccurate information and are merely a repeat of
propaganda put out by the media and the Democratic party. I ask for
you to support your claims and you respond by asking me to prove a
negative.
|
| 20.4576 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | may, the comeliest month | Tue May 21 1996 18:50 | 1 |
| talk about reading comprehension.
|
| 20.4577 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 19:07 | 11 |
| RE: .4575 Rocush
Unless you've read something like 30,000,000 pages of information
on the internet (in something like 250,000 Web sites), then you
don't know what information is there (or not there.)
Regarding an accusation as 'true' until it is found to be refuted
in a medium that has 30,000,000 pages or so is pretty silly.
Then again, considering your disregard for the truth when you do
have it right in front of your eyes, little wonder...
|
| 20.4578 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 19:13 | 28 |
| RE: .4575 Rocush
> Also, your comment about my, "since you disagree with me you must be
> wrong attitude", once again, is wrong. I do disagree with most of your
> positions and take particular issue with many of the things you write
> as they are based on inaccurate information and are merely a repeat of
> propaganda put out by the media and the Democratic party.
I've proven that you've lied on numerous occasions now.
Further, you admit that you believe ANY accusation that hasn't been
refuted. Of course, this means you believe anything the right tells
you - talk about a sheep. :/
> I ask for
> you to support your claims and you respond by asking me to prove a
> negative.
I asked YOU to support your claim that a doctor testified against
himself in the Senate hearings. You just kept saying you believed
it because no one had told you that it hadn't happened, so it must
be true. Then I found the information for you using AltaVista.
You repeat the 'standard accusations' of the right like a freaking
robot. You make little sense and you have even less regard at all
for the truth.
End of story.
|
| 20.4579 | Civility??? Oh ya, this is SB ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue May 21 1996 19:48 | 11 |
|
> I've proven that you've lied on numerous occasions now.
Lying is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Mis-understandings or
being mistaken is not the same as lying ...
Unless you can prove someone is trying to deliberately deceive, please
refer to them as mistaken, and not as lying. (The latter flatters niether
side).
Doug.
|
| 20.4580 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 19:52 | 6 |
| Doug, I did give Rocush the benefit of the doubt for his apparent
ignorance about the Congressional testimony we were discussing.
When he looks right at my words and claims they say something else
entirely, though, he's lying.
|
| 20.4581 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue May 21 1996 20:00 | 20 |
| > When he looks right at my words and claims they say something else
> entirely, though, he's lying.
Understand that the same set of words, heard by 5 different people,
can each be received with a different meaning. That doesn't mean
these folks would be lying if they rephrased what they heard to the
dissatisfaction of the author.
It can often takes several rephrasings between the author/receiver
before accurate communications of a thought or idea can be achieved.
While you both point to the same set of words, you talk past each
other without trying to understand each other ...
It's getting tiring ...
This may also explain some other trends that I've unsuccessfully tried
to bring to lite.
Doug.
|
| 20.4582 | SOS | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue May 21 1996 20:02 | 13 |
| .4580
It's really too easy. You have consistently taken things out of
contaxt or a piece of a staement and then claim that the writer is a
liar. I have shown you and explained on numerous occassions that you
are wrong whenever you have called me aliar, but apparently you fiond
it easier to name call than support a position.
In the future I will use the shorthand notation of SOS in replying to
your inaccurate representation of my statements. You can, of course,
continue to use the "liar" term, but it really does nothing to enhance
your position.
|
| 20.4583 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 20:03 | 2 |
| Doug, welcome to the world of electronic interchanges.
|
| 20.4584 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 20:05 | 4 |
| RE: .4582 Rocush
WTFC?
|
| 20.4585 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Good Heavens,Cmndr,what DID you do | Tue May 21 1996 20:09 | 5 |
|
RE: -1
You, for one, since you're still involved in this discussion.
|
| 20.4586 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 20:14 | 4 |
|
Shawn, I'll never care as much about what he says about me as you do,
though (as my designated groupie.) :)
|
| 20.4587 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Good Heavens,Cmndr,what DID you do | Tue May 21 1996 20:17 | 8 |
|
You know, if I were "another noter in here who shall be left
nameless" I'd be calling Personnel and asking you to delete
any references to me being a "groupie" of yours on the grounds
that I never said that and consider it an insult.
8^)
|
| 20.4588 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue May 21 1996 20:20 | 4 |
| > Doug, welcome to the world of electronic interchanges.
True enough. Sometimes its better to stop and let thing lay
where they fall than to continue the senseless bantering ...
|
| 20.4589 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue May 21 1996 20:21 | 10 |
|
Ok, Shawn, let's do this: I'll follow YOU around in here
for awhile (so you won't have to worry about following ME.)
I'll try to be a bit more quiet about it, but (honest!),
I will be in every topic with you (silently watching every-
thing you write.)
Deal? :)
|
| 20.4590 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Good Heavens,Cmndr,what DID you do | Tue May 21 1996 20:24 | 5 |
|
Suit yourself.
But hands off ... I'm not as easy as I look. 8^)
|
| 20.4591 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Little Chamber of Belgian Burgers | Tue May 21 1996 20:27 | 5 |
|
Yeah, right!
8^)
|
| 20.4592 | | POWDML::AJOHNSTON | beannachd | Wed May 22 1996 12:25 | 17 |
| to back up a bit.
A surgery can be elective and still have a valid medical reason for
happening.
My son was born via surgical delivery. It was not an emergency, thus I
had a choice. Chances are very good that had I not elected to walk down
the hall and climb onto the table on June 2nd, I would have faced a
life threatening blood loss and emergency surgery within the next 1 to
10 days when the natural onset of labour occurred.
My father had elective surgery on his carotid arteries to restore
better blood-flow to his brain. My mother elected not to have the same
surgery and continues to have tiny strokes. The surgery was medically
indicated in both of their cases.
Annie
|
| 20.4593 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | tumble to remove jerks | Wed May 22 1996 17:33 | 6 |
|
Shawn and Suzanne...
The penultimate groupies...
|
| 20.4594 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Act like you own the company | Wed May 22 1996 17:47 | 5 |
|
Do I have to haul YOU off to Personnel also??
8^)
|
| 20.4595 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed May 22 1996 17:57 | 4 |
| Shawn's HR rep vs. Andy's lawyer.
I can see it all now ....
|
| 20.4596 | | NPSS::MLEVESQUE | | Wed May 22 1996 18:02 | 1 |
| It would be an abortion all right..
|
| 20.4597 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Sat May 25 1996 17:56 | 28 |
| There are roughly 500-1000 Intact D&E's performed each year. To the
best of my knowlege, there are very few (read about three) Dr's who do
late term Intact D&E's. I would be interested in knowing who the Dr.
was who testified, and who said that most of the abortions he did (late
term) were elective.
1. If you read the testimony of the woman with the horribly deformed
and dying late-term fetus, you could have said that she had an
"elective" procedure, as Annie had an "elective" c-section. In both
cases the decisions were made by the families and with the full brunt
of all the facts in front of them. Annie made the decision to have a
healthy baby, who may well have not suvived a spontaneous vaginal
delivery, and Annie could well have died during the delivery because of
the circumstances around the location of the placenta. The woman and
her family with the dying fetus made a decision that was the best
decision for her future fertility and health, as well as a decision for
the rest of her current offspring, who would not have benefitted from a
dead or crippled mother.
Two people with information and facts, as well as a highly emotional
set of decisions to make, made the best decisions they could, with the
support of the Dr's, family and their gods. Who is the federal
government to deny anyone the right to consult with their medical
providors and come up with the best outcome possible in a difficult
situation? I will leave these decisions in the hands of the poeple
involved and their dieties.
meg
|
| 20.4598 | Good note, Meg!! | SPECXN::CONLON | AltaVista: Damn, we're good!! | Tue May 28 1996 17:24 | 11 |
| RE: .4597 Meg
> I would be interested in knowing who the Dr. was who testified, and who
> said that most of the abortions he did (late term) were elective.
The guy who made the claim about this non-existent testimony has since
admitted that it didn't occur during the congressional hearings.
It was a 'claim' made by the National Right to Life Committee in their
literature, nothing more.
|
| 20.4599 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Tue May 28 1996 17:48 | 134 |
| <<< Note 20.4597 by CSC32::M_EVANS "I'd rather be gardening" >>>
The following is from the House Judiciary Committee home page. I couldn't
get a record of the proceedings due to network timeouts or Gopher problems.
It is my understanding that Dr. Haskell, who wrote the 80% number, did not
testify to either the House or the Senate committee, but he did testify
about his experiences in a lawsuit. Dr. McMahon submitted a report to
the House Committee. I don't think he testified.
H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995
House Report: 104-267
Passed House: 11/01/95 (288-139-1)
Passed Senate: 12/7/95 (54-44)
Vetoed by President 4/10/96
Fact Sheet
What Is a Partial-Birth Abortion?
The definition of partial-birth abortion in H.R. 1833 is "an abortion
in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers
a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery." A
number of physicians were involved in the drafting of this language to
ensure that it is medically accurate and does not encompass any other
form of abortion or legitimate medical procedure.
Registered nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer witnessed several partial-birth
abortions while working for an Ohio abortionist. She described one of
these abortions in a July 9, 1995, letter to Congressman Tony Hall:
The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together.
He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck
inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the
back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck
the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains
out.
How Many Partial-Birth Abortions Are Performed?
There is no way to know the exact number of partial-birth abortions
that are performed yearly. The National Abortion Federation says that
two doctors, McMahon and Haskell, perform about 450 between them each
year. Both of these abortionists energetically advocate the method. Dr.
Haskell presented a "how to" paper to National Abortion Federation
members in 1992, and Dr. McMahon is the director of abortion training at
a major teaching hospital.
The National Abortion Federation also admits that the partial-birth
abortion method is probably used at times by other practitioners, and
the American Medical News reported in 1993 that "a handful of other
doctors" employed the method.
Defenders of partial-birth abortion often stress that they are "a
small percentage" of all abortions. But for each individual human being
who ends up at the pointed end of the surgical scissors, the procedure
is a 100 percent proposition.
What Are the Circumstances?
Partial-birth abortion is not a legitimate medical procedure and is
not needed for any particular circumstances. While the American Medical
Association has officially taken no position on H.R. 1833, the AMA's
Council on Legislation--made up of 12 doctors--voted unanimously to
recommend that the AMA Board of Trustees endorse H.R. 1833. A member of
the Council said they "felt this was not a recognized medical
technique," and that the council members agreed that the "procedure is
basically repulsive." (Congress Daily, Oct. 10, 1995)
Dr. Martin Haskell stated: "And I'll be quite frank: most of my
abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range... In my particular
case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely
elective...." (1993 Interview with AM News)
Dr. McMahon uses the partial-birth abortion method through the entire
40 weeks of pregnancy. He claims that most of the abortions he performs
are "non-elective," but his definition of "non-elective" includes
reasons such as the mother's youth or depression.
Dr. McMahon sent the Constitution Subcommittee a graph showing that,
even at 26 weeks of gestation, half the babies that Dr. McMahon aborted
were perfectly healthy, and many of the babies he described as "flawed"
had conditions that were compatible with long life, either with or
without a disability. For example, Dr. McMahon listed nine partial-
birth abortions performed because the baby had a cleft lip.
H.R. 1833 does have a provision to allow the use of a partial-birth
abortion if it is needed to save a mother's life. But eminent medical
authorities have stated that this procedure would never be used in such
a situation. At the subcommittee hearing on partial-birth abortion, Dr.
Pamela Smith, OBGYN, said that in a situation where a mother's life was
in danger, "no doctor would employ the partial-birth method of abortion,
which--as Dr. Haskell carefully describes--takes three days!"
The National Abortion Federation sent out a June 18, 1993, letter to
its members regarding the partial-birth abortion method (then called
dilation and extraction). The letter counseled, "Don't apologize: this
is a legal abortion procedure." The letter also stated, "There are many
reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal
indications, lack of money or health insurance, social- psychological
crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc."
What Does H.R. 1833 Do?
H.R. 1833 bans the performance of partial-birth abortions by making it
a crime, subject to fines and/or a maximum of two years imprisonment, to
perform a partial-birth abortion.
Additionally, the bill creates a civil cause of action for damages
against an abortionist who performs the procedure. The action can be
maintained by the father or, if the mother is under 18, the maternal
grandparents.
The House version of H.R. 1833 establishes an affirmative defense for
an abortionist who reasonably believes that the partial-birth abortion
procedure is necessary to save the life of a mother. The Senate version
places the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the partial-birth abortion was not necessary to save the life of
the mother.
Judiciary Committee Homepage
RE: the woman with the dying late-term fetus
If the fetus were dead, that would appear to constitute imminent and
unavoidable risks to the mother, including but not limited to the risk of
infection. Furthermore, since HR 1833 is specifically limited to killing
a living fetus, the proposed law cannot be used if the fetus dies. If Dr.
Pamela Smith's testimony is valid, this procedure may not be the preferred
method anyway.
|
| 20.4600 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Tue May 28 1996 18:30 | 10 |
| I have a question on the paragraph that describes what the doctor was
doing..and the fetus...how can you view a partial vaginal birth head
and feet...the nurse alleged that the fetus hands were moving and his
feet were kicking..all the while the head was still inside..then the
doctor inserted scissors in the back of the fetus head...how can all
that happen in a partial birth abortion...isn't the partial part the
part where somepart of the fetus is still inside..so how can you
witness any part of the fetus moving, if only the head is out...??
Grant it, the hands, but the feet./?? some one explain please
|
| 20.4601 | Not the whole story. | SPECXN::CONLON | AltaVista: Damn, we're good!! | Tue May 28 1996 18:47 | 6 |
| RE: .4599 Kevin
Obviously, the material you posted is in direct contradiction to
the testimony provided by those who went to Congress to fight
against this ban.
|
| 20.4602 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Tue May 28 1996 20:27 | 14 |
| <<< Note 20.4600 by SCAMP::MINICHINO >>>
> so how can you
> witness any part of the fetus moving, if only the head is out...??
> Grant it, the hands, but the feet./?? some one explain please
Without stating a position either for or against HR 1833 ...
According to Dr. Pamela Smith's testimony, part of the "trick" to this
procedure is to use the amneonic [sp?] sack and the cervix to hold the
fetus in place. As to whether the hands or feet are moving when this is
done, she also testified that the extraction is frequently started with
the aid of ultrasound.
|
| 20.4603 | | SPECXN::CONLON | AltaVista: Damn, we're good!! | Tue May 28 1996 20:45 | 3 |
| The testimony given by one woman in the hearings was that the heart
of her dying fetus stopped as soon as the anesthetic was given to her.
|
| 20.4604 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Tue May 28 1996 20:47 | 15 |
| 20.4605 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Tue May 28 1996 20:53 | 23 |
| <<< Note 20.4601 by SPECXN::CONLON "AltaVista: Damn, we're good!!" >>>
-< Not the whole story. >-
> RE: .4599 Kevin
>
> Obviously, the material you posted is in direct contradiction to
> the testimony provided by those who went to Congress to fight
> against this ban.
Yes, there are two sides to the story, but I decline to give greater weight
to one side or the other.
I have read about the testimony of those who have stated that they were at
risk by not having this procedure. While emotionally powerful, such
testimony is not relevant to the proposed bill. Such cases are already
protected by Law. If a person is at risk of grave bodily harm, that person
or a third person has the right to act. The Senate version of this bill
goes beyond that by placing the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Furthermore, the most interesting first-hand testimony would have been
given by Dr. Haskell and Dr. McMahon, the leading proponents of this
procedure. They were invited, and they initially agreed to testify.
However, both canceled at the last minute.
|
| 20.4606 | Sorry, but women's testimony was indeed relevant. | SPECXN::CONLON | AltaVista: Damn, we're good!! | Tue May 28 1996 21:22 | 10 |
| Women's testimony was the MOST relevant aspect of the hearings for
this bill.
The bill did not provide for women's lives or health. This is why
it was vetoed.
Doctors who would have saved women's lives with this procedure could
still have been arrested and put through a criminal trial. It would
have been the first time in our history that doctors could have been
arrested for saving a woman's life.
|
| 20.4607 | Better yet, let's make treatment for men's heart attacks illegal. | SPECXN::CONLON | AltaVista: Damn, we're good!! | Tue May 28 1996 21:30 | 6 |
| Let's have a bill which makes certain prostate treatments criminal
offenses (even if done to save the life of the man.)
Let's see how men feel if a doctor must choose between saving a
man's life and staying out of jail.
|
| 20.4608 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Wed May 29 1996 00:03 | 4 |
| Ban prostatectomies. They stop ejaculation, which can render a man
sterile. Never mind that the cancer in the gland may kill him.
meg
|
| 20.4609 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Kinda rotten and insane | Wed May 29 1996 00:04 | 1 |
| As a heterosexual male, I would tend to disagree.
|
| 20.4610 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Wed May 29 1996 01:33 | 9 |
|
I nominate .4607 for dumb analogy of the week award.
Jim
|
| 20.4611 | | SPECXN::CONLON | AltaVista: Damn, we're good!! | Wed May 29 1996 01:54 | 6 |
| If you want to make it possible for doctors to be arrested for
saving a woman's life, then it's only fair to make it possible
for doctors to be arrested for saving a man's life.
If the ban means so much to you, surely you'll agree to this
sacrifice.
|
| 20.4612 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Boston Gay Pride, June 8th | Wed May 29 1996 02:25 | 3 |
|
Glen, I wish you wouldn't wear your heterosexuality on your sleeve!
|
| 20.4613 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed May 29 1996 12:43 | 16 |
| Re .4611:
> If you want to make it possible for doctors to be arrested for
> saving a woman's life, then it's only fair to make it possible
> for doctors to be arrested for saving a man's life.
Take a deep breath and think about what you're writing. You've got a
couple of minutes before somebody demonstrates what lunacy you've
written.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.4614 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | Crown Him with many crowns | Wed May 29 1996 13:03 | 7 |
|
Of course, the doctor wouldn't be arrested for saving
a woman's life. He'd be arrested for killing a baby.
But, you knew that.
|
| 20.4615 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Boston Gay Pride, June 8th | Wed May 29 1996 14:04 | 4 |
|
So it would be ok for the mother to die, so the baby can live...
motherless?
|
| 20.4616 | must die, must die, this baby must die | NPSS::MLEVESQUE | | Wed May 29 1996 14:21 | 2 |
| Well, if we can kill the baby "to save the mother" then if Joe needs a
new heart can he kill his brother to harvest the organ?
|
| 20.4617 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | Crown Him with many crowns | Wed May 29 1996 14:27 | 4 |
|
Please show me where I said that.
|
| 20.4618 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Wed May 29 1996 14:28 | 10 |
| RE: 20.4614 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Crown Him with many crowns"
> course, the doctor wouldn't be arrested for saving a woman's life. He'd
> be arrested for killing a baby.
Even if "the baby" had things in common with the Scarecrow and the Cowardly
Lion.
Phil
|
| 20.4619 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Can you hear the drums, Fernando? | Wed May 29 1996 14:52 | 3 |
|
Gray skin and back hair?
|
| 20.4620 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Wed May 29 1996 16:37 | 99 |
| <<< Note 20.4606 by SPECXN::CONLON "AltaVista: Damn, we're good!!" >>>
-< Sorry, but women's testimony was indeed relevant. >-
> Women's testimony was the MOST relevant aspect of the hearings for
> this bill.
I don't agree.
If the bill explicitly provides an exception for preserving the life of
the mother, then testimony about women who had the procedure to preserve
their lives is not relevant.
> The bill did not provide for women's lives or health. This is why
> it was vetoed.
Since the bill explicitly provides an affirmative defense for both the
criminal and civil actions where the partial-birth abortion was needed
to save the life of the mother, this sentence is false.
The bill was vetoed because it did not provide an exception for women's
"health" and for the obvious political motives.
> Doctors who would have saved women's lives with this procedure could
> still have been arrested and put through a criminal trial. It would
> have been the first time in our history that doctors could have been
> arrested for saving a woman's life.
I don't believe that is true. I seem to recall a doctor being arrested
and put on trial in New Jersey or New York long before Roe v. Wade. The
doctor's defense was that he had to act to preserve the life of the mother.
--------
I got interested in HR 1833 because someone on the news made the claim
that the bill does not exclude actions to preserve the life of the mother.
I found this hard to believe, and quick reading of the bill showed that
the statement was patently false.
Even the Texas law that was contested in Roe v. Wade contained an exception
for preserving the life of the mother. This is necessary because the Law
in every state I have seen will excuse a citizen who commits an act that
was intended to protect themselves or an innocent third party from grave
bodily harm. Even if the Federal Government were so inclined, I doubt
very much that any Federal Law could be written to prohibit an abortion to
preserve the life of the mother -- not without a constitutional amendment.
A quick scan of Judge Blackmun's decision in Roe v. Wade, for example,
gives us:
In 1929, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 34,
came into being. Its emphasis was upon the destruction of "the life of
a child capable of being born alive." It made a willful act performed
with the necessary intent a felony. It contained a proviso that one
was not to be [137] found guilty of the offense "unless it is proved
that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in
good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother."
. . .
[re: Judge Macnaghten's instructions during Rex v. Bourne in 1939]
He then construed the phrase "preserving the life of the mother"
broadly, that is, "in a reasonable sense," to include a serious and
permanent threat to the mother's health, and instructed the jury to
acquit Dr. Bourne if it found he had acted in a good-faith belief that
the abortion was necessary for this purpose. Id., at 693-694. The jury
did acquit.
I don't have a copy of Black's Law Dictionary in front of me, but I
believe that the definition of life includes normal functioning. A citizen
is justified in using countervailing force, even if the attack or the
actions of another are to cripple or maim and not to kill. Therefore, as
an example, an abortion that is necessary to prevent the mother from
becoming sterile is also protected. A situation that might cause such a
severe injury or loss of function would appear to be "grave bodily harm".
There is a profound difference between preserving life and preserving
"health". Legally, "health" has such a broad definition that it
incorporates just about anything. A bill to prohibit partial-birth
abortions that excludes abortions to preserve "health" in the broadest
sense of the word, would appear to be useless. Without the abortion, the
pregnancy would likely result in birth or miscarriage, which would alter
a person's state of health (for a time).
Now the counter argument that I have heard is that including "health" in
the proposed law is required because abortion is an absolute right. I don't
find any language to that effect in Roe v. Wade or in later cases. The
courts have preserved the right of the State to regulate abortion. The
proposed bill doesn't prohibit late-term abortions, only a single procedure
that is considered by many to be inhumane and is not even recognized by the
AMA's Council on Legislation.
I, personally, would prefer that the bill specifically incorporate language
similar to Rex v. Bourne: "a serious and permanent threat to the mother's
health", but my understanding of the Law is that the bill, by explicitly
provides an exception for preserving life, incorporates this idea.
|
| 20.4621 | | BIGHOG::PERCIVAL | I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO | Wed May 29 1996 19:29 | 8 |
| <<< Note 20.4620 by STAR::OKELLEY "Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity" >>>
>Since the bill explicitly provides an affirmative defense
An "affirmative defense" does not prohibit arrest and prosecution.
It just makes conviction highly unlikely.
Jim
|
| 20.4622 | | SPECXN::CONLON | AltaVista: Damn, we're good!! | Wed May 29 1996 20:17 | 17 |
| RE: .4628 Kevin
The testimony from the women was important because the bill's
supporters keep saying that the procedure is NEVER done to protect
the mother (and that it's not possible for the procedure to save
the life of the woman, etc.) So this testimony was important.
Also, saying that a doctor can use 'the mother's life' in the
defense during the trial is not the same thing as providing for
the life of the mother.
It is unprecedented to put doctors in the position of having to choose
between saving a person's life and keeping from being arrested and put
on trial.
If you feel so adamant about this, though, then volunteer to make one
life-saving procedure (for men) illegal as a show of good faith first.
|
| 20.4623 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Thu May 30 1996 17:47 | 116 |
| <<< Note 20.4622 by SPECXN::CONLON "AltaVista: Damn, we're good!!" >>>
> The testimony from the women was important because the bill's
> supporters keep saying that the procedure is NEVER done to protect
> the mother (and that it's not possible for the procedure to save
> the life of the woman, etc.) So this testimony was important.
In the first place, I haven't seen or heard any supporters of the bill
making the statement that this procedure was never done to protect the
mother or that it is not possible for the procedure to save the life of
the mother. If you have examples, please give them.
Secondly, even if you could show such statements, the testimony would be
relevant only to disprove those statements and not the bill itself. "Res
ipsa loquitur": the thing speaks for itself. The bill says what it means,
and it means what it says.
> Also, saying that a doctor can use 'the mother's life' in the
> defense during the trial is not the same thing as providing for
> the life of the mother.
When you use the word "provide", I thought that you meant that the bill
does not allow an exception or stipulates a condition. Clearly this is
not the case: the bill does make an exception for this condition. If
you meant that the bill does not "provide" life as in the bill does not
furnish health or well-being, that doesn't make sense. Health care is
furnished or delivered by people. No piece of legislation can do that.
> It is unprecedented to put doctors in the position of having to choose
> between saving a person's life and keeping from being arrested and put
> on trial.
It is not unprecedented at all. Doctors and other care providers must
consider these issues, even in cases that have nothing to do with abortion.
Roe v. Wade cites numerous cases where the attending physician made exactly
that decision.
When you have a person's life in your hands, civil and criminal law places
restrictions on your actions. It goes with the job. From _Law_and_the_
_Physician:_A_Practical_Guide_ by Edward P. Richards and Katharine C.
Rathbun:
Libby Zion, a young woman in generally good health, was admitted to a
New York hospital for an acute illness. She dies several hours later,
after questionable care from residents who had been on duty for an
extended period. A grand jury investigation found no criminal conduct
but recommended shorter hours and more supervision for residents (Asch
and Parker 1988).
When I worked in a hospital, I have seen a few such life-and-death
decisions being made. One, in particular, concerned a young patient who
was bleeding out, and we were trying to get enough blood into the patient
to get the situation stabilized enough for the surgeon to operate. We
couldn't do it. We were barely holding on. The patient could not make
an informed decision to risk the surgery, but the family appeared ready
to take the risk because it appeared that the patient would die without
the surgery. Now, based on that set of facts, it would appear that the
doctor and the hospital would have a good defense if the family sued for
malpractice after the surgery. However, the surgeon didn't operate.
Consider doctors who violate Federal research regulations, even if it is
to provide potentially life-saving treatment. That is a criminal offense.
A more basic example is the case of giving treatment, even life-saving
treatment, without consent. Again, from Richards and Rathbun:
As a pure legal issue, forcing treatment on an unwilling person is no
different from attacking that person with a knife. The legal term for
touching a person without permission is _battery_. Battery is a criminal
offense, and it can also be the basis of a civil lawsuit. The key
element of battery is that the touching is unauthorized, not that it be
intended to harm the person.
The counter argument that you seem to be moving toward is that this bill
opens the door to malicious prosecution of doctors. It would appear that
this possibility already exists. For one thing, the "undue burden" standard
for viability (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992), is a very loose legal
standard, subject to wide interpretation. It isn't done because case law
works in favor of the doctor.
(I think that the Senate version, by providing an active defnese, did a good
thing.)
[see also Jim Percival, 20.4621]
> If you feel so adamant about this, though, then volunteer to make one
> life-saving procedure (for men) illegal as a show of good faith first.
There are a number of false assumptions here. In the interest of time,
I'll cover just a few:
o You appear to assume that I support HR 1833. I don't believe that
I said that.
o You appear to assume that the "partial-birth" procedure is
absolutely necessary to save lives: that there are no alternatives:
- It appears to me that the procedure in question is a modification
of an earlier procedure that is apparently still used.
- At the House Judiciary hearings, Dr. Pamela Smith indicated that
not only are there alternatives, but in her opinion, because the
procedure takes too long, this procedure is not the preferred
method in an emergency.
- Had Dr. Haskell or Dr. McMahon testified, I presume they would
have stated why their procedure is better and under what
conditions their procedure is preferred. However, since they
declined to testify, this remains an unanswered question.
o You are ignoring the fact that this proposed law does, in fact,
make an exception for preserving the life of the woman. It has
to. A Law such as the one you describe above, that did not make
an exception for preserving the life of the individual, is not
constitutional.
What I am trying to do is correct some of the misinformation that is being
spread around about this bill.
|
| 20.4624 | Wrong once more. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu May 30 1996 18:20 | 19 |
| .4622
You just can't avoid making outragously wrong and silly statements, in
between acusing anyone who disagrees with you of being a liar.
I have not seen any report where those supporting this bill saying that
the procedure was NEVER done to protect the mother. this would seem,
in you words, to be a lie.
Adequate safeguards were provided to protect the mother in this bill.
what it did was finally try to put some sane restrictions on the
killing of a viable baby at the whim of the mother.
Your last point of asking that someone support legislation that would
outlaw life-saving procedures is incredibly stupid on its surface and
I'm sure you would like to retracct this or add some clarity on your
point. I believe I understand where you want to take this, but your
statement so far is just dumb.
|
| 20.4625 | I bet you think that if you cover your eyes, no one sees you. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu May 30 1996 19:00 | 22 |
| Once again, Rocush, you're quite wrong.
> I have not seen any report where those supporting this bill saying that
> the procedure was NEVER done to protect the mother. this would seem,
> in you words, to be a lie.
If you haven't seen the report, then it doesn't exist, eh? Too funny! :)
Here's a web site with the information you lack. I've seen this site
before, but my Netscape currently says that the DNS (domain name server)
doesn't list NRLC (National Right to Life Committee.) Perhaps they are
going through some changes at their site.
Anyway, try this later:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact6.html
Subject:
Is a partial-birth abortion ever the only way to preserve a mother's
physical health? Dr. Pamela E. Smith, Director of Medical Education,
Department of...
|
| 20.4626 | Missed it again, huh. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu May 30 1996 20:21 | 11 |
| .4625
WEll you certainly put a lot of words in that response but it doesn't
change the facts. The bill itself provides for this procedure under
specific circumstances. therefore, the sponsors of this bill,
obviously they supported this bill, did see a place for this. So, once
again, on the surface, your statement was wrong.
The supporters of the bill allowed for this procedure. You claims that
no one who supported this bill ever allowed for it, is wrong, again.
|
| 20.4627 | I cited the report that YOU said didn't exist, suckah. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu May 30 1996 20:28 | 5 |
| Quote my words directly, Rocush, if you have some argument with what
I wrote.
Your revisions of my words aren't worth discussing.
|
| 20.4628 | You must be the "suckah". | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu May 30 1996 20:40 | 18 |
| .4627
Once again you took my words out of context and then claim I said
something I didn't say. Here are the words you used in .4622 that I
responded to. Now please indicate where I asked about or refered to a
report.
Your words:
The testimony from the women was important because the bill's
supporters keep saying that the procedure is NEVER done to protect
the mother (and that it's not possible for the procedure to save
the life of the woman, etc.)
My answers indicated that the bill's sponsors allowed for the procedure
in hte bill. This is prima facia evidence that they were aware that
theour statement ans subsequent statements are wrong.
|
| 20.4629 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu May 30 1996 20:50 | 10 |
| > Now please indicate where I asked about or refered to a report.
Bzzzzzzt. You lose again. Here are your words:
"I have not seen any report where those supporting this bill saying
that the procedure was NEVER done to protect the mother. this would
seem, in you words, to be a lie."
I gave you a pointer to such a report, suckah. :)
|
| 20.4630 | Still not getting it, huh. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu May 30 1996 21:06 | 19 |
| .4629
Let me say this very s l o w l y so you can follow. I said that I had
never seen or heard about a report indicating that those who supported
this bill, meaning all of those in support of the bill, not some
particular group or individuals, said that the procedure was never done
to protect the mother.
You never answered my question. Instead you pointed me to what a
particular group said. I guess that pretty much means that you were
wrong with your broadbrush approach once again. If you had said that
some group had made that claim, I would never had responded, or
probably agreed. You can always find someone, somewhere that will say
just about anything. It does make it a universal statement, which your
original note implied.
Once again, understand what I am responding to and the context of my
reply, before you go off making silly claims.
|
| 20.4631 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu May 30 1996 21:14 | 13 |
| You are schizoid. Look at what you've written in successive replies:
> Now please indicate where I asked about or refered to a report.
> I said that I had never seen or heard about a report indicating that
> [blah, blah, blah...]
It's magic. First you seem to deny ever mentioning the word 'report',
then you try to correct me on what type of 'report' you'd actually
mentioned.
Surely some shock therapy would be in order for you.
|
| 20.4632 | Nope, still got it wrong. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu May 30 1996 21:27 | 15 |
| .4631
You are a real peach.
You make a statement that is responded to. You then go off on a
tangent that solicits another response then you take that response and
go further.
Go back to your original entry. Then read my next response. Then
read my last response. Obviously you have trouble keeping things
straight. You are very good at it, but you are equally as wrong.
So far you have consistently been wrong, and I expect that you will
continue to be.
|
| 20.4633 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu May 30 1996 21:31 | 6 |
| So, is this a 'yes, I asked about a report' or a 'no, I never mentioned
a report so how could you ask such a thing' response this time?
Let me know after the shock therapy. Perhaps we can give it another
try.
|
| 20.4634 | Nice try, but no bite this time. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu May 30 1996 21:35 | 11 |
| .4633
No, it's actually a "you are unable to answer a question" response.
I'd suggest you answer a question first, before you go off on tangents.
At least then everyone will know what question they are answering, and
so will you.
why is it though, that you really don't want to make clear statements
and answers. It's much too difficult to cover your tracks if you
actually answer a direct question directly.
|
| 20.4635 | There is no report, no there is a report, no there's no report... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu May 30 1996 21:37 | 2 |
| Don't write to me again until I can see the sparks in your eyes.
|
| 20.4636 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu May 30 1996 21:46 | 25 |
| Hey, the NRLC is back online. Here is the report I mentioned
(when I tried to gently explain to you that supporters of the
ban had claimed that the procedure would never be necessary
for a woman's health):
Is a partial-birth abortion ever the only way to preserve a mother's
physical health?
Dr. Pamela E. Smith, Director of Medical Education, Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Chicago, testified,
"There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this
country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be
destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother." [Senate
hearing record, p. 82]"
This is why it was relevant for the women (whose lives or health had
been saved by the procedure) to testify in the Senate hearings.
These women were real life examples which contradicted the claim
mentioned above. Any of their doctors could have been arrested
and put on trial for saving their lives and their health if the
ban had been in place during their procedures.
These women's testimonies were extremely relevant to refute the false
testimony (given to the Senate) that such conditions never exist.
|
| 20.4637 | Still wrong, but thankd for the proof. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu May 30 1996 21:53 | 24 |
| .4636
There you go again. Broadbrushing. This was not a claim made by the
"supporters" of this legislation. this was a claim made by a doctor
who did not feel this procedure was necessary. Obviously, she felt
that there were other and better procedures to deal with a life
threatening pregnancy.
This is exactly what I addressed in my initial response. This person
held a position and made a statement. this was not the position held
by the "supporters" of this bill.
I am a supporter of this bill and do not hold that view. Although I
may be hard pressed to debate this with a medical professional who
holds a differing opinion.
Once again, you have taken a statement of mine out of context and then
tried to build a case when I responded to what I thought you were
actually answering in context.
You are actually very good at this ploy. It does require close
attention to make sure you actually are answering the response or going
off on a tangent out of context.
|
| 20.4638 | You still need the shock therapy. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu May 30 1996 21:59 | 10 |
| The material I quoted from the Senate hearings is the position of
the "National Right to Life Committee" (which is not just some
individual, but a substantial organization which supported the ban.)
Look at their web pages. They have quite a few. Their domain
name is 'nrlc'.
Then tell me that only one individual (or so) in the Senate hearings
carried this particular message.
|
| 20.4639 | Talk about needing therapy. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu May 30 1996 22:12 | 12 |
| .4638
Excuse me, but you posted the information. I don't care if the
information appeared in a groups web page. The statement was by one
doctor. Which I think should carry some weight with the rest of us
non-doctors.
The point is you said the "supporters". I am a supporter and I never
said it nor do I agree with it. You can't get away with these sweeping
statements and then try to get someone else to accept you taking thing
sout of context.
|
| 20.4640 | Or was it, 'Shirley?' :> | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu May 30 1996 22:18 | 12 |
| You're not excused.
The position is being promoted by the National Right to Life Committee.
(Check their web pages. They tend to publish their side of this issue,
if you know what I mean.)
I don't care if your shorts are knotted in a bunch because you thought
the word 'supporters' meant every supporter on the planet.
Surely you can find something else to gripe about (and I do mean to
call you 'Surely'.) :/
|
| 20.4641 | Abortion is not a moral act | FABSIX::D_HORTERT | | Fri May 31 1996 10:51 | 25 |
| My turn!
Ms. Conlon, can you please explain to me how the testimony of a
random group of women who claim a medical procedure "saved their
life", can be used to refute a Physician (that's someone with a PhD
in case you weren't sure). If those womens' PHYSICIANS want to
testify that the procedure saved their lives, then I'll be happy
to give it due consideration. Until then I think I'll consider the
testimony of those women to be worthless/useless, and continue to
take my medical advice from those who spent 8 years of their lives
earning the right to give it.
In addition, I would like to say that your statement about making a
medical procedure that would save a man's life illegal, to somehow
"make things even" if abortion is not legal, has to be the most
outrageously STUPID statement I have ever read. Furthermore, there
is no medical procedure performed on a man that takes the life of
a helpless child, so there is no "making things even". And finally,
I would like you (when you get the chance) to go to a hospital, walk
through the maternity ward and look at all of the babies there, and
then look at yourself in the mirror and see if you can convince
yourself that the mother of every one of those babies should have
the right to kill it. God help you if you can.
D.J.
|
| 20.4642 | | NPSS::MLEVESQUE | | Fri May 31 1996 11:00 | 5 |
| >can be used to refute a Physician (that's someone with a PhD
>in case you weren't sure).
Actually, that's someone with an MD, since you appear to be unclear on
the concept.
|
| 20.4643 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Fri May 31 1996 15:23 | 55 |
| Note 20.4622 by SPECXN::CONLON contains:
The testimony from the women was important because the bill's
supporters keep saying that the procedure is NEVER done to protect
the mother (and that it's not possible for the procedure to save
the life of the woman, etc.) So this testimony was important.
Note 20.4636 by SPECXN::CONLON contains text by the NRLC:
Is a partial-birth abortion ever the only way to preserve a mother's
physical health?
Dr. Pamela E. Smith, Director of Medical Education, Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Chicago, testified,
"There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this
country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be
destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother." [Senate
hearing record, p. 82]"
I agree with eariler replies that the entry cited in 20.4636 is insufficient
to prove the claims made in 20.4622.
Dr. Pamela Smith's testified that there were other methods available and
that the partial-birth procedure was not the preferred method in an
emergency situation because it took too long. If there are multiple
treatment options, consider the statement "A partial-birth abortion is not
the only way to preserve a mother's physical health." This statement
would appear to be correct.
However, there is nothing in this statement to indicate that the procedure
was never done to protect the mother or that it is not possible for the
procedure to save the life of the mother.
--------
I dislike these kinds of analogies, but maybe it will get the point across.
(The sole purpose of this analogy is examine the logic.)
I have from time-to-time used a wrench or the back of a screwdriver to
drive nails. (This is usually because I was too lazy to get a hammer.)
Given these facts, the following statements are all true:
o Using the back of a screwdriver is not the only was to drive a nail.
o A screwdriver is not required to drive a nail.
o A screwdriver has been used to drive nails.
o It is possible for a screwdriver to be used to drive a nail.
--------
Furthermore, I stand by my statement in .4623. Even if statements could
be shown that prove the claims made in .4622, the testimony in question
would be relevant only to disprove those statements and not the bill itself.
|
| 20.4644 | | POWDML::AJOHNSTON | beannachd | Fri May 31 1996 15:48 | 16 |
| precisely _how_ does one disprove a Bill?
I mean, whether it's a good bill or a bad bill [according to your
lights] doesn't alter the fact that the Bill is. Bills don't need
proof, they just are.
Obviously, Bills must obtain support to get passed. If a false
statement or incomplete disclosure is made in attempting to garner
necessary support, then those statements are open to proof or disproof.
But the Bill? no.
Testimony in cases such as this comes down to Duelling Doctors or
Grateful Beneficiaries versus Bereft Victims. And people [public and
public servant alike] draw conclusions.
Annie
|
| 20.4645 | | EDITEX::MOORE | GetOuttaMyChair | Fri May 31 1996 16:46 | 9 |
|
> Obviously, Bills must obtain support to get passed. If a false
> statement or incomplete disclosure is made in attempting to garner
> necessary support, then those statements are open to proof or disproof.
> But the Bill? no.
Take it to the Bill and Hillary note...
;^)
|
| 20.4646 | | POWDML::AJOHNSTON | beannachd | Fri May 31 1996 17:44 | 7 |
| Considering that playing in the Bill and Hillary note has about as much
appeal for me as eating warm excrement, I think I shall pass. But thank
you for your consideration.
[This is not a political statement. At least not a partisan one. I
would have the same regardfor a "Bob & Liddy note" or a "George and
Barbara note".]
|
| 20.4647 | Too emotional for me... | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Fri May 31 1996 17:59 | 42 |
| Now it's MY turn.
re:4641
I have some problems with your (as steve leech would say)
"emotional" issue. You state that there is no Medical procedure
performed on a man that takes the life of a helpless child...well...
vasectomies, it can be argued, are just that...but oh yeah, the fetus that
you discribed is already concieved...and a helpless obviously healthy
child..that can walk, talk, cry, breath outside the womb, survive
without the mothers body and basically survive outside the body of the
woman that has become pregnant. Right? well let's go a step back
further if you want to get really technical...any alteration of the
reproductive system is a medical procedure done to prevent the life of
"future" unborn children.... if you practice birth control on any
level except rythm, you are doing just the same. And since when is the
Medical community ALWAYS the best place to find medical answers. Gee,
that must mean that Dr. Kavorkian knows what's best huh????
When YOU get the chance, go visit an orphanage or a getto...I have!
tell me those neglected, abused, starving dieing children aren't more
important to save than that of a fetus that can't survive outside of
the womb. Go try and find their fathers....maybe even their mothers and
tell me someone shouldn't have been teaching them birthcontrol or
showing them that at 7 weeks, they should have made a choice.
this world would be wonderful if it was painted rose colored, but it
isn't and no one else should be telling anyone else what to do with
there bodies. But if they make prostate surgery illegal and vasectomies
standard practice, I bet every man bends over an holds their conuolies
and thinks twice about telling anyone what to do with their bodies.
BTW, not all babies are in nurseries at hospital, some are in trash
cans and alleys with their bodies wrapped in newpapers. Some are
actually left to die while one or more parents abandon them...cruel
huh?
and don't hand that line that the fetus is another being, it's not until
it's considered viable out of the womb then it's refered to as an
infant...per that medical community you spoke about.
just my hot two cents.
|
| 20.4648 | | EDITEX::MOORE | GetOuttaMyChair | Fri May 31 1996 19:10 | 11 |
|
.4646
Ann,
Read that paragraph I quoted, substituting "Bill" as in Clinton for
your meaning "Bill" as in legislation.
The paragraph then becomes a perfect description of Clintoon.
BaRrY
|
| 20.4649 | | POWDML::AJOHNSTON | beannachd | Fri May 31 1996 19:57 | 9 |
| ... the perfect description of Clinton.
and, why not?
It's the perfect description of anyone seeking office or initiative
support.
It's the perfect description, in fact, of everyone I know of who has
ever sought office or initiative support. [crooks and saints alike]
|
| 20.4650 | Ok, but what about.... | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri May 31 1996 22:28 | 32 |
| .4647
Most of the points you raise are irrelevant rantings to justify the
unjustifyable. first you create the strawman of a viable person
outside of the womb. Since when does viability mean whether or not it
is a human life or not. You can scream all you want that it isn't, the
simple fact is that it is a human life that is being destroyed. but,
even conceding your claim of non-viability as a starting point, then
you are stating that once the baby is viable an abortion is murder.
Just because the woman has refused to deliver the baby does not mean
that she has the right to kill the baby. You set up the viability
argument, so if the baby is viable then by your own rules you can't
terminate that life.
Next your argument about orphanges or ghettos is equally without merit.
One situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Some
children may be in orphanges, but they can move on as they grow up and
be productive and happy people and have wonderful families. You think
these kids would be better off dead? Same goes for ghetto kids. I
agree that absentee fathers are a disgrace but it goes to the real
heart of the illness inflicting itself on society today that it is OK
to have no personal responsibility and anyone who talks about and
supports it must be some right wing wacko.
Lastly, you claim about mandatory vasectomies is equally absurd. Not
having an abortion will not always lead to sterility. Vasectomies do.
It also would be a bit stupid to follow your thinking. Sterilize all
males in the world today and how long will the race survive?
I have yet to hear any abortion supporter answer my question about
viability, perhaps you will.
|
| 20.4651 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Sat Jun 01 1996 21:36 | 14 |
| Sterilized males can have one or more sperm samples placed "on ice" for
up to ten years. (outside limit I have heard is maybe 14)
Out there in white laboratories I would imagine there are billions of
pre-conceived babies, laying frozen in Liquid nitrogen, awaiting the
day they may be brought back to full life.
Vasectomies may render unpremeditated conceptions impossible (less the
2% failure rate) but they don't necessarily end a males chances at
making another baby.
meg
|
| 20.4652 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Mon Jun 03 1996 14:48 | 27 |
| <<< Note 20.4644 by POWDML::AJOHNSTON "beannachd" >>>
> precisely _how_ does one disprove a Bill?
Thanks. It may well be that "disprove" is a poor choice of words when
related to a bill.
RE: Good bill versus bad bill
Well, some bills are a bad idea, and some are unconsitutional. As you said,
bills need support to pass, but they need to pass constitutional tests to
stay viable. The issue that I had when I first looked at the bill was
whether or not it was constitutional, and I look at that process as the basic
first step with a yes or no conclusion. But it is not a proof.
> Testimony in cases such as this comes down to Duelling Doctors or
> Grateful Beneficiaries versus Bereft Victims. And people [public and
> public servant alike] draw conclusions.
Yes, that is frequently true. However, in this case, if the bill did not
contain language that made an exception for saving the life of the mother
and if this procedure is required to save the life of the mother, then the
testimony in question and the statements that were made concerning the veto
would have been relevant because such statements would have underlined a
basic constitutional concern.
|
| 20.4653 | No answer yet. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Jun 03 1996 21:30 | 8 |
| .4647
I see you have no intention of answering the question I posed to your
entry. Apparently it isn't enough to set up your own strawman, you
have to then ignore the same premise you establish.
As I thought.
|
| 20.4654 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Tue Jun 04 1996 14:46 | 7 |
| Did anyone catch the whole portion of 60 Minutes regarding this? I
only caught the last 5 minutes. It appears that several of the Dr's
who testified for the ban refused to be interviewed, while Dr. Warren
Hern, who does do late-term abortions explained that he has never seen
a third trim abortion for "convenience."
meg
|
| 20.4655 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jun 04 1996 15:20 | 25 |
| I saw only parts of 60 Minutes, as I was preparing dinner while
it was on.
The accounts given by a few of the women who had undegone the
procedure were quite compelling. One mentioned that at 7 months,
she had an ultrasound which provided graphic evidence of the
malformations her fetus was subject to, including several internal
organs which were dysfunctional, holes in all heart chambers,
and a skull which had failed to fuse during development, which
left the brain to develop outside of the skull in a "butterflied"
fashion. A caesarian removal would have compromised her ability
to have other children. The only other alternative was this
procedure.
I simply can't see where bringing this fetus into the world alive,
where it would have been virtually guaranteed to die within hours,
would have made any sense.
This is where the pro-life argument loses a lot of steam for me.
No one - not a church, not the law, not the government, not a
medical panel - no one has the right to tell a women faced with
this situation that she must bring that child to life. If you
care to take that stance, you should have to suffer the pain
and anguish associated with the delivery and what follows.
|
| 20.4656 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jun 04 1996 15:23 | 4 |
| > A caesarian removal would have compromised her ability
>to have other children.
Did they say why?
|
| 20.4657 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jun 04 1996 15:25 | 4 |
| >Did they say why?
No.
|
| 20.4658 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Tue Jun 04 1996 17:10 | 13 |
| A ceasarian does compromise a woman's ability to carry to term, is far
more dangerous than a vaginal delivery, and definitely compromises a
woman's chance of delivering vaginally in the future. Like it or not
this is an abdominal incision which cuts across muscles including the
utering muscle, and there is a much greater change of infection leading
to sterility if the fallopian tubes become involved, hemorage,
hysterectomy, keloid formation, and definite weakening of the uterine
and abdominal walls. Post surgical complications are significantly
higher than those of vaginal delivery, including death.
meg
|
| 20.4659 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jun 04 1996 17:32 | 3 |
| I was asking if there was some factor that would make a caesarian unusually
likely to compromise her ability to have children in the future. Obviously
lots of women have lots of children after caesarians.
|
| 20.4660 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Tue Jun 04 1996 18:52 | 14 |
| Lots of women are also left unable to carry a child to term after
ceasarians, and other are left infertile and many others are left
unable to have a vaginal delivery, ever, after a c-section. This also
happens to women who have vaginal deliveries, but in much smaller
numbers. For some women the risk is acceptable, for others, it is not.
Ultimately I believe this is something a woman, her Dr, and her family
should make the decision on, not a batch of lawyers.
I have not been unfortunate enough to have been faced with the
decision, and have no idea how I would deal with it. I do want all the
options available should I, or one of my daughters, or a sister, or a
friend, or the neighbor ever be faced with this.
meg
|
| 20.4661 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Tue Jun 04 1996 19:59 | 29 |
| <<< Note 20.4655 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
> A caesarian removal would have compromised her ability
> to have other children. The only other alternative was this
> procedure.
If the fetus was so small that the doctor could bring it down far enough
to snip the base of the spinal cord and remove it whole, did anyone say
why they would need to do a caesarian section?
The reading that I did on partial-birth abortion indicate that this
method is a variation of the traditional dialation and extraction.
Did anyone indicate why this couldn't be done?
When I worked in a hospital, the standard technique for late-term abortions
was to remove the fetus in pieces. [Sorry, that's the way it was explained
to me.] Does anyone know if that is still done?
> I simply can't see where bringing this fetus into the world alive,
> where it would have been virtually guaranteed to die within hours,
> would have made any sense.
I agree. Viability of the fetus is a critical concern (Roe v. Wade, 1973
and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 1989).
Even beyond abortion, there are cases in hospitals where babies born with
severe birth defects are allowed to die.
|
| 20.4662 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Tue Jun 04 1996 20:34 | 11 |
| the correct term for "partial Birth abortion" is Intact Dialation and
Extraction. It has a couple of advantages over the old D&E in that
there is less trauma to the uterus ( a major consideration if one plans
on more children at a later date) and also allows study on the chance
that this defect can be learned about and possible prevented in the
future.
One of the women who spoke at the hearings alluded to this. I believe
her text is in this string somewhere back a month or so.
meg
|
| 20.4663 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jun 04 1996 20:36 | 3 |
|
.4662 Dilation
|
| 20.4664 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jun 04 1996 20:42 | 1 |
| Unless it's done in a phone booth. Then it's dialation.
|
| 20.4665 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Tue Jun 04 1996 20:44 | 3 |
|
To coin a phrase!
|
| 20.4666 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jun 04 1996 20:45 | 1 |
| You had to put in your 2 cents, eh Jimbo!
|
| 20.4667 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Tue Jun 04 1996 20:45 | 3 |
|
Yeah, I'm quite the operator.
|
| 20.4668 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jun 04 1996 20:46 | 1 |
| PLEASE PLEASE...Enough of this static!
|
| 20.4669 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jun 04 1996 20:46 | 1 |
| 1 ringy dingy... :-)
|
| 20.4670 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Tue Jun 04 1996 20:46 | 1 |
| .4668, from the resident dingaling.
|
| 20.4671 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jun 04 1996 20:48 | 1 |
| Grrrrrrrrr.........
|
| 20.4672 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Tue Jun 04 1996 21:27 | 21 |
| <<< Note 20.4662 by CSC32::M_EVANS "I'd rather be gardening" >>>
> the correct term for "partial Birth abortion" is Intact Dialation and
> Extraction. It has a couple of advantages over the old D&E in that
> there is less trauma to the uterus ( a major consideration if one plans
> on more children at a later date) and
Very good.
> also allows study on the chance
> that this defect can be learned about and possible prevented in the
> future.
If the cause of the defect was genetic, chemical, or in the immune system,
any material recovered would be useful. Even if the fetus was removed in
pieces, I find it hard to believe that that would be a significant problem
in scientific study (given what the doctors due at post-mortems).
The 60 minutes piece is the first time I've heard anyone suggest using a
caesarian section. Any idea why this was even considered?
|
| 20.4673 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Tue Jun 04 1996 23:29 | 22 |
| Some people believe that giving birth to a baby that will die anyway
even if it can only be delivered by ceasarian, which a fetus with a
butterflied skull, hydrocephalus, ancephaly, macrosomia, transverse
lie, etc requires. One of the badly deformed fetuses was turning to
stone (joints were becoming unbendable and in a transverse lie, there
was no way to reposition the fetus, one which would die, while slowly
the body became even more imobile until the lungs quit functioning, if
she even survived the delivery. Anyone who has dealt with adults
dying of congestive lung failure know this is not a pretty or
comfortable death.
C-sections have their place, particularly when it is the only way to
get a live baby and mother as an outcome. It is not a great option
when the only hope is to save a woman's life and the baby will die
anyway, as it really does compromise the health, fertility and ability
of a person to be able to have a healthy, full-term baby in the future.
If I were in this position, I would want all the options presented and
be allowed to make up my mind with my health care providers and my
family, not have some idealogue telling me how I have to watch my child
die.
meg
|
| 20.4674 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jun 04 1996 23:39 | 11 |
| >If I were in this position, I would want all the options presented and
>be allowed to make up my mind with my health care providers and my
>family, not have some idealogue telling me how I have to watch my child
>die.
If I were in this position, I would trust God that no matter what the
outcome was in His hands and have complete peace in the midst of my
grief. Faith is a powerful thing Meg. It can move mountains with only
the measure of the size of a mustard seed.
Nancy
|
| 20.4675 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Wed Jun 05 1996 01:54 | 23 |
| nancy,
I am reminded of the preacher in the flood in Iowa,
You know the one wh was stranded on an island of the church when the
neighbors with the rowboat came by, and as he climbed onto the roof,
the motorboat came by, and as he climbed onto the roof the helicopter
offered aid and he refused, saying g-d would take care of him?
g-d sent him friends in a rowoat, a motor boat, a helicopter and he
still died waiting for g-d to take care of him. And he didn't get it
until he was dead, and asking g-d why s/he din't save him from the
flood.
g-d said "I sent you a rowboat, a motor boat, and a helicopter. What
the heck (sic) did you think I was doing?"
Sionce all things come from the mother (to me), I can't see what the
problem is.
meg
|
| 20.4676 | More religious weasle words? | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Jun 05 1996 01:56 | 16 |
| > >If I were in this position, I would want all the options presented and
> >be allowed to make up my mind with my health care providers and my
> >family, not have some idealogue telling me how I have to watch my child
> >die.
> If I were in this position, I would trust God that no matter what the
> outcome was in His hands and have complete peace in the midst of my
> grief.
Huh?
Just what is it that you said here?
That you'd make a choice as would Meg and trust that it was in the hands
of your god, or that you'd take no action and let your god handle it?
|
| 20.4677 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:20 | 25 |
| Re .4674:
> If I were in this position, I would trust God that no matter what the
> outcome was in His hands and have complete peace in the midst of my
> grief.
You must know that story about the idiot who keeps turning down rescues
to wait for God only to find out God had sent all the rescues.
> Faith is a powerful thing Meg.
Faith has no power other than the warm fuzzies it gives people unable
to deal with the world rationally.
> It can move mountains with only the measure of the size of a mustard
> seed.
Faith has never moved so much as a mustard seed. It's all garbage.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.4678 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:45 | 20 |
| I'm not a doctor, and I don't play one on TV. However, on the way home
yesterday I went by the local bookstore and looked through the various
surgical textbooks on abortions and caesarian sections.
o Several of textbooks talked about the D&E procedure. None of them
talked about intact dilation and extraction. It may well be that
intact dilation and extraction is a new procedure that will become
a standard method and will make it into later editions.
o There are other procedures as well.
o A couple of the texts outlined the reasons for using a caesarian
section in an abortion, but none of the cases appeared to be even
remotely appropriate if a D&E or D&X could be used.
Based on this information, if a woman were told that a intact dilation
and extraction or a C-section were her only treatment options, it would
appear that she got very bad medical advice. I suspect that bringing up
C-sections is probably just an attempt to frighten people.
One other thing I found interesting was that several of the textbooks
had the usual list of complications. Among them was: "live-born fetus".
|
| 20.4679 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:51 | 8 |
| <<< Note 20.4678 by STAR::OKELLEY "Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity" >>>
Minor correction for my own note.
There were several treatment options for late-term abortions (e.g. greater
than 17 weeks). Obviosly there are multiple treatment options for early
abortions, but those techniques are not significant for this discussion.
|
| 20.4680 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | Crown Him with many crowns | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:58 | 5 |
|
The term "treatment" is a bit ironic when discussing life-ending
procedures.
|
| 20.4681 | If you must know Rocush..I was on vacation!!! | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Wed Jun 05 1996 13:16 | 35 |
| .4650
So why is it that my points are irrelevant and ranting however, your
emotionally charged and non documented accuasations are just the same.
if it was a murder, that would be illegal, we would prosecute. Abortion
as far as I know is legal, not murder. It's a surgical procedure that
is preformed by a competant doctor. But when non competant hysterical
publicity wanting MD"s try scare tactics to produce an outcome, I find
that more vile and repulsive than a woman making a choice about the
future of her pregancy that is or may well be already compromised. WHo
are we to make choices for others who may not practice the same
religions or may not have the same life situations as us..we are not
the ultimate rulers..
So when you tell me about my irrelevant rantings, I assume you have not
come out of your holyier than tho attitude, nor have you taken off your
rose colored glasses, nor have you walked a step in one of those
families shoes that had to make a critical decision for their unborn.
I tend not to put too much stock into narrow minded, narrow visioned
people, they are only here to test the strength of the open minded.
I haven't walked in any of those families shoes, so I don't assume to
make a decision for them. They are fully capable of making it with
their higher power(choose your own religion), their doctors and if they
need to their extended families.
So, stop your narrow minded, one way bantering....it gets you only to a
point where what you say has no credibility.,.
oh by the way...I wasn't avoiding anyone, I just don't live to write to
a wall while I'm vacationing........have a nice day if you can!!
|
| 20.4682 | Still no answer. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Jun 05 1996 13:40 | 24 |
| .4681
Well that was one heck of a blast. Let me see if I can recover and
respond. Oh yeah, did you answer my question anywhere in that
diatribe? If you did I missed it.
Your original entry to which I responded indicated that as long as the
baby was a paracite dependent on the mother for life, then the mother
could teminate this invasion any time she wished. You indicated that
this was appropriate since the baby was not viable on its' own.
My question was related to viability and at what point does your
position lose its' applicability. I believe that a baby can be viable
on its own at about five months or so. This would mean that after five
months terminating this now viable life would be murder, or at least
eliminating a viable life.
Also I have not walked in the shoes of the type of people you have
identified. I am not sure what my reaction would be under different
circumstances, but that is irrelevant. Abortion is presently available
to anyone at any time now. these people have kids and di not use the
abortion option. What would making a procedure less available have ot
do with these people having or not having children?
|
| 20.4683 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jun 05 1996 13:44 | 12 |
| > <<< Note 20.4682 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> the baby was not viable on its' own.
> lose its' applicability.
its own
its applicability
hth
your pal,
|
| 20.4684 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 05 1996 14:48 | 29 |
| Meg,
I happen to agree 100% to the analogy of the guy on the rooftop. But
in a situation that is life and death, if you are a person of faith,
you will choose that which will save a life. In the case of a mother's
life being at risk, I can tell you what my head thinks, but my heart
pulls me in another direction.
BTW, I'm not playing a role in this discussion for the sake of
"religion".
The truth is this discussion always goes to the extreme in order for
someone to make a point. When the extreme situations are the
"exceptions".
When dealing with the topic of abortion I always stand cautious to the
many women who have had these procedures. I know of only one woman who
has had this procedure and didn't suffer emotionally as a result of it.
And there are times when I look into her cold-as-stone eyes and believe
I see the pain that lies behind them.
I will not judge someone who has had this procedure, uh-uh-no-way. I
will however, say this procedure may seem like a solution to set you
free from this responsibility of another life, but most of the time
this procedure puts your heart in bondage to its pain.
Nancy
|
| 20.4685 | .4681, you may want to get a life soon! | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Wed Jun 05 1996 16:14 | 45 |
|
first of all, NEVER IMPLY THAT ANYTHING ANYONE ELSE BUT YOU STATES IS
STUPID.....You continue to make your furthur statements seem non
credible...but obviously that isn't important to you.
second...your note was so full of crap that I didn't see any questions
but statements.
Why don't YOU answer some questions for ME....Is abortion Illegal...??
Is Murder Illegal.....can both be the same in the eyes of the Law??
Find me any evidence that abortions NEVER cause sterility.
Find me any evidence that vasectomies are NEVER reversable.
Then....FIND me the damn question you keep barking about and if you can
understand an intelligent answer and not break it up into a moral issue
that YOU feel are YOUR morals....
If the question was about viability..well, would I be working at
Digital if I had a degree in medicine..NO!
What do "I" feel is viable...when the fetus is no longer considered a
fetus in the biological and medical world and can live outside the womb..
But what I think isn't really that important, it's what the medical
community's job is.
I have no need to invade in someone elses life and make life choices for
them. that is just the part of me that sees a broader world..the same
part of you that sees the inside of a very narrow tunnel...
It is not my mission in life to feel the pain behind others eyes if
they make that life choice...it is however my job as a person to
support that persons sorrow as a friend, casting no judgement and
lend my shoulder in the healing process.
oh yeah, whether you can sarcastically recover from my response or not
is not a concern of mine that will cause me to lose sleep. It wasn't
intended as a blast, it was my response to your
ingnorance to others and your lack of compassion for your fellow man.
I value everyones individuality and ability to make their own
decisions. you should learn to do so also.
|
| 20.4686 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Audiophiles do it 'til it hertz! | Wed Jun 05 1996 16:19 | 8 |
|
.4681 was written by you ... so why are you upset with your-
self over what was written?
I'd think that if you were thinking of writing something that
you knew would upset you, you'd think again before you did write
it, knowing how mad you'd get at you.
|
| 20.4687 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 05 1996 16:21 | 6 |
| .4686
Provocative, but funny... really funny! Sorry Rose...but aside from
this particular discussion, it was really funny!
|
| 20.4688 | Better now. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Jun 05 1996 22:53 | 17 |
| .4685
What a wonderful note. You start off yelling about me calling someone,
somewhere stupid. I don't know aht you're talking about. I never said
that nor implied it in any of my notes.
Second, read my note .4650 to find the question I was asking. If you
don't wish to, let me rephrase. You raised viability as the deciding
factor on whether a baby could be killed or not. I asked exactly when
does viability begin.
If it is at about 5 months then there is a problem, isn't there.
Also, never make an assumption about what I think or feel about anyone
else or their situation. You don't know me or what I have experienced.
Keep your comments to your beliefs, not mine.
|
| 20.4689 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago Bulls-1996 world champs | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:02 | 2 |
|
rough crowd lately, like sharks at feeding time.
|
| 20.4690 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Wed Jun 12 1996 15:24 | 18 |
| RE: .4688
> .... I asked exactly when
> does viability begin.
>
> If it is at about 5 months then there is a problem, isn't there.
We currently have the technology to fertilize an egg in a test tube and
implant that egg into a woman and produce a viable offspring. Given
time, technology may eventually be able to take an egg fertilized
within one woman and implant (transplant?) that egg into another.
From a philosophical standpoint, we cannot allow technological advances
to remove or diminish a person's rights. Therefore the right to an
abortion cannot be based on the viability of the fetus outside the
(original) mother's womb.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4691 | why not ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jun 12 1996 15:31 | 16 |
|
"We cannot allow technological innovations to diminsh a person's
rights."
Horsefeathers. We both increase and diminish rights by technology
all the time. Good thing, too.
Why not ? When we put up a satellite, we can see what used to be
private. When we distribute computing, we change the distribution
of power between people and groups. And through medical and bio
technology, it makes perfect sense to alter any of our rights.
SCOTUS has explicitly recognized this principle, and in some
notable cases, has altered our rights because reality has changed.
bb
|
| 20.4692 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Wed Jun 12 1996 16:10 | 36 |
| RE: .4691
> When we distribute computing, we change the distribution
> of power between people and groups.
Ok, but what does that have to do with an individual's rights?
> And through medical and bio
> technology, it makes perfect sense to alter any of our rights.
How so? I can see where new technology may require a better/more
accurate definition of our rights, but I don't see how it necessitates
taking rights away.
> SCOTUS has explicitly recognized this principle, and in some
> notable cases, has altered our rights because reality has changed.
I would be interested in hearing some examples where a person's rights
have been taken away by SCOTUS due to technological advancements.
I acknowledge that there are chicken and egg issues. For instances a
wiretap on a phone could not have been achieved before the invention of
the phone. However SCOTUS has applied the appropriate right (unlawful
search and seizure) to the wiretap, meaning that even though the
technology exists, a warrant is still required before the technology
can be applied.
It also takes a while for the courts to catch up to technology. For
instances the UC Irvine fertility clinc that (allegedly) implanted a
woman's fertilized egg into another woman without the first woman's
consent. Technology has forced the court to determine the rights of
the people in the case. Which ever way the courts decide, a person's
rights are not being taken away by the technology, but technology has
forced the courts to more accurately define each individuals rights.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4693 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | sunlight and thunder | Wed Jun 12 1996 17:14 | 14 |
| This analogy is invalid.
>We currently have the technology to fertilize an egg in a test tube and
>implant that egg into a woman and produce a viable offspring.
AFTER being in the woman's body for a period of months, the zygote
will become a viable fetus. Prior to implantation _and_ months of
growing, the zygote is not viable.
>Therefore the right to an abortion cannot be based on the viability
>of the fetus outside the (original) mother's womb.
This is a false conclusion based on an invalid analogy and incomplete
set of criteria.
|
| 20.4694 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Wed Jun 12 1996 17:28 | 19 |
| RE: .4693
> >We currently have the technology to fertilize an egg in a test tube and
> >implant that egg into a woman and produce a viable offspring.
>
> AFTER being in the woman's body for a period of months, the zygote
> will become a viable fetus. Prior to implantation _and_ months of
> growing, the zygote is not viable.
My point was that technology marches on, and look what we are capable
of doing now. Assume, for argument sake, that technology makes it
possible to transplant a zygote after it has implanted. If a woman's
right to an abortion is based on viability outside the (original)
mother's womb, then once this technology is available then the right to
abortion would cease. Therefore, in order to maintain a woman's right
to an abortion, the right cannot be based on the viability (or lack
thereof) of the zygote/fetus outside the (original) mother's womb.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4695 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | sunlight and thunder | Wed Jun 12 1996 17:50 | 24 |
| >My point was that technology marches on, and look what we are capable
>of doing now. Assume, for argument sake, that technology makes it
>possible to transplant a zygote after it has implanted. If a woman's
>right to an abortion is based on viability outside the (original)
>mother's womb, then once this technology is available then the right to
>abortion would cease.
You don't understand what viable means.
Which, in a roundabout way, brings up an interesting point. If the
technology to remove a zygote or extremely young fetus and implant it
in another human being for the remainder of gestation were perfected,
would that end abortion as we now know it? It's possible that it could.
And exactly what would the harm in that be? If any woman who elected
not to carry her child to term could have that child transplanted into
someone else (as opposed to killed), where is the objection to that?
Does a woman have a right to actually kill the unborn, or does she
merely have the right to terminate her own pregnancy? Seems to me it's
the latter as opposed to the former.
Fundamentally, however, you seem to fail to grasp the concept of
viability. Viability doesn't mean "we have the technology to take a
zygote from womb 1 and put it in womb 2". It means that if the child
were removed from the mother's body it could live.
|
| 20.4696 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Wed Jun 12 1996 18:06 | 15 |
| RE: .4695
> Fundamentally, however, you seem to fail to grasp the concept of
> viability. Viability doesn't mean "we have the technology to take a
> zygote from womb 1 and put it in womb 2". It means that if the child
> were removed from the mother's body it could live.
I do grasp the concept, I'm just dancing around it :^)
The time line of "5 months" was brought up. A fetus delivered a 5
months has 0 chance of survival without "heroic" medical intervention.
Therefore "viable" must contain some context of heroic medical
intervention, which dove-tails into the transplant concept.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4697 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jun 13 1996 01:29 | 23 |
| > Which, in a roundabout way, brings up an interesting point. If the
> technology to remove a zygote or extremely young fetus and implant it
> in another human being for the remainder of gestation were perfected,
> would that end abortion as we now know it? It's possible that it could.
> And exactly what would the harm in that be? If any woman who elected
> not to carry her child to term could have that child transplanted into
> someone else (as opposed to killed), where is the objection to that?
Please keep in mind the fact that it isn't simply the technological aspect of
this matter which is of interest, Doctah.
Assuming for a moment that the technology were in place, consider the
procedural/political/ethical/social/moral/etc. aspects which would provide even
more strict barriers to the enabling of this technology.
Given that we have a societal disposition toward "personal responsibility"
(which I share), how likely is it that we'd see ready acceptance of such
techology which would ignore or "cheapen" the responsibility aspect?
From a practical standpoint, I agree that the destruction of fetal life could
be eliminated if the technology so allowed. And I'm in favor of that. But
I sorely doubt that society has that as the goal.
|
| 20.4698 | Still no answer | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jun 13 1996 15:14 | 15 |
| .4690 et al
The question I posed was in relation to the argument put forward that
until a baby was viable the mother could kill it. I asked at what
point is a baby viable. It is certainly before 9 months, probably 7
months and could be viable at 5 months.
My question r4emains the same. If the viability outside the mother is
the issue, as was posed in the reply that I answered, then somewhere
around 5 months, without "heroic efforts", the baby is viable. My
question still remains. If the baby is viable then unrestricted
abortion is murder pure and simple.
I didn't set up the criteria, I merely responded to it.
|
| 20.4699 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Thu Jun 13 1996 15:17 | 7 |
| RE: .4698
> I didn't set up the criteria, I merely responded to it.
Understood. I was challenging the criteria.
-- Dave
|
| 20.4700 | matter of interpretation | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 13 1996 15:54 | 24 |
|
Re, Dave - I'm sorry not to repond on the interesting question
of the immutability of rights in the face of technology. Looking
at some of the significant cases (the 1925 "automobile exception"
to search warrants, still standing, for example), I see that one
can indeed see it your way - that the Court has "reinterpreted"
existing rights, in the light of the new technology, rather than
"altered" the rights. And I agree the Court has been slow to
respond. The wiretap thing is interesting - in the 1928 Olmstead
decision, the Court ruled a wiretap was like a hearing aid, so was
not a search. But in 1967, in Berger v. New York, they overturned
themselves, and decided (and I agree with you the 1967 change was
correct) that wiretaps WERE a search.
The original Roe v. Wade made distinctions based on trimesters, a
distinction since disputed by medical practitioners, and now
mostly abandoned by the Court. Whether we choose to see this as
a response to changing technology, or as simply the education of the
Court in a matter outside their expertise, is subjective - they
didn't say. I think if we knew how to incubate humans by machine
from the time of insemination, it might pose legal issues. But what
this would mean with respect to abortion restrictions, is hard to say.
bb
|
| 20.4701 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Fri Jun 21 1996 00:56 | 13 |
| I don't know how you can take a nonpregnat person and set up her uterus
or his pelvic cavity to handle a 5 month or more fetus being placed
into their bodies'. However, if this could be done, and you could
remove said fetus without endangerind someones's future fertility, and
you could actually FIND someone who is willing to hand a "broken"
fetus. then I wouldn't have a problem with outlawing and abortion.
However, I really doubt you are going to find someone who is willing to
take on a seriously deformed child. I am curious about how many people
who claim that abortions are all evil are really willing to take on
this responsibility, if the technology was available.
meg
|
| 20.4702 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jun 21 1996 02:45 | 3 |
|
Are dumb analogies against the rules anywhere?
|
| 20.4703 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Fri Jun 21 1996 02:47 | 10 |
|
I've been searching for a dumb analogies topic, with no success..
Jim
|
| 20.4704 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | Only users lose drugs | Fri Jun 21 1996 03:20 | 3 |
| I saw that the Operation:Rescue folks were in town yesterday. They 6'
foot signs of decapitated fetus'. It was pretty sick.
-ss
|
| 20.4705 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Fri Jun 21 1996 03:27 | 4 |
|
I am not fond of those folks (and I'm pro life).
|
| 20.4706 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jun 21 1996 18:13 | 4 |
| Jim, I think they are attempting to illustrate the realities of what
our society is condoning.
|
| 20.4707 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Sat Jun 22 1996 21:41 | 13 |
| You mean with banning intact dialation and evacuation? The pictures of
decapitated late-term fetuses come from the older and alternate method
of removing late-term fetuses in pieces from the uterus when they are
too broken or the mother is unable to bring a fetus to a reasonable
term for viability.
Surgical procedures are gruesome. When they involve something we would
all like to think of as a welcome addition to a family (unless of
course the household is headed by a single, poor woman and will need
assistance,) and we don't know "the rest of the story," it is even more
gruesome looking.
meg
|
| 20.4708 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Sun Jun 23 1996 16:19 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 20.4707 by CSC32::M_EVANS "I'd rather be gardening" >>>
> You mean with banning intact dialation and evacuation? The pictures of
dilation
|
| 20.4709 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jul 02 1996 17:54 | 73 |
| 20.4710 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Tue Jul 02 1996 19:10 | 29 |
| THUNDERING forth with the POWER of TEN THOUSAND MEGAWATTS,
we bring you this SPECIAL BULLETIN from the fount of the
PAPACY itself, our WITLESS MAUNDERINGS of OLD TIME RELIGION!
LETS HEAR IT FOR THE VATICAN!!!
uh, campers? what's the problem here?
> The document by the Pontifical Council for the Family also said
> euthanasia was second only to abortion in contempt for life and
> condemned efforts to legalise it in North America.
Contempt for life? Like the forbidding of disease-prventing and
extra-mouths-to-feed-preventing condoms in poor third world countries
by the authority of the church? How much more contempt could they
possibly show for life?
> "Behind these attacks on life we find legal positivism and
> utilitarianism breaking down the original right to life so that the
> will of the legislator, jurist or president becomes absolute," the
> document said.
Far better we should consider the mythology of the Church "absolute",
eh?
Feh. What political posturing, what arrogance.
DougO
|
| 20.4711 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Tue Jul 02 1996 19:17 | 13 |
| And the support for the Mexico city stuff which banned teaching
midwives basic hygiene, lifesaving techniques for women and their
children, because midwives in many undeveloped countries also act as
the local abortionist?
Several hundred thousand deaths and cripplings a year due to willfully
pushing ignorance on direct provider of health care.
Thanks, I will stick to being "depraved" and pushing for better care
for the people who are already on this planet.
meg
meg
|
| 20.4712 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jul 02 1996 19:48 | 15 |
| Z lifesaving techniques for women and their
Z children, because midwives in many undeveloped countries also act
Z as the local abortionist?
You see Meg, to some this is like scorning society for not having pity
on the robber who broke his leg robbing a house.
Z Several hundred thousand deaths and cripplings a year due to
Z willfully pushing ignorance on direct provider of health care.
Meg, keep in mind that abortion is a legal right and not a basic human
right.
-Jack
|
| 20.4713 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Tue Jul 02 1996 19:57 | 14 |
| No jack it isn't. It is denying lifesaving techniques to women and
children, leaves children orphaned, women crippled, sterile, and
infected, in cases of CHILDBIRTH as well as abortion. Teaching simple
things like washing ones hands with good soap and using boiled water
where the supply is contaminated works as well for delivery of a child
as for an abortion in preventing infections. Using gloves can protect
the lives of midwives, as well as women AND BABIES in countries where
blood and fluid borne diseases run rampant. Yet because midwives in
some countries also perform a valuable service to families that you
don't approve of where contraception access is severely limited and
maternal deathrates are high, you are willing to kill more women and
BABIES? Color me very confused.
meg
|
| 20.4714 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Tue Jul 02 1996 20:00 | 11 |
| >Meg, keep in mind that abortion is a legal right and not a
>basic human right.
Whaaaaaaaat!?!?!
There is no more basic human right than the right to your own
body and what goes on, or doesn't go on, inside it.
If rape is a crime, then so is attempting to ban abortion, the
more so since they are different sides of the same coin.
|
| 20.4715 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jul 02 1996 20:08 | 23 |
| Z Teaching simple
Z things like washing ones hands with good soap and using boiled
Z water where the supply is contaminated works as well for delivery of a
Z child as for an abortion in preventing infections.
Help me out here. You're saying that these techniques are not taught
because of the Catholic Church? So if I understand, the Catholic
church trains women to be midwives...but nobody who believes in
abortion can be a trained midwife? Sounds like the potential midwife
made a choice of her own volition.
Z Yet because midwives in
Z some countries also perform a valuable service to families that you
Z don't approve of where contraception access is severely limited and
Z maternal deathrates are high, you are willing to kill more women
Z and BABIES? Color me very confused.
Uh, Meg. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church FOUNDED...invented what
we know today as hospitals. If the midwife chooses to be an
abortionist, it would seem that groups like Planned Parenthood would be
concentrating their efforts down there. Or are they not allowed?
-Jack
|
| 20.4716 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Tue Jul 02 1996 20:11 | 4 |
| .4714
No offense intended, but there's a few holes in that bit of
reasoning.
|
| 20.4717 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Tue Jul 02 1996 20:28 | 16 |
| > No offense intended, but there's a few holes in that bit of
> reasoning.
Of course there are. Just like any other religious argument.
Any argument for or against abortion rights is by its nature a
religious argument, and therefore reduces to a matter of one
person's opinion against another's.
The only thing that prevents a pro-choice point of view from
being equal in all respects to an anti-choice point of view is
that the subject of the choice is one's own body if you are
pro-choice, and other people's bodies if you are anti-choice.
That one difference is what makes pro-choice morally right and
anti-choice morally wrong.
|
| 20.4718 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Tue Jul 02 1996 20:43 | 6 |
| > what arrogance.
I agree, DougO. One of these days the fatman in the Vatican and his red-dressed
cronies will come to the realization that there aren't that many folks that
really GAS about his opinions.
|
| 20.4719 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jul 02 1996 20:46 | 2 |
| Apparently with the exception of places like Portugal and Latin
American countries!
|
| 20.4720 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Tue Jul 02 1996 20:50 | 6 |
| A friend of mine from France tells me that while the French almost all
consider themselves to be Catholic, they pretty much ignore the whole
thing except to go to Church once a year at Christmas, and ignore
altogether anything the Pope says that they don't happen to agree with.
Sounds like a pretty healthy attitude.
|
| 20.4721 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jul 02 1996 21:08 | 8 |
| ZZ Sounds like a pretty healthy attitude.
No, actually that is a pretty sucky attitude. They would show alot
less hypocrisy by leaving the church. I see these types as people who
think they have a God given right to have their dog chit on anothers
front walk.
-Jack
|
| 20.4722 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jul 02 1996 23:08 | 6 |
| So, only people who are religious are pro-life?
That's funny... I know several folks who aren't relgious who are right
to life, do they know?
:-) ha! Wait till I tell 'em.
|
| 20.4723 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Tue Jul 02 1996 23:26 | 21 |
| jack,
The vatican was one of the many players behind getting UN funds pulled
from any program that had a possiblity of a connection to abortion,
known as the Mexico City compact or something like that. This means
that funding for training midwives in places where the maternal
mortality rate is extremely high from infection aren't getting the
training to avoid infections.
The church isn't everywhere, and from the Ebola outbreak last year,
hasn't learned everything about universal fluid precautions. The UN
has programs that are in locations where the church isn't, but can't
train people who deliver babies who might also do abortion procedures.
Given that several 100 thousands of women die from unsterile gyn/ob
practices in the world and more are left sterile, and disabled, I
find the churches stance on this to be beyond hypocracy. I find it to
be complicit in EVERY death of every woman where the UN funding has
been cut for midwives.
meg
|
| 20.4724 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Jul 03 1996 00:06 | 21 |
| > No, actually that is a pretty sucky attitude. They would show alot
> less hypocrisy by leaving the church.
Well, as has been said before, Jacko, a lot of folks figure there's a better
chance for change from within than from without. And a lot of people have
enough love and respect for their church that they don't feel that disagreement
on one, or even a few issues, is sufficient cause to justify walking away.
And, I'd be willing to bet, that if you took every RC church menmber who took
issue with any one (or more) of various positions of the Vatican and politely
requested that they respectfully leave the church, you'd find that the Church
was suddenly member-poor the world over. No skin off my nose or yours,
certainly, but I doubt that the Vatican would be too pleased with the outcome.
Chubby would rather keep publishing his arrogant statements.
> I see these types as people who
> think they have a God given right to have their dog chit on anothers
> front walk.
That's a stretch even for you, Jacko. Who's being negatively impacted by the
actions of the French Catholics? As far as I can see, it's nobody's business
but their own, and their god's.
|
| 20.4725 | Double standard wanted. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Jul 08 1996 14:08 | 48 |
| .4723 et. al.
As far the Catholic Church goes, they have every right to oppose what
they believe to be a sin and a crime. The Catholic Church has
maintained that once a baby is concieved, you are dealing with a human
life, no different than any other person on this planet. Any actions
taken to terminate that life is morally wrong and they have
consistently opposed the practice. As far as supporting the teaching
ofvarious medical techniques to midwives is concerned, I am sure the
Vatican is wholeheartedly behind the teaching of safer practices. What
they do not support, and have never, is abortion. If someone wants to
be a midwife, I am sure the VAtican would be in favor and support all
the training necessary. If that same person says they will perform
abortions, then they would not get the support. It's really quite
simple. If you are concerned about these people getting the training
and saving lives, then if they expect the Vatican to go along with
them, they just need to not be an abortionist. It's a bit silly to
expect the Vatican to oppose abortion at all levels and then turn a
blind eye to a particular group of abortionists.
Abortion supporters can create any fiction they chose to support their
position, but it has nothing to do with the tenets of the Vatican.
Pro-abortion folks can say that a baby isn't a baby until it takes it's
first breath. The Vatican, and most pro-life people, believe something
quite a bit different.
Also, as far as "safe" abortions in poor countries go, well... There
was a portion of one of the news programs, 48 Hours, Dateline,
whatever, a couple of weeks ago. This program identified that abortion
clinics in the US have less regulation than a vet, or IMO, an ice cream
shop. They are only required to fill out, I believe, a six statment
questionaire once a year. On-site inspections are almost never
performed. In the piece they identified a woman who went to a clinic,
because she didn't want her husband to know she was pregnant - so much
for father's rights - and the abortion was performed in a few minutes.
As it turns out her uterus was punctured 3 times and had significant
internal bleeding and ended up dying in a few days. The clinic was
closed up and long gone by that time. When the woman was having
problems she called and got an answering machine and never a call back.
If you think that legal means safe, well you are obviously wrong.
Abortion has been legal here for decades and it is one of the least
regulated practices. In this case avoiding abortion, where it is safe
and clean, would have saved this woman's life. Why don't the
pro-abortion folks ever identify the deaths caused by abortion, but are
front and center on the deaths caused by botched abortions in "dirty
back alleys".
|
| 20.4726 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Mon Jul 08 1996 21:24 | 21 |
| Abortions are regulated about as well as any other outpatient surgical
procedure, and at least as well as most plastic surgery clinics. No
one says there aren't injuries and deaths in any procedure. However,
going with a reputable provider, such as PP in the US, instead of Dr
Fly-by-night-pregnancy-services Inc. is far more likely to be safe.
The same goes for those people who go for appendage
enhancements/reductions, liposuction, ect. Anyone who doesn't check to
see if the practitioner they go to is board certified, already is
exhibiting darwanism in action. We just had something happen in C by a
non-certified "plastic surgeon" who permanently maimed several men who
believed that "size matters." Better a dinky thingie than a
non-functional one.
As far as the vatican, are they saying no GYN/OB's should have
training on how to do a D&C or D&S even though the same procedures are
used for cleaning up after God(dess) plays abortionist? Shoot, just
let many more women die, or be left sterile, or severlty anemic for a
bit, right?
meg
|
| 20.4727 | Why the contradiction. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Jul 08 1996 22:09 | 16 |
| .4726
I have no idea what the Vatican's position is on D&Cs, etc. I do know
what it's stand is on abortion. For them to do anything other than
what they are presently doing would be morally unacceptable as it would
compromise the most basic of beliefs.
The argument against abortion on demand has been that women could die
and get infections or be maimed. Well, it's obvious that here in the
good ole abortion capital of the world, women die, get infections nad
are maimed. Why is it that none of these facts ever get presented by
the pro-abortion crowd. they seem to try and give the impression that
as long as abortion is legal and unrestricted that everything is just
peachy-keen. As soon as any restrictions are discussed all osrts of
bad thing s will happen. Well, they happen now.
|
| 20.4728 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Mon Jul 08 1996 22:53 | 17 |
| People die from having teeth extracted in this country as well. Women
die in far greater numbers in this country from childbirth than from
abortions. This wasn't the case pre RvW, but it also didn't deter
women from finding the local back-alley provider (if poor) or a
sympathetic Dr (if wealthier) or from flying to Puerto Rico, or several
european countries if considerably better off.
I don't like abortion, however, until we have 100% reliable, safe, and
convenient BC, and as long as men refuse to back up their partners
methods with condoms, there will be unplanned pregnancies. At last
check from the stats I have read 40% of those pregnancies end in
abortion. Any capitalist can see that the demand is what drives the
supply. No one who isn't pregnant is going to have an abortion.
meg
|
| 20.4729 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jul 09 1996 03:04 | 6 |
| > As far as the vatican, are they saying no GYN/OB's should have
> training on how to do a D&C or D&S ...
Of course not.
/john
|
| 20.4730 | A first step, maybe. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Jul 09 1996 14:39 | 24 |
| .4728
You raise a few interesting points, but expecting anything to be 100%
as a basis for decision is questionable. The only 100% guarantee
against pregnancy is abstinence, but this option is summarily dismissed
as having no credence.
Unfortunately it is this attitude that widens the gulf and allows
extremeists on both sides to dominate the discussion. This generates a
lot of heat but no light.
My reason for raising the issue was that I have never, until this
report, seen anything from the major madia identifying anything but
perfection with the present abortion practices. Personally, I believe
that the majority of people in this country have a split personality on
abortion. I believe that most people believe that there are good,
valid and moral reasons for having an abortion. I believe at the same
time they believe that there are too many abortions performed, without
any restrictions, and real babies are being killed.
Perhaps a balanced reporting of the facts, on both sides, would allow
us to devise a rational and workable national policy regarding this
sometimes necessary, but undesirable procedure.
|
| 20.4731 | Practice what you preach | FABSIX::D_HORTERT | | Thu Jul 18 1996 11:06 | 9 |
| If the main argument for pro-choice is that we should be able to do
with our bodies as we want, then abortion should not exist, since we
won't know what the child wants to do with his/her body until long
after they are born. If you make that decision for the the child (i.e.
abortion) then you are a hypocrite in the greatest sense of the word
since you preach choice, but do not give the child one.
D.J.
|
| 20.4732 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Thu Jul 18 1996 11:28 | 9 |
|
DJ, there is one major flaw with your plan. And that is if the person
who is having the abortion thinks the child is one yet. If they don't believe
this to be true, then they can not be hypocrites.
Glen
|
| 20.4733 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 18 1996 11:35 | 13 |
| The basis of the pro-choice argument is that the child is not a child
until it takes its first breath outside the womb.
This argument, of course, is bullfeathers, but it is rabidly enforced
by the keepers of the brave new morality. In certain contexts, use of
the words "child", "baby", "killed" is ridiculed, censored, forbidden,
or even punishable by loss of employment.
With one in every five American women having had an abortion, a very
large support network of people with their heads in the sand has been
developed to deny the facts of life.
/john
|
| 20.4734 | | 42333::LESLIE | Andy *^* Leslie | Thu Jul 18 1996 12:11 | 14 |
| <<< Note 20.4733 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>The basis of the pro-choice argument is that the child is not a child
>until it takes its first breath outside the womb.
At the risk of joining in a debate I have no wish to persue, this is
not quite the case in most reasoned arguments I have heard. What is
argued is that an embryo will not be considered a child until viable
outside the womb.
/a
|
| 20.4735 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 18 1996 12:17 | 3 |
| > This argument, of course, is bullfeathers,
As is also, of course, the one above.
|
| 20.4736 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Jul 18 1996 12:44 | 17 |
| Re .4733:
> The basis of the pro-choice argument is that the child is not a child
> . . .
No, it is not, as I have stated repeatedly in this conference. That is
_a_ pro-choice argument, not _the_ pro-choice argument. There are many
people who believe that _even if_ the fetus is a person with rights,
those rights do not permit it to use the mother's body without consent,
even if denying that use causes death.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.4737 | re .4734 | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 18 1996 13:14 | 11 |
| Most abortions are performed past the stage at which the term "embryo" is
used by the scientific community.
Abortion well past the age of fetal viability is perfectly legal in these
United States, unlike more civilized countries such as your own. Here,
the courts have ruled that abortion is legal up until the child is outside
the womb, regardless of the age of the child. All that is required is for
the abortionist to determine that the woman's health (even her financial
health) will be adversely affected.
/john
|
| 20.4738 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jul 18 1996 13:24 | 14 |
|
The UK is still very `socialist' in it's social philosophies and
still offers a large financial safety net to the single mother
No child pays a penny for medical care until age 18, child benefits
are generous, housing is easier to get then in the US.
Perhaps the difference is characterized more by lack of need for late
abortion services rather than relative degrees of civilization.
In the case of both countries, neither have a problem putting a uniform
on the child, calling it and adult and getting it killed for a barrel
of oil. (Heaven forfend it should drink a beer though.) A few months,
18 years, what's the difference?
|
| 20.4739 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Thu Jul 18 1996 14:18 | 10 |
| The anti-choice crowd likes to talk about how terrible late-term
abortions are, but they are also against things like a morning after
pill, so they are not revealing all their true interests, which I
suspect are simply to impose one of their own dogmatic religious
beliefs on the rest of the world.
I agree with edp -- I wouldn't care if it's full-grown tax-paying
card-carrying Citizen of the World, if it's inside my body and I want
it out, then it's coming out.
|
| 20.4740 | Are you serious?? | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jul 18 1996 14:25 | 18 |
| .4736
If your statement is, indeed, the position held by pro-abortion
activits then they and the whole issue is totally without merit.
To claim that an activity willfully entered into, in most cases, with
known consequences, in most cases, can be said that it is without
permission is absurd.
The end result of sexual intercourse, regardless of precautions, can
always be pregnancy. For anyone to say that they expect the rules of
nature not to apply because they don't want to become pregnant is
ridiculous.
If indeed, that is a position held then my objection is even greater
than before because these people are either liars, hypocrites or take
everyone else for fools.
|
| 20.4741 | Can't have it both ways. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jul 18 1996 14:28 | 7 |
| .4739
See previous reply. Other than rape or incest, you voluntarily put the
person there. It is a bit disingenuous to say that even though you did
it willingly, well you shouldn't have to have responsibility for your
decision.
|
| 20.4742 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jul 18 1996 15:44 | 12 |
| Z I agree with edp -- I wouldn't care if it's full-grown tax-paying
Z card-carrying Citizen of the World, if it's inside my body and I
Z want it out, then it's coming out.
I hereby decree that anybody caught in the act of 1st degree murder
lose their personhood and will be subject to the wrath of our new
justice system. Electric Chair or Gas Chamber to be determined by the
victims family of said crime.
All guilty have lost their personhood. I have decreed it.
-Jack
|
| 20.4743 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jul 18 1996 15:45 | 5 |
| By the way, I am basing my decree of executing criminals much on the
same weak premise our fellow noters are basing their subjective
relativism on.
-Jack
|
| 20.4744 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Thu Jul 18 1996 15:49 | 1 |
| how does one lose one's personhood?
|
| 20.4745 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Spanky | Thu Jul 18 1996 15:54 | 3 |
| KILL ALL ABORTION DOCTORS!
AN EYE FOR AN EYE!
|
| 20.4746 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Thu Jul 18 1996 15:55 | 1 |
| LET DAMNATION RAIN DOWN UPON THEM!!
|
| 20.4747 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jul 18 1996 15:56 | 8 |
| I, on the other hand, support the Seamless Garment:
No abortion except in legitimate self-defense.
No capital punishment unless otherwise impossible to prevent that
individual from committing further murders (legitimate self-defense).
No war except in legitimate self-defense.
/john
|
| 20.4748 | don't be so defensive | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Thu Jul 18 1996 15:59 | 0 |
| 20.4749 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jul 18 1996 16:12 | 3 |
| >I, on the other hand, support the Seamless Garment:
{contemplating image of John Covert in a bodystocking}
|
| 20.4750 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jul 18 1996 16:22 | 8 |
| ZZ how does one lose one's personhood?
Actually quite simple. Hitler declared Jews, Gypsies and Gays as non
persons and were therefore subject to whatever they got. Many a
military leader would declare war on a segment of their society by a
simple edict...declare them as non citizens or non persons.
-Jack
|
| 20.4751 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Thu Jul 18 1996 16:43 | 14 |
| <<< Note 20.4749 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>>I, on the other hand, support the Seamless Garment:
>{contemplating image of John Covert in a bodystocking}
Oh, I wish you wouldn't.
Oh, darn, now I went and contemplated it.
More effective than ipecac, I must say.
You know, John, you're the first one I've ever seen who really was
pro-life. I can respect that.
|
| 20.4752 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Thu Jul 18 1996 17:18 | 5 |
|
>>{contemplating image of John Covert in a bodystocking}
Seen it.
|
| 20.4753 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Thu Jul 18 1996 17:25 | 1 |
| My deepest condolences.
|
| 20.4754 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Thu Jul 18 1996 17:27 | 4 |
| jack, i'm beginning to think you're a hitler fan.
him being so prolific and all. so, you would
support 'non-personhood' and target certain
groups like hitler did? color me disappointed.
|
| 20.4755 | This will prove interesting. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jul 18 1996 17:44 | 13 |
| Well, this could start to get interesting. South Carolina has just
passed a bill holding women responsible for health problems of a child
if they used drugs, etc while pregnant. this bill gives specific
rights to the fetus . Namely being able to grow in a safe environment.
Failure to do so will be considered child abuse.
The pro-abortion crowd is already up in arms because if it stands it
will give a legal standing to the fetus which will just about put an
end to the convenient fiction used by the "it ain't alive till I say it
is" crowd.
I really want to hear the rguments on this.
|
| 20.4756 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jul 18 1996 17:52 | 17 |
| Z jack, i'm beginning to think you're a hitler fan.
Z him being so prolific and all. so, you would
Z support 'non-personhood' and target certain
Z groups like hitler did? color me disappointed.
Be not disappointed oh great one. I was using the same boring
misconscrewed logic that Mr. Goodwin uses to support my Capitol
punishment stance. In other words Bonnie, abortions tolerance is
simply dictated by the relativism portrayed in our own society.
As far as Hitler goes, I use him frequently in illustrations because
Hitler was certainly the most influencial man of the 20th century.
It certainly doesn't mean I am a fan of his...aside from the atrocities
he engineered, he was an occultist and in my opinion, a paranoid
schitzophrenic. Certainly not an individual to emulate.
-Jack
|
| 20.4757 | Appalling | ASDG::GASSAWAY | Insert clever personal name here | Thu Jul 18 1996 18:02 | 25 |
| Woman on lithium, or some other drug being used to treat a medical
condition accidentaly gets pregnant, keeps using drug, baby comes out
deformed, throw her in jail. Or she stops taking drug, has medical
problems from not taking the drug, baby is harmed from mothers
condition throw her in jail.
Woman has a glass of champagne at wedding while pregnant, baby comes
out deformed, throw her in jail because there are hundreds of witnesses
who have seen her drink the alcohol.
Not to mention that any woman who has deformed baby probably did
something bad, let's throw her in jail, completely ignoring the fact
just being in jail while pregnant is probably bad for the fetus.
Ignoring of course, the fact that certain drugs cause problems with the
sperm so it's actually the male's drug use that caused the problem.
And ignoring the fact of course that if you're going to start passing
retarded legislation like this that assumes the fetus has full legal
rights then you'd have to jail every single woman who had a miscarriage
for murder since she obviously killed that life inside her.
And you wonder why violent criminals go free.
Lisa
|
| 20.4758 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Thu Jul 18 1996 18:10 | 8 |
| I guess it's just America's "War on Children" taking one step backward,
closer to the source.
I'm not going to take this seriously until there are similar laws, as .4757
suggests, for responsible sperm production.
Oh, heck, let's just put everyone's reproductive systems under the auspices
of the gov't.
|
| 20.4759 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Carboy Junkie | Thu Jul 18 1996 18:11 | 1 |
| The Department Of The Interior?
|
| 20.4760 | absolutely ludicrous | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 18 1996 18:14 | 15 |
| I'll predict that the SC bill will not stand. It will be challenged upon
the first instance of any attempt to enforce it, and the supremes will
knock it down without a moment's hesitation. Lisa's points are but the
tip of the iceberg as to why it's totally ridiculous.
My youngest daughter has epilepsy for which she needs to take some pretty
strong brain meds to eliminate the possibility of seizure. This stuff is
present in high levels in her blood stream at all times and is known to
cross the placental barrier and cause major life threatening problems
to born children, in the rare instances when the fetus can survive it.
All of a sudden she'd get to be a criminal if she chose not to abort,
should she be unfortunate enough to become preggers? The SC legislature
doesn't think all that clearly, does it?
|
| 20.4761 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Thu Jul 18 1996 18:15 | 7 |
| .4755
> this bill gives specific
> rights to the fetus...
...or maybe it recognizes the trememdous burden such women are placing
on society in general to care for their damaged children.
|
| 20.4762 | contrary prediction | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jul 18 1996 18:18 | 13 |
|
Actually, I expect the trend to be in the other direction,
to increasing numbers of liability and criminal cases against
"reckless" or "negligent" parents. The general principle seems
to have been accepted in our society that if you yourself got
hurt, yet did nothing wrong, then somebody else is to blame,
and should be thrown in jail, have their property seized, and
split between you and your lawyer. Generally, the SCOTUS has
left torts to the states, and it differs amongst them. The court
would only hear the case if it violated a right of privacy, but
the bill seems unrelated to abortion. I think it will stand.
bb
|
| 20.4763 | That's one hysterical response. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jul 18 1996 19:09 | 21 |
| .4757
About the only thing missing here is the claim that the sky is falling.
If this legislation does not allow for the circumstances you
identified, then it rightly should be rejected and found illegal. I
would tend to think, however, that these exceptions are properly
addressed, or would be.
I can see no reason for not holding an expectant mother responsible for
the care of the life she carries. If this person has such disregard
for herself and the life carries to be a HIBITUAL crack, heroin, etc
user, then she should be responsible for child abuse charges.
In the cases where the problem arises from the use of a prescribed,
life-supporting drug, I would find it hard to accept any bill opposing
this.
YOu are trying to create a situational equivalency between a kid who
sneaks a beer from his parents with a parent who provides crack to his
kid. There is a difference, unless you see no difference between them.
|
| 20.4764 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 18 1996 19:15 | 8 |
|
> In the cases where the problem arises from the use of a prescribed,
> life-supporting drug, I would find it hard to accept any bill opposing
> this.
But, what does the bill actually _say_? And, is it clear with respect to
how they intend to differentiate the causes of infant problems?
|
| 20.4765 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Thu Jul 18 1996 19:38 | 10 |
| I can see this bill leading to more, not fewer, abortions among teens,
alcoholics, people on theraputic drugs, and fewer women seeking
prenatal care, and having babies alone to toss in the nearest trash
dumpster if they are deformed.
given that tobacco use is associated with a high rate of miscarriage,
low birthweights, potential retardation, and other thingies with
infants, one wonders how they are going to rate tobacco expenses.
meg
|
| 20.4766 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Thu Jul 18 1996 19:46 | 18 |
| It's kind of great that every time there are calls for a return to
"basic values" (religious or otherwise), it seems like the women pay
first.
So, women shouldn't have abortions, because that's bad. Women
shouldn't give birth to children who may be harmed by substances that
she (or the father) may have ingested, legally or otherwise. And oh
yeah, by the way, birth control is bad, too.
I s'pose the ultimate solution to this would be to outlaw women having
sex with men altogether. That way, no need for birth control, no need
for abortion, no damaged fetuses. Everyone is, at least in principle,
happy. Incredibly frustrated, but all political agendas have been met.
Somehow, I don't see this happening.
Hey, life happens, and it ain't all the woman's doing, nor is it 100%
her responsibility.
|
| 20.4767 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Jul 18 1996 20:02 | 30 |
| Re .4740:
> To claim that an activity willfully entered into, in most cases, with
> known consequences, in most cases, can be said that it is without
> permission is absurd.
Consenting to sex does not imply consenting to carry a baby.
Furthermore, sex does not in MOST cases result in pregnancy. It
usually takes a number of attempts.
Suppose a person knows that by going to the Pheasant Lane Mall, there
is a definite probability that their car will be stolen. They
willfully enter into the activity of shopping, with the known
consequence that their car may be stolen.
Does that mean it is with permission if their car is stolen?
Certainly not. It is absurd to say so. The car's owner would be fully
within their rights to use force against the car thief.
Neither can it be said that a person consents to carrying a baby when
they do not.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.4768 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Jul 18 1996 20:03 | 13 |
| Re .4747:
> No abortion except in legitimate self-defense.
Since every unwanted pregnancy is an assault upon the mother's body,
every abortion is legitimate self-defense.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.4769 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Jul 18 1996 20:12 | 5 |
| > <<< Note 20.4768 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>
How can anyone with a brain that operates as amazingly well as
yours does actually consider an unwanted pregnancy an "assault"?
Good grief.
|
| 20.4770 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jul 18 1996 20:22 | 1 |
| ban assault willies.
|
| 20.4771 | Wrong analogy. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jul 18 1996 20:22 | 18 |
| .4767
Your example of a stolen car is missing a few points. The similarity
would be that you go to the mall and give the keys to aguy who tells
you he will take your car given the chance. You then proceed to laugh
and go, oh, you're just kidding me. Give him the keys and walk away.
Don't be surprised if your car is gone, and you don't get much support
in trying to prove that it was stolen. Quite the contrarty, it would
be hard for to prove that you didn't consent to having the car taken.
You knew what would happen and chose to ignore it or take your chances.
You were wrong and took a reckless chance. It's one thing to do it
with an inanimate object, quite different with a human life. Or do you
equate a car and a baby as the same thing.
South Carolina doesn't.
|
| 20.4772 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Thu Jul 18 1996 20:25 | 9 |
| What does South Caralin have listed as drugs? Is Tobacco on the list?
It is carcinogenic, mutenogenic, and is known to cause health problems
for infants born to mothers who indulge in same.
South Carolina is merely trying to push women away from prenatal care,
into abortions, and encouraging the abandonment of infants born to
mothers who do use substances. hardly a pro-life bill.
meg
|
| 20.4773 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Thu Jul 18 1996 20:27 | 1 |
| how about my mother, the car?
|
| 20.4774 | Not very accurate. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jul 18 1996 20:59 | 16 |
|
.4772
More hysteria without much basis in fact. I don't know if tobacco is
listed as one of the drugs or not, but I do know that it is hardly the
same as ahabitual crack or heroin user. My mother was a heavy
cigarette smoker for years and was probably close to a 2-pack-a-day
smoker when she had all of her children. Not one was born with any
mental or physical deformities. None was born with any addictions that
required immediate treatment.
But let me play your game for a minute. Assume they only disallow the
daily use of heroin in their legislation because of it's disasterous
affects. Would this be restrictive enough for you and allow the pot
head and coke sniffer enough freedom to continue their activities.
|
| 20.4775 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Carboy Junkie | Thu Jul 18 1996 21:04 | 1 |
| So, you were adopted then?
|
| 20.4776 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Thu Jul 18 1996 21:15 | 16 |
| >It is a bit disingenuous to say that even though you did it
>it willingly, well you shouldn't have to have responsibility
>for your decision.
I decided to put it there, or risk putting it there, and I decide to
un-put it. My decision and responsibility in any case, and not yours.
You are most welcome not to like my decision -- my cnoice. But any
attempt on your part to interfere with my free exercise of choice in
this or any other matter within the confines of my own body will be
considered an invasion, an attack just as much as if you fired a bullet
into my body, and I will defend my body against your attack just as I
would defend it against any other attack.
Of course since I'm male I won't be getting pregnant personally, I
hope... :-)
|
| 20.4777 | OK - So I'm a heartless bastard. I kinda like it that way. | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jul 18 1996 23:38 | 17 |
| > But let me play your game for a minute. Assume they only disallow the
> daily use of heroin in their legislation because of it's disasterous
> affects. Would this be restrictive enough for you and allow the pot
> head and coke sniffer enough freedom to continue their activities.
The law should simply prevent them from receiving any public assistance
or medical attention for their deformed offspring if they choose to do
stupid things which affect both their own body and that of the kid. We
already have stupid laws which attempt to prevent people from doing stupid
things, like taking drugs. The laws don't work. If people choose to be stupid
anyway, we don't need additional laws to try to make criminals out of them.
What we need is to give them a clear message that they can wallow in their
stupidity at their own expense. I don't care about them, or their deformed
bastards. If they have the good sense to at least prevent the births of
the children before they become a burden, I'll sense a glimmer of hope.
|
| 20.4778 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | I'd rather be gardening | Fri Jul 19 1996 01:36 | 39 |
| Tobacco is known to be harmful to fetuses. It doubles the risk of
miscarriage, low birth weights babies, premature delivery (want to get
into expensive?), future respiratory problems, unkown, but possible
link to leukemia in children exposed inuteros, increase the possibility
of SIDS, and you don't find this critical?
Heroin babies suffer withdrawal symptoms, as do babies from Cocaine and
alcohol. Children who have parents who smoked show a higher addiction
rate to tobacco in their teen years. Given recent studies that show
that dopamine receptors and levels are affected by nicotine, these
babies are also born addicted and probably suffer withdrawals. Most
"crack bebbies" have been found to also be suffering from Alcohol Fetal
Syndrome, rather than cocaine damage.
How serious do you want to be? jail every pregnant mother? Put every
pregnant woman under house arrest and make her submit to breatholizer
(alcohol is a known mutegen) and piss tests on a "random" basis? do
monthly pregnancy tests on every woman from menarche to menopause, and
jail every woman who tests postive for pregnancy and fails to show up
for prenatal exams? What do you do with those who miscarry? There are
multiple reasons, along with "blighted embryo's" blighted sperm, lutal
phase syndrome, immune disorders where a woman's own body rejects an
embryo as foreign, RH factors..... and a host of thingies that science
can't understand that cause embryos to be shed in one out of every 3 to
10 conceptions.
Or as SC has done in the past, only test poor women, largely minority
who go to state-funded pre-natal clinics? Are you going to ignore
those who can afford private Dr's, as they have in the past? Heroin
has become a "yuppie" drug. cocaine always has been, and lets not even
get into alcohol (a known mutagen) and tobacco (see first paragraph)
It has been proven that women given counseling, nutrition information
and, if needed, drug treatment have healthy babies. The studies also
have shown that women coerced into programs, jailed, etc. have less
healthy babies, socially, physically and emotionally. You can make the
call.
|
| 20.4779 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 12:33 | 9 |
|
.4778
I believe there is recent (and strong) evidence implicating
nicotine in neural tube damage. Something to do with it's interaction
with acetylcholine and folic acid, which is vital for neural
development.
|
| 20.4780 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Fri Jul 19 1996 12:34 | 1 |
| <---geeeeeeee....you got all serious on us....
|
| 20.4781 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Fri Jul 19 1996 12:41 | 22 |
| > loss of personhood, etc...
Get tough with me, willya? Yikes! :-)
Declaring "war" on people who refuse to bow to your religious
beliefs has been the cause of many of the world's wars and
much other misery inflicted by people on each other.
Whether you shoot abortion doctors, bomb airplanes or U.S.
military barracks, engage in ethnic cleansing, "declare"
someone a non-person, or in any other way try to impose your
religious or moral convictions on other people by force, it
is called terrorism.
You are a terrorist if you do those things, and the world has
every right and responsibility to defend itself against you.
And by the way, God really doesn't approve of those types of
actions, you know. Anyone who has told you otherwise has lied
to you... :-)
|
| 20.4782 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 12:43 | 2 |
| .4780 Shaddup, or I'll post the precise chemical interactions.
|
| 20.4783 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Fri Jul 19 1996 12:44 | 36 |
| Re .4771:
> The similarity would be that you go to the mall and give the keys to
> aguy who tells you he will take your car given the chance.
No, it is not. People do not generally discuss car theft with thieves
any more than they discuss pregnancy with sperm or eggs. The
situations are analogous because in both situations, the person knows
there is a hazard as an unwanted effect of their activity but engages
in it anyway.
But EVEN IF we accept your analogy, so what? Even if a thief tells you
they will steal your car, that does not give thief any right to do it.
Even if you ignore the threat, that does not give the thief any right
to steal, nor does it reduce your right to recover the car.
If the school bully tells a little kid that the bully will beat up the
kid on the way to school the next morning, yet the kid walks to school
anyway, that does not constitute consent to be beaten up, nor does it
diminish the kid's right to defend themself.
> Or do you equate a car and a baby as the same thing.
What does the car have to do with the baby? In the analogy, the baby
plays a role similar to the thief: Infringing on the rights of
another. The car plays a role similar to the mother's body: The thing
owned by the person. The mother's right to her own body is certainly
even greater than her right to her car, so her right to defend it is
stronger.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.4784 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Fri Jul 19 1996 12:46 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.4782 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>
| .4780 Shaddup, or I'll post the precise chemical interactions.
I'll call your bluff!
|
| 20.4785 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Jul 19 1996 13:01 | 1 |
| Glen, don't you have to raise him first...
|
| 20.4786 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 13:03 | 1 |
| Don't even think about it, Silva.
|
| 20.4787 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Fri Jul 19 1996 13:13 | 3 |
| too late Colin... I already had the thought!
thanks, Chip. You gave my day a lift!
|
| 20.4788 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 14:16 | 21 |
| Z Declaring "war" on people who refuse to bow to your religious
Z beliefs has been the cause of many of the world's wars and
Z much other misery inflicted by people on each other.
First of all, I never brought religion into this discussion. You did.
I'm speaking of human rights issues and my point was to use the same
subjective nonsense for capitol punishment that you use for abortion.
I picked Capitol punishment because I know this is a sore spot with
you.
Abortion is juistified because the unborn child is a non person...this
is all well and good. So all we have to do, by your standard, is
declare all 1st degree murderers non persons and I suspect we could
complete the job in a day.
Oh and by the way, your statement about....blah blah blah my
body...just like firing a bullet at me blab blab...you sound like a
Gloria Steinburgham groupie...a 1970's fruitcake! It's entertaining
though...thanks much!
-Jack
|
| 20.4789 | Reality contradicts your information. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Jul 19 1996 14:37 | 25 |
| .4778
Are the harmful affects of tobacco and the "research" related thereto
similar to the "research" that claimed eggs were terrible and led to
high cholesterol and had to be severly restricted. At one time they
were lobbying to get eggs off of the market. The same goes for the
"research" on coffee. Caffein was a health hazard with known risks,
etc, etc. Of course now they have forund just the opposite to be true
in most of these "research" cases, or at least, the original "research"
ws grossly overstated.
I prefer to deal with verifiable experience. I can attest to the fact
that the "known harmful effects" you cite against tobacco do not hold
up in reality. I can use my family as direct sample. My family and my
cousins, included since the fathers were related, account for 8 people.
the youngest being 49 the oldest almost 70. Not one person experienced
any of theeffects you claim. Neither mother had a miscarriage. None
of the children were premature, nor had a low birth weight. as a
matter of fact, all of my children had very low birth weights and my
wife doesn't and never smoked. My last two were also two months
premature. Based on your "research" statistics it would seem
non-smokers have a greater risk for your negative effects. Or, what is
probably true, is that factors other than the polical correctness plays
a major role.
|
| 20.4790 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 14:40 | 1 |
| Yep. No evidence of brain damage there.
|
| 20.4791 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 14:47 | 1 |
| Ah. Anecdotal evidence. The best kind for ranting arguments.
|
| 20.4792 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Fri Jul 19 1996 15:29 | 8 |
| >Abortion is juistified because the unborn child is a non person
You keep saying this, even though at least a couple of us keep
trying to tell you that we are not trying to justify abortion
on this basis. In fact I do not feel any need to justify the
right of individual free choice at all. So any further arguments
you base on the above statement are meaningless.
|
| 20.4793 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Fri Jul 19 1996 15:33 | 1 |
| this does not compute. this does not compute.
|
| 20.4794 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 15:40 | 3 |
| Okay...then the fetus is a person who is dependent on the
incubator...much like a senior citizen in a rest home on a kidney
machine.
|
| 20.4795 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jul 19 1996 15:45 | 7 |
| > much like a senior citizen in a rest home on a kidney machine.
Not very much like, actually.
Presumably someone intentionally placed the sr. citizen there with
an expectation of care.
|
| 20.4796 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Jul 19 1996 15:56 | 8 |
| .4792
Oh, so as far as you are concerned the fetus is a living human being,
it's just that it has no rights. You believe that a person can become
pregnant, for any reason, and then decide to just kill the baby.
Wow!
|
| 20.4797 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jul 19 1996 16:21 | 11 |
| >Okay...then the fetus is a person who is dependent on the
>incubator...much like a senior citizen in a rest home on a kidney
>machine.
Non-sequitur, a fetus has never produced one value, not even for
itself. A senior citizen has spend a lifetime of production and still
is, even on a kidney machine, as he/she provides payment to the
rest home for services, providing a business with means to stay in
business and provide employment and income for it's employees. No
reasonable comparison can ever be drawn between a fetus and a senior
citizen, infirm or not.
|
| 20.4798 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Fri Jul 19 1996 16:22 | 1 |
| finally
|
| 20.4799 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Fri Jul 19 1996 16:47 | 19 |
| Damn, no matter how quick I am, one still gets in ahead...
One more time:
>Oh, so as far as you are concerned the fetus is a living human being,
>it's just that it has no rights. You believe that a person can become
>pregnant, for any reason, and then decide to just kill the baby.
>Wow!
Finally...
Did you know that people actually used to kill born babies with severe
defects, just like most of the animal kingdom still does?
Something to do with survival of the fittest, I believe.
I can't help but wonder what the long term effects on the human species
will be from our continued meddling with and suppression of our natural
instincts.
|
| 20.4800 | It's already too late | BULEAN::BANKS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 16:58 | 1 |
| Unfortunately, our natural instincts also include killing each other.
|
| 20.4801 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Fri Jul 19 1996 17:04 | 2 |
| All animals seem to be that way (killing each other), especially so
when they become overcrowded.
|
| 20.4802 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jul 19 1996 17:19 | 9 |
| >Unfortunately, our natural instincts also include killing each other.
Total and complete nonsense. Man's natural instinct is to protect
him/herself from aggression, provide shelter and food. Wars and killing
result from immoral people, who expect others to sacrifice their lives to
the aggressor. This is based on the same platoistic philosophy from
which religions and forced backed governments are derived.
Is it natural for you to kill somebody??
|
| 20.4803 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 17:20 | 19 |
| Just as an FYI, you are foisting a religious belief upon the masses.
Z Non-sequitur, a fetus has never produced one value, not even for
Z itself. A senior citizen has spend a lifetime of production and still
Z is, even on a kidney machine, as he/she provides payment to the
Z rest home for services,
Gosh, next time I see you in the presence of mentally retarded children
and children with downs syndrome to pull out my hypocrisy meter.
Although my assumption is you will be brutally honest and tell us you
don't visit such people or places...the quality of forthrightness I
admire in you.
You have displayed above the perfect emulation of Margaret Sanger, the
founder of Planned Parenthood. She considered non essentials as "human
weeds". Our society believes the same thing except it masks it under
disingenuous compassion.
-Jack
|
| 20.4804 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jul 19 1996 17:25 | 5 |
| re: .4803
Perhaps Jack, though I don't agree in my personal case. If you want to
go down the who is worth what and why rathole, I'll be glad to. Question
though. Is my statement about who produced value incorrect?
|
| 20.4805 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 17:53 | 16 |
| ZZ Is my statement about who produced value incorrect?
Your statement on value is subjective to ones point of view. As far as
being a productive member of society, I would say that a foetus adds
value to that of a 1 month old infant. While it is true a foetus does
not consume pampers and Gerber products, it does cause the mother to
buy the services of prenatal care...which actually puts far more money
into the private sector.
What I am saying here is that the value of one's existence...whether
one should be rubbed out or not should not be determined on monetary
value. If you really look at this objectively, you are ploying the
exact same ethics as a slave owner in the south. A negro was of no
value unless he/she could provide a monetary value to the owner.
-Jack
|
| 20.4806 | So. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Jul 19 1996 18:00 | 4 |
| .4799
and people used to use leeches for headaches and anemia.
|
| 20.4807 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Jul 19 1996 18:01 | 5 |
| .4804
Whather your statment is correct or not is immaterial. It is
irrelavent.
|
| 20.4808 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jul 19 1996 18:01 | 1 |
| Leeches are still used.
|
| 20.4809 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Fri Jul 19 1996 18:03 | 10 |
|
>Leeches are still used.
he's taking a vacation though.
Jim
|
| 20.4810 | more pollyanna | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Jul 19 1996 18:11 | 11 |
|
re, .4802 - Nope. Evidence of genocide in the Neolithic Age
has been dug up, before any writings, or as far as we know,
any such thing as philosophy existed. One good site in southern
Germany included the entire population of a 25,000 year old
Cro-Magnon village, men, women, and children, complete with
the wounds and weapon fragments. Similar sites have been found
in the far East and South America, although in the latter case,
religion may have been involved.
bb
|
| 20.4811 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 18:15 | 13 |
| > Is it natural for you to kill somebody??
No, but I'm not one of those proposing murder, as others have in this
conference.
I was merely quoting the opinions of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, who were
generally of the opinion that it's human nature to do harm to others in
order to serve your own interests, and that the major function of
government is to keep people out of each others' faces.
FWIW, Hobbes and Locke are two of the philosophers who most influenced the
thinking of our founding fathers. Whether or not I happen to agree with
them is one issue, but I do believe that this is what the FFs believed.
|
| 20.4812 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 18:21 | 13 |
| ZZ No, but I'm not one of those proposing murder, as others have in this
ZZ conference.
Just to clarify, are you referring to....
Abortion Capital Punishment
| |
| |
\ / |--->your concern is
unfounded.
Your concern is founded.
-Jack
|
| 20.4813 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 18:24 | 13 |
| > Just to clarify, are you referring to....
>
> Abortion Capital Punishment
> | |
> | |
> \ / |--->your concern is
> unfounded.
> Your concern is founded.
Your opinion as to whether my concern is founded or unfounded to me is
irrelevant. Therefore the question is irrelevant.
I won't go reconjuring pictures of /john in a body stocking.
|
| 20.4814 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jul 19 1996 18:55 | 37 |
| re: .4805
>Your statement on value is subjective to ones point of view. As
>far as being a productive member of society, I would say that a foetus
>adds value to that of a 1 month old infant. While it is true a foetus
>does not consume pampers and Gerber products, it does cause the mother
>to buy the services of prenatal care...which actually puts far more
>money into the private sector.
Don't broad brush me or get off on a different subject Jack. The
context of my reply was that a retired person in a rest home on a
kidney machine is of more value than a fetus. That was all. I also said
that we can discuss specific cases of worth if you like. My question
applies to this and this alone. Do you think that a fetus is worth more
than the man in the rest home or not? I think not.
>What I am saying here is that the value of one's existence...whether
>one should be rubbed out or not should not be determined on monetary
>value.
OK, what should it be based on? Keep in mind that my position is that
living, breathing, conscious man should never be rubbed out, except in
self defense.
>If you really look at this objectively, you are ploying the exact same
>ethics as a slave owner in the south. A negro was of no
>value unless he/she could provide a monetary value to the owner.
Nonsense Jack. You added the word monetary, I only used the word value.
In addition, you throwing me in with slave owners is more non-seguitur
manipulation and certainly doesn't add to your argument. Just the facts
please Jack. If the fetus is of more value to the pregnant person than
the other values that person is considering, then the decision would
be not to abort and visa versa. The word value is only subjective when it
is used in the context of society, the nation, the church, etc. It is
objective only when applied to an idividual's value system.
|
| 20.4815 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jul 19 1996 19:14 | 9 |
| re: .4807
>Whather your statment is correct or not is immaterial. It is irrelavent.
Sorry, but it is not irrelevant, just because you say so. The
determination of value is done on a continuous basis every day, by you
and every conscious human being on this planet. For you to brush it off
as irrelevant is disingenuous at best. What is irrelevant is what you
think about my or any other individuals value system.
|
| 20.4816 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 19:43 | 8 |
| Z Do you think that a fetus is worth more
Z than the man in the rest home or not? I think not.
I concur with you. In other words, if the choice came down to one of
the two living, I would choose the one in existence. However, if I
were the old man in the rest home, I would choose otherwise.
-Jack
|
| 20.4817 | doesn't compute... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Jul 19 1996 19:51 | 9 |
|
Why is this comparison obvious as a valuation ? If I had only
time enough to save a newborn or a retired professor from drowning,
I'd toss the ring around the kid and let Mr old folks burble. The
kid is worth $20k on the open market, retirees are a dime a dozen.
Besides, you're saving the kid's whole life, the senior citizen
has only a few years left, and arthritic ones at that.
bb
|
| 20.4818 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jul 19 1996 19:52 | 31 |
| RE: .4810
> re, .4802 - Nope. Evidence of genocide in the Neolithic Age
> has been dug up, before any writings, or as far as we know,
> any such thing as philosophy existed. One good site in southern
> Germany included the entire population of a 25,000 year old
> Cro-Magnon village, men, women, and children, complete with
> the wounds and weapon fragments. Similar sites have been found
> in the far East and South America, although in the latter case,
> religion may have been involved.
It is total speculation that this falls into the category of being
natural for man to kill each other.
Look at youself, your friends, your neighbors, those in SOAPBOX even.
Do you know one natural born killer among them? The small portion of
murders as a ratio of population shows that killing of each other is not
natural. Wars for example are started by a few elitists who use
non-sequiturs to convince unsuspecting persons of a threat. Would you
suggest that without law and religion all these people, including
yourself would murder each other, because it is only natural? Killing
of conscious, valuable human beings is the opposite of natural. Just
because religions convince people that they are scum so these religions
can come along and save these people, doesn't make it true. It is
another cheating, parasitical trick. They create a problem that doesn't
exist. Then convince people of the "problem" using lies and half
truths. Followed finally by usurping a livelihood from their dupes.
Government and religious leaders are notorious for this method of
making a living. Humans are not murderers. Humans are natural producers
and exchangers of value, unless interfered with by those described
above.
|
| 20.4819 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:00 | 17 |
|
>Why is this comparison obvious as a valuation ?
I didn't say it was obvious, I said it wasn't irrelevant. I then
proceeded to state my argument as to why.
>If I had only time enough to save a newborn or a retired professor from
>drowning, I'd toss the ring around the kid and let Mr old folks burble.
>The kid is worth $20k on the open market, retirees are a dime a dozen.
>Besides, you're saving the kid's whole life, the senior citizen
>has only a few years left, and arthritic ones at that.
I Understand. But please explain to me how this has anything to do with
my comparison of the value of a fetus and a retired person on a kidney
machine. It be nice if you guys would stay in context. You are also
doing the same as Jack, adding monetary value. I think even you will
agree that money isn't the only value produced by others.
|
| 20.4820 | depends what you mean | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:02 | 16 |
|
Well, I guess we aren't using the term "natural" the same way.
The distinction I was making was, "occurs in Nature" = natural,
"only manmade" = unnatural. What you mean by the term I have
no idea. Thus, the question I was answering was, "Does murder
occur in nature ?" In other organisms, murder is observed, so
it obviously does. In man, of course, strictly speaking, NOTHING
can be "natural", since everything man makes is obviously made
by man. So the best you can do is try to observe men as close
to "a state of nature" as you can. Primitive peoples. Bones, etc.
In a state of nature, would Soapbox participants murder each other
over the topics in this file ? Yes, in my opinion, they would.
Perhaps this is where we disagree ?
bb
|
| 20.4821 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:05 | 6 |
| >I concur with you. In other words, if the choice came down to one of
>the two living, I would choose the one in existence. However, if I
>were the old man in the rest home, I would choose otherwise.
Good Jack, thank you. This is objective thinking, based on your value
system.
|
| 20.4822 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:06 | 4 |
| |The kid is worth $20k on the open market...
such sentiment. i'm all choked up.
|
| 20.4823 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:13 | 15 |
| I was substituting intrinsic, essential, fundamental, instinctive for
natural. What is your definition?
>"Does murder occur in nature ?" In other organisms, murder is observed, so
>it obviously does.
I agree. So you are not saying that man would normally kill, if left to
his own devices?
>In a state of nature, would Soapbox participants murder each
>other over the topics in this file ? Yes, in my opinion, they would.
>Perhaps this is where we disagree ?
Yes, we disagree. A I guess this answers my last question.
|
| 20.4824 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:22 | 12 |
| Humans, just all other animals, will do whatever they perceive
is necessary to survive and carry on the species, including
killing members of their own species. If that were not true,
they would not have survived and would not continue to survive.
With all our religion, morals, ethics, and supposed superiority
to other animals, we are no different. In fact, I'll bet we
kill more of our own species than members of other species
do.
Whaddya mean it's not natural -- open yer eyes!
|
| 20.4825 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:27 | 7 |
| .4824
> we are no different.
I think we are radically different from all other species. So far as
is known, we are the only species whose members kill each other because
they think their god or gods want it done.
|
| 20.4826 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:31 | 10 |
| How do we know other species don't have gods?
It ain't like anyone's sat down and had any conversations with them or
anything.
Actually, I've met a few people who claim to have done just this, but they
usually just end up getting wrestled to the ground and given a butt-full of
haldol.
Actually, I hear dolphins can be quite ornery with one another, also.
|
| 20.4827 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:34 | 6 |
| You have a point -- we kill ourselves for sport as well as for our
religious beliefs, in addition to the other usual reasons.
Maybe some other species do that too, though. My dog says they don't,
but you know how dogs can lie. That's where the saying came from: Let
Sleeping Dogs Lie. Nobody ever says: Let Sleeping Dogs Tell the Truth.
|
| 20.4828 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:35 | 4 |
| >It ain't like anyone's sat down and had any conversations with them or
>anything.
Dr. Dolittle.
|
| 20.4829 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:37 | 2 |
| i'd save a sleeping dog before i'd save an
old fart in a nursing home. incubator or not.
|
| 20.4830 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:40 | 7 |
| Poor Bonbon....she will surely reap the very thing she despises.
Maybe we'll end up in the same nursing home Bonbon...you can wonder
into my room unannounced and I will tell me family members what a leach
you are.
"Damn...she even knows what drawer I hide the candy in!"
|
| 20.4831 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:40 | 1 |
| wander....sorry
|
| 20.4832 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:43 | 1 |
| 'tis no secret where you hide your yogurt, jack.
|
| 20.4833 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:46 | 1 |
| cranium?
|
| 20.4834 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:47 | 5 |
|
> cranium?
if there's any culture in there, it's not active.
|
| 20.4835 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:50 | 2 |
| My goodness...I share my yogurt dilema and Bonbon is using it to thwart
my good name!
|
| 20.4836 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:50 | 3 |
|
...thwart?
|
| 20.4837 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:50 | 1 |
| wart???
|
| 20.4838 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:51 | 2 |
| Yeah, it's a seat the goes from gunwale to gunwale on a dinghy. Didn't
Jack get yougurt on his dinghy? It seems to fit.
|
| 20.4839 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:51 | 2 |
| jack, if you're that sloppy now, imagine how
sloppy you'll be when you're an old fart!
|
| 20.4840 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:53 | 2 |
| Jack, judging from your notes here and elsewhere, you need a spelling lesson.
Look up "leech" and "leach" in a dictionary. Even a crap dictionary will do.
|
| 20.4841 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:53 | 1 |
| jack refers to his dinghy as a pee pee, i think.
|
| 20.4842 | does he minipulate it? | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:54 | 0 |
| 20.4843 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:54 | 2 |
| Yeah....I'll walk around the rest home with my plaid pants two inches
too high and yogurt stains on the front! Very charming indeed.
|
| 20.4844 | Leech! | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:55 | 1 |
| Sorry but I wanted to be sensitive to Steve!
|
| 20.4845 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jul 19 1996 20:56 | 1 |
| On the bright side, you won't have to wait for senility to set in.
|
| 20.4846 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jul 19 1996 21:03 | 7 |
| re: .4827
>You have a point -- we kill ourselves for sport as well as for our
>religious beliefs, in addition to the other usual reasons.
I must assume that "we" includes you, so I'm glad I don't have to
personally stand next to you. Or does "we" mean everyone but you?
|
| 20.4847 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Jul 22 1996 12:51 | 5 |
| Re .4826:
> How do we know other species don't have gods?
If triangles had a god, he'd have three sides.
|
| 20.4848 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Mon Jul 22 1996 13:37 | 11 |
| >I must assume that "we" includes you, so I'm glad I don't have to
>personally stand next to you. Or does "we" mean everyone but you?
Question: How else would you stand next to me, other than personally?
For a complete and formal definition of "we", I would recommend any
good dictionary.
And finally, don't worry, I don't consider shooting the person standing
next to me to be very sporting. Hardly any challenge at all, do you
think? :-)
|
| 20.4849 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Mon Jul 22 1996 13:46 | 8 |
| RE: 20.4848 by RUSURE::GOODWIN
Nice cop-out. So WE does include you. Therefore not being in your
presence would be the best decision for most everyone's safety. I can
assure you that you can always be in the presence of myself and
everyone with whom I associate and not have to fear that you will be
killed, simply because it is "natural" to do so. You and your
associates appear to be quite different.
|
| 20.4850 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | we upped our standards now up yours | Mon Jul 22 1996 13:57 | 1 |
| I'm greatly comforted.
|
| 20.4851 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Mon Jul 22 1996 16:02 | 6 |
| >I'm greatly comforted.
I see you decided to get out of the discussion. Perhaps you would be
willing to at least answer one question. Is it natural for you personally
to kill?
|
| 20.4852 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Jul 22 1996 16:04 | 6 |
|
it's natural for anyone to kill....some of us just suppress the
urge.
|
| 20.4853 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Mon Jul 22 1996 16:07 | 4 |
| >it's natural for anyone to kill....some of us just suppress the urge.
Only some of us? It is interesting that something so natural is
suppressed by such a high percentage of people.
|
| 20.4854 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Jul 22 1996 16:10 | 6 |
|
Well, it was a general statement and I took it as such. It's pretty
natural to kill for food, in self defense, etc. Most of us just don't
need to do it all that often.
|
| 20.4855 | so what ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:06 | 13 |
|
It isn't natural (obviously) to wear clothes. Most Soapboxers do.
The reason is that we are civilized. We have suppressed most of
our animal instincts. We use computers - is that "natural" ?
No, the natural thing would be to gather nuts and berries,
scavenge for carcasses, etc.
Modern human behavior is divorced from natural. I highly
recommend spending some time actually watching natural ecosystems,
with an open mind, if you wish to get the idea.
bb
|
| 20.4856 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:12 | 15 |
| .4855
> We use computers - is that "natural" ?
> No, the natural thing would be to gather nuts and berries,
> scavenge for carcasses, etc.
You, sir, are full of cow doots.
What is natural for any creature to do is to utilize whatever skills,
abilities, etc., are at that creature's disposal to accomplish things
that the creature wishes to accomplish, e.g., to eat (cooking with a
microwave oven) or to communicate (noting on a computer).
There is absolutely NOTHING that we as humans do that is not natural
for humans to do.
|
| 20.4857 | Natural Born Killers | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:13 | 6 |
| It seems to me that arguing about what humans do in a mythical "state
of nature" is pointless. Humans have culture. They do what they do in
various social and cultural contexts. Killing is "natural", as is not
killing.
-Stephen
|
| 20.4858 | matter of definition | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:16 | 10 |
|
I don't agree. You teach your dog to walk on its hind legs.
The animal does it, but you won't see any dog species do that
in nature, because it is unnatural.
That is, if ANYTHING is to be called "unnatural", it is whatever
does not occur in nature. It is a matter of some dispute what
man does "in nature", but MacOS or Unix is surely unnatural.
bb
|
| 20.4859 | A red herring of an argument. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:19 | 13 |
| This whole discussion around whether it is natural to kill, etc is
really quite a diversion. It seems to have started with the concept
that a fetus is of no or limited value and can therefore be dispensed
with whenever it becomes inconvenient.
That seems to be the whole argument. If a fetus is a "thing" that can
be dealt with any way you want, then there is a whole 'nother argument
and debate to be held. Personally, the fetus is "thing" argument si
totally without merit and a popular fiction created in order to
eliminate an honest debate about selectively removing members of
society because they inconvenience some other segment of society.
|
| 20.4860 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:21 | 9 |
|
And what about those of us who don't like abortion, know it's the
killing of a living human being, yet don't feel we have the right to
stick our morals into other peoples lives?
Where do we fit in?
jim
|
| 20.4861 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:24 | 8 |
| >
> Where do we fit in?
>
Right there with people who did nothing about slavery or the holocaust.
You're in some pretty large company.
|
| 20.4862 | with all the rest of us... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:26 | 12 |
|
Where do pro-lifers "fit in" ? In an actual democracy, you
would fit in as all minority views fit in. You would have to
try to coax a majority around to your viewpoint, in the meantime
living within whatever arbitrary laws the majority imposed, but
with your right to speak against the laws intact.
Since the SCOTUS has abrogated the powers of the people to itself,
without any Constitutional basis, you are in the same boat as the
rest of us : subject to the tyranny of geriatric decree.
bb
|
| 20.4863 | make that regarding -2 | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:26 | 10 |
|
re -1
ah. thanks. Abortion now ranks up there with the holocaust. ok.
incredible.
jim
|
| 20.4864 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:27 | 15 |
| .4858
> You teach your dog...
That is imposition on the dog of a human thing. That is not natural
for the dog, but it is natural for the human.
> does not occur in nature.
Computers occur in nature. They are designed and built by humans,
using the NATURAL intellectual and mechanical capacity given them by
their creator. (The identity of that creator, whether "evolution" or
"God" or other, is not at issue.) It is ABSOLUTELY natural for humans
to create ways to make their lives easier, more productive, or more
pleasurable.
|
| 20.4865 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:27 | 15 |
| The reason you wan't see a dog walk on its hind legs is because the
circumstances that might cause the behaviour to arise are rare or
nonexistant.
Any organism has a repertoire of behaviours based on reactions to
stimuli from their environment. It would be very easy to string a
carcass on a line between two trees and pull it along, eliciting
a hind-leg walk from a dingo, wolf, or jackal. Do it often enough and
the behaviour becomes part of its normal repertoire.
Providing the organism has the ability to detect and respond suitably
to environmental stimuli, then the "naturalness" of its response is
only really limited by its physical capabilities. Natural selection
assumes randomness in both the environment, and in the ability of
an organism to respond. Anything goes.
|
| 20.4866 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:28 | 5 |
| .4862
arrogated.
\hth
|
| 20.4867 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:28 | 3 |
| Which winds us back to the tenuousness of the definition of "nature."
None of this seems related to the note topic.
|
| 20.4868 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:33 | 7 |
| .4867
> None of this seems related to the note topic.
Au contraire, it is very much related to the pro-lifers' argument of
whether abortion is a natural act (hence, evyl) or unnatural (hence,
even more evyl).
|
| 20.4869 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:36 | 7 |
|
...and ya better stand up and scream how evyl it is from all the
rooftops or else yer no better than some sniveling coward hiding in a
corner.
|
| 20.4870 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Jul 22 1996 17:53 | 5 |
| .4863
I don't think so Jim. The Church was a bit slow off the mark
in condemning the holocaust.
|
| 20.4871 | History records occasional freaks of nature | DECWIN::RALTO | Jail to the Chief | Mon Jul 22 1996 18:15 | 7 |
| > It is ABSOLUTELY natural for humans
> to create ways to make their lives easier, more productive, or more
> pleasurable.
And in spite of that, Mankind created Windows 95.
Chris
|
| 20.4872 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Mon Jul 22 1996 18:27 | 5 |
| > And in spite of that, Mankind created Windows 95.
Wrong. Bill Gates and his forces of darkness created Windows-95. It has
yet to be proven that they are at all genetically (or morally) related to
homo sapiens.
|
| 20.4873 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Harry C. O. Jones, at yer service... | Mon Jul 22 1996 18:53 | 13 |
| >Is it natural for you personally to kill?
Oh, you're serious? OK...
Yes. It's natural for me personally to follow any instinct inherent
in the human species, under circumstances that trigger an urge to act
on that instinct that is strong enough to overcome any urge to suppress
action on the instinct, subject of course to individual variations in
heredity and environment that would affect such things.
That's an absurdly general answer to an absurdly general question, but
it reflects my understanding and beliefs about what motivates human
beings and other living creatures.
|
| 20.4874 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Jul 22 1996 19:33 | 26 |
|
>It isn't natural (obviously) to wear clothes.
>The reason [we do] is that we are civilized.
Bull hockey. We originally wore clothes to keep warm and
most likely for other logical reasons having nothing to do
with the uptight moral supremicists' notions of civilization.
Those idiots only imposed their ideas on their fellow humankind
because they discovered that whoever controls the pleasures in
life controls their trusting fellow humans.
>We have suppressed most of our animal instincts.
You would be real surprised what goes on out there in the big
wide world.
>We use computers - is that "natural" ?
Of course it is -- more advanced species have been using tools
for millions of years. What's unnatural about that?
>No, the natural thing would be to gather nuts and berries,
>scavenge for carcasses, etc.
Drop you in the middle of the wilderness and watch what you do...
|
| 20.4875 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Mon Jul 22 1996 19:43 | 5 |
| So then I may have been discussing a different subject. I believe that
the human species kills naturally for food and in self defense. I think
that some here were referring to humans being murderous, that is
killing another human being out side the two reasons given. This I think
is nonsense.
|
| 20.4876 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Jul 22 1996 19:49 | 5 |
| >human species kills naturally for food and in self defense
Well we'd better let all them murderers right on back out of jail then,
because the poor darlings were just hungry or trying to defend their
lives.
|
| 20.4877 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Jul 22 1996 19:52 | 6 |
|
Killing because you're po'd is also natural, just not acceptable in
society.
|
| 20.4878 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Mon Jul 22 1996 20:10 | 15 |
| RE: .4876
Full circle? No one said that there aren't any murderers. What was said
was people aren't naturally murderous. I saw a flasher in NYC once.
Does this mean that people are naturally exhibitionists. I heard of a
man who jumped off the top of a building. This must mean that humans
are naturally suicidal. There is rape, so humans are naturally rapists.
There is robbery, so humans are naturally theives. People must also be
natural liars. People fall down, we must be naturally clumsy. People
have mental disorders, we must all be naturally insane. It is surprising
we are here at all. We should have fallen out of the evolutionary cycle
eons ago. I wonder what happened?
I guess my question about you being a killer wasn't as foolish as you
made it out to be.
|
| 20.4879 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Jul 22 1996 20:19 | 17 |
| You have stumbled up a basic truth about human beings, without
recognizing what it is. People naturally tend to do whatever they
perceive at the moment to be in their best interests. This is all
natural.
Some people have better abilities than others to determine what is in
their best interests, short term and long term. Also some people are
much better than others at getting what they want out of life, and out
of their fellow humans.
But so what? All your examples are of behavior as natural for the
individuals engaged in that behavior as it is for most of us to avoid
such behavior.
Maybe I'm missing you point. What is your point, anyway? I can't find
one in .4878 or the rest. Sorry...
|
| 20.4880 | best avoid "natural" v. "artificial"... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jul 22 1996 20:20 | 26 |
|
The rathole is more amusing than the topic anyways. This word,
"natural", is loaded with baggage, so much so that I rarely use
it anymore. See the Dick Binder argument (which is not new with
him, any more than mine is new with me), according to which all of
reality is natural, and only the imaginary could thus be unnatural
(or is that supernatural). So, the ingredients of, say, Hostess
Twinkies, are "all natural". One could say the same of a Pontiac.
By the way, the word is unregulated as an advertising claim. It
officially means nothing, according to the feds.
Think about this weak point for the pro-choice position (pro-life
has its own weak points). In the standard choice position, it is
"nothing" to kill the fetus up to some instant, some position,
wherever, but it is "murder" after that point. Yet when an actual
birth is observed, most of us would be unable to tell at what point
the intentional termination of life crosses this transition point.
If after recovery, when the baby was brought to the mother, she
intentionally strangled it, and got arrested for doing so, these
pro-choice people would presumably say her "right of privacy" was
NOT being violated. Now work the point back in time. It is hard
to see where the magic moment is, where the Constitution stops
protecting her action from society's judgement. The distinction
seems too stark, too much a product of artificial argument.
bb
|
| 20.4881 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jul 22 1996 20:28 | 8 |
| I vaguely remember some ancient song (maybe something my mother used to sing)
which had a refrain of "Doing what comes naturally."
Maybe I should look in the folk song server; that's where I found her other
little ditty about "what a strange world it would be, if the men were all
transported far beyond the northern sea."
/john
|
| 20.4882 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Mon Jul 22 1996 20:37 | 5 |
| >Maybe I'm missing you point.
I explained it some replies back. I am using intrinsic, or instinctive
or essential in place of natural.
|
| 20.4883 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Jul 22 1996 21:07 | 33 |
| You're right about any "point" being arbitrary, but it's arbitrary on
both sides equally. As I pointed out earlier there was a time when if
the mother strangled the child after it was born, it was considered
pretty much her business.
Other animals do that routinely, some out of apparent clumsiness, and
some out of some apparent instinct to ensure the survival ONLY of the
fittest. Who knows why a dog steps on and kills her own puppies. But
it's pretty obvious why an animal refuses to feed a deformed or sickly
baby or even drives it away or kills it.
After a human child grew up and started mingling with others outside the
home, other people might also drive it away or kill it if it were
seriously defective, ill, or just different enough.
We have allowed the "moral" among us to convince us to subvert our
natural Darwinian instincts. And we call this civilized. I'm not
saying this is good or bad, just that it is the way things have turned
out so far.
But in our so-called civilized society we still manage to find ways to
drive out from among us those who are different, those who are ill or
defective, and those who just plain frighten us in some atavistic
instincitive way. Thus the necessity of civil rights laws.
But in our zeal to attain the ultimate civilization, we sometimes get a
little overly excited and we pass laws that go too far. Laws
preventing people from making free choices about their own bodies are a
good example. In my personal opinion, the "line" should be some
reasonable time after birth, not before birth. I know I'll probably be
alone on that one, but that's OK. I just want those who know everything
to see that there is still a surprise or two out there for them.
|
| 20.4884 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Mon Jul 22 1996 21:33 | 6 |
| >In my personal opinion, the "line" should be some reasonable time after
>birth, not before birth. I know I'll probably be alone on that one, but
>that's OK. I just want those who know everything to see that there is
>still a surprise or two out there for them.
You are not alone, but maybe it's just the two of us.
|
| 20.4885 | natch ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Jul 23 1996 12:44 | 6 |
|
Meanwhile, isn't it great to know that if when they arrested Jeff
Dahmer, they found your head on his plate with a fork in it, Dick
Binder, as coroner, would rule you died "of natural causes" ?
bb
|
| 20.4886 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Jul 23 1996 12:50 | 1 |
| I don't think Dahmer was "natural". His diet speaks for itself.
|
| 20.4887 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Perpetual Glenn | Tue Jul 23 1996 14:08 | 1 |
| This is what happens when you're fed up with people.
|
| 20.4888 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Jul 23 1996 14:31 | 6 |
| >Meanwhile, isn't it great to know that if when they arrested Jeff
>Dahmer, they found your head on his plate with a fork in it, Dick
>Binder, as coroner, would rule you died "of natural causes" ?
Would he get fries with that?
|
| 20.4889 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jul 23 1996 14:35 | 2 |
|
.4885 ;> priceless, billbob.
|
| 20.4890 | A source of the problem. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Jul 23 1996 15:38 | 21 |
| .4883
So amny people want to talk about a "slippery slope" if we implement
any regulations whatsoever on abortion rights. their logic goes from
the sublime to the ridiculous and tend to end up with absolutely no
morally defensible position.
Your position, I hope, is more for discussion purposes than an actual
intent. Assuming you truly believe that reproductive rights extend
past the time of birth, as your note claims, then what is the timeframe
to exercise that reproductive right? Talk about a "slippery slope".
You may think that it would be appropriate to have the right up to an
hour or a day after birth. Well, what would stop someone else from
taking the position that it should be later. After all if there is a
good reason for terminating the individual at an houror a day, then why
not a month, a year, two years, etc.
It is your position and view that tends to support the radical fringe
on both sides. It encourages the "pro" fringe and energizes the "anti"
fringe with no reasonable dialogue ever conducted.
|
| 20.4891 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus | Tue Jul 23 1996 16:51 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.4887 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Perpetual Glenn" >>>
| This is what happens when you're fed up with people.
Wow.... I didn't think it was possible for anyone to do... Glenn, you
just topped a Colin play on words! YES!
|
| 20.4892 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Jul 23 1996 17:36 | 6 |
| >It encourages the "pro" fringe and energizes the "anti"
>fringe with no reasonable dialogue ever conducted.
Excellent example. I see it energized you to produce no
reasonable dialogue, thereby self defining your own position. :-)
|
| 20.4893 | How simple of you. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Jul 23 1996 18:44 | 7 |
| .4892
Obviously you think that any dialogue that doesn't agree with you
produces no reasonable dialogue. Or is it that you simply have no
ability to address the point with any meaningful information.
|
| 20.4894 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Tue Jul 23 1996 18:45 | 4 |
| .4893
you wouldn't know dialogue if it sneaked up and
bit you on the nose.
|
| 20.4895 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Jul 23 1996 19:46 | 7 |
| .4894
Oh, I'd recognize it, and actually enjoy it, but I see it so seldom
from the liberal/socialist side it is almost impossible to uncover.
If you see some, please point it out.
|
| 20.4896 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Jul 23 1996 19:47 | 7 |
| .4894
OBTW, was that some. If it was, no wonder I missed it.
Must be your definition.
|
| 20.4897 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Jul 23 1996 19:49 | 8 |
| >Obviously you think that any dialogue that doesn't agree with you
>produces no reasonable dialogue. Or is it that you simply have no
>ability to address the point with any meaningful information.
If you have a point relevant to the topic, why don't you just state it
instead of engaging in all this meaningless blather. You keep huffing
about "no reasonable dialogue", but you keep writing more of it. If it
hurts, then don't do it. :-)
|
| 20.4898 | Ditto. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Jul 23 1996 20:09 | 9 |
| .4897
Apparently you have difficulty with reading the same as the prior
noter. If you can't identify what I wrote as being direct to the
point, it goes more to your ability to comprhend what is written, than
my writing.
But you already knew that.
|
| 20.4899 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Tue Jul 23 1996 20:11 | 5 |
| |If you see some, please point it out.
dialogue is a give and take of ideas. sometimes
even common ground is involved. frightening
concepts in your little corner of the world, i'm sure.
|
| 20.4900 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Jul 23 1996 20:17 | 5 |
| >Obviously you think that any dialogue that doesn't agree with you
>produces no reasonable dialogue. Or is it that you simply have no
>ability to address the point with any meaningful information.
OK, I'll bite. How is that connected with abortion?
|
| 20.4901 | You can figure it out, I'm sure. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Jul 23 1996 22:04 | 5 |
| .4900
read the notes prior to what you question and it all ties together. If
that's not clear enough, I will summarize them, but I really don't feel
like wasting the time.
|
| 20.4902 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Jul 24 1996 12:55 | 1 |
| <-- Good.
|
| 20.4903 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Jul 24 1996 13:33 | 15 |
| .4880
> See the Dick Binder argument...according to which all of
> reality is natural, and only the imaginary could thus be unnatural
> (or is that supernatural). So, the ingredients of, say, Hostess
> Twinkies, are "all natural".
Not at all. You are overlooking the point. What is natural is that
humans should use tools. The tools themselves, because they do not
occur in nature, are not natural - but that does not diminish the
naturalness of the fact that we use them.
Hostess Twinkies, on the other hand, are an unnatural perversion, and
their consumption should be punished by something at least as
unpleasant as drawing and quartering.
|
| 20.4904 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Jul 24 1996 13:35 | 6 |
| .4889
> priceless
Don't you mean valueless? Specious arguments like billybob's are
risible but hardly cogent.
|
| 20.4905 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jul 24 1996 13:39 | 4 |
| > <<< Note 20.4904 by SMURF::BINDER "Errabit quicquid errare potest." >>>
I found it perfectly cogent, not to mention humorous.
|
| 20.4906 | tetched a nerve ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jul 24 1996 14:47 | 26 |
|
Lighten up, Hare Binder. I was being facetious. To some extent,
I mock the whole business of trying to claim something is
"natural", "just human nature", etc. There is absolutely no
reason that natural things ought to be good for us. Some of them
are SUPPOSED to be bad for us, like cobra venom. Nor is there
any reason to select a "natural" over an "artificial" thing.
Sometimes you should, sometimes you shouldn't. So I view any
appeal to "Nature" as the arbiter of our actions as merely bogus.
Tom was making just such an appeal in trying to argue that various
bad behavior in humans was due to "unnatural" points of view, that
if we just "obeyed our nature", our behavior would improve as a
species. This looks like a mere pollyanna assertion, based on
nothing, to me, on several different counts : nobody has defined
the term "our nature"; among those who ageee on a definition, there
is dispute about that nature; there is no reason to suppose our
nature is necessarily good for us, given modern technology developed
AFTER our nature, assuming we even have a nature.
The word is plan overused. In politics. In advertising. In
Soapbox. No, I don't really think if you were coroner you would
rule Dahmer's victims to have died "of natural causes", a phrase
that has a life of its own, in any case.
bb
|
| 20.4907 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | you don't love me, pretty baby | Wed Jul 24 1996 14:54 | 1 |
| nothing worse than a plan overused term.
|
| 20.4908 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Jul 24 1996 15:22 | 1 |
| I plan to overuse it as often as possible. :)
|
| 20.4909 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Jul 24 1996 15:32 | 13 |
| >Tom was making just such an appeal in trying to argue that various
>bad behavior in humans was due to "unnatural" points of view, that
>if we just "obeyed our nature", our behavior would improve as a species.
Actually I was only making the statement that murder wasn't a "natural"
act.
But, I do believe that human beings are by nature good, rational and
productive (or mankind couldn't exist). Human beings are competent to
fill their needs and to achieve happiness. However, this requires total
freedom. By being free to act according to their own nature, they will
best serve themselves and society without force or coersion from any
authority or government.
|
| 20.4910 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Jul 24 1996 15:46 | 4 |
| Human beings ARE good, rational, etc. They also kill other species and
their own species at times. These two assertions are not in conflict,
except in the minds of certain people who are suffering under a
misconception.
|
| 20.4911 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Jul 24 1996 15:58 | 6 |
| >Human beings ARE good, rational, etc. They also kill other species and
>their own species at times. These two assertions are not in conflict,
>except in the minds of certain people who are suffering under a
>misconception.
Do now and have always agreed.
|
| 20.4912 | ah, yes, platitudes... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jul 24 1996 17:13 | 13 |
|
Doesn't it make everybody feel just so warm and fuzzy and superior
to blather on that "human beings are good and rational, etc" ?
It's nonsense. And by the way, "good and rational" is only one of
FOUR permutations. I've known people who were "bad and rational"
for example.
As to what is "natural", I can see I'll have no luck bothering with
those making mystical assertions about "human nature". Like the
Democrats, they think endless repetition can make it so.
bb
|
| 20.4913 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Jul 24 1996 17:26 | 7 |
| .4912
> -< ah, yes, platitudes... >-
Like this one:
> Like the Democrats, they think...
|
| 20.4914 | The Choice: Which one dies | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Tue Aug 06 1996 16:13 | 11 |
|
I heard a report this morning about a woman, pregnant with twins, who
can't afford to raise both and wants one aborted. I didn't hear any
more of the details.
Jim
|
| 20.4915 | | BUSY::SLAB | Go Go Gophers watch them go go go! | Tue Aug 06 1996 16:18 | 4 |
|
If she can afford to give birth to them both, why not put 1
up for adoption?
|
| 20.4916 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 06 1996 16:18 | 4 |
|
.4914 There are, reportedly, a number of people who are offering to
adopt the other baby, but it didn't sound as though that was
being seriously considered at this point.
|
| 20.4917 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Tue Aug 06 1996 16:20 | 1 |
| i believe this is happening over in england?
|
| 20.4918 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Aug 06 1996 16:40 | 1 |
| how crass.
|
| 20.4919 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Aug 06 1996 16:55 | 36 |
| 20.4920 | A real shame. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:29 | 17 |
| This is exactly the type of action that has so turned me against the
pro-choice people. This woman has not had second thoughts about
getting pregnant, there is nothing wrong with the baby, she did not get
pregnant through rape or incest, the pregnancy does not endanger her
life nor is she a young girl.
NOne of this makes any difference to the pro-choice crowd as the only
thing that matters is providing the abortion under any circumstances.
She can't even claim financial hardship. the second baby is being
offered an immediate adoption and the mother is being offered roughly
$50,000 just to have the babies.
This is the disgusting part of the pro-choice crowd that just so
totally causes me to be opposed to them. If they ever took a stand
that was even marginally temparate I could find some common ground, but
not at this time.
|
| 20.4921 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:29 | 5 |
|
You're blaming the entire pro-choice movement for one woman's decision?
<boggle>
|
| 20.4922 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:36 | 1 |
| <no_boggle_here>
|
| 20.4923 | basically | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:38 | 1 |
| Yeah, without women there would be no pro-choice movement.
|
| 20.4924 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Impaled with betrayal | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:40 | 5 |
| It seems to me he's blaming the pro-choice movement for supporting her
macabre decision. The "her body, her choice" contingent seems unwilling
to recognize the bizarre and inhumane nature of her "choice" lest they
be forced to acknowledge the logic that some limits are reasonable and
proper.
|
| 20.4925 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Where is my real head? | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:42 | 1 |
| -1 agreed. She's a twit.
|
| 20.4926 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:42 | 6 |
| > <<< Note 20.4920 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> NOne of this makes any difference to the pro-choice crowd as the only
> thing that matters is providing the abortion under any circumstances.
what an idjit.
|
| 20.4927 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:44 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 20.4924 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Impaled with betrayal" >>>
> The "her body, her choice" contingent seems unwilling
> to recognize the bizarre and inhumane nature of her "choice"
What are you basing that on?
|
| 20.4928 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Where is my real head? | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:47 | 3 |
| "She cannot cope with two or more children, she already has one child."
Yeah, that's a good reason not to give it up for adoption.
|
| 20.4929 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Perpetual Glenn | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:49 | 2 |
| I must admit, this seems insane. You're going to be giving birth to
one, so what a few more minutes?
|
| 20.4930 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Where is my real head? | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:50 | 2 |
| Not only that, but since she already has ONE child, ONE more would be
"two or more" children, no? She might as well give them both up.
|
| 20.4931 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:50 | 4 |
|
Does it cost any more to have 2 children than 1? I mean, if cost is an
issue it, it might explain it a bit.
|
| 20.4932 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Where is my real head? | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:52 | 2 |
| Well, if this is in England, healthcare is free. Besides, it's not
like they make you pay up front...
|
| 20.4933 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Perpetual Glenn | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:52 | 3 |
| In the UK? I'm not sure.
In Canada it wouldn't.
|
| 20.4934 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:55 | 4 |
|
I suppose if someone exercises free speech in a manner most
people would find abhorrent, we should blame it on all the people
who support the 1st Amendment, too.
|
| 20.4935 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:55 | 3 |
|
Those damn Founding Fathers!
|
| 20.4936 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Aug 06 1996 18:56 | 10 |
| >NOne of this makes any difference to the pro-choice crowd as the only
>thing that matters is providing the abortion under any circumstances.
BS. Pro-choice means just that, choice. It matters not how stupid,
immoral, unnecessary, etc, etc, etc the womans decision is, according
to someone else's value system. It is her body, her pregnancy, her life,
her choice. It means freedom to choose ones own way in life without
interference from those who are so presumptuous as to assume that they
are the keepers of the ultimate "truth" and know what is best in regards
to someone elses life.
|
| 20.4937 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Tue Aug 06 1996 19:03 | 12 |
| > NOne of this makes any difference to the pro-choice crowd...
It's amazing that you seem to have missed the essence of the
"pro-choice crowd" so badly. It's in the word "choice." The CHOICE of
whether to have an abortion OR NOT should rightly rest with the woman.
Not with anyone else.
I'm sure you'd be amazed that some pro-choice women actually chose not
to have abortions. That would mess up your rant, though, so you will
doubtless continue to ignore the facts.
/hth
|
| 20.4938 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Where is my real head? | Tue Aug 06 1996 19:06 | 9 |
| Yeah, it's her choice. That baby is malicously invading her body and
she wants it out.
After all, she knows what's best for herself, just like every other
person in the world. We ALL know what's best for ourselves, don't we?
I don't know, if someone was giving me $50K to have a baby that I was
ALREADY pregnant with, the word "no" would suddenly disappear from my
vocabulary...
|
| 20.4939 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Tue Aug 06 1996 19:09 | 6 |
| .4938
> We ALL know what's best for ourselves, don't we?
No, we don't. On the other hand, if we don't know what's best for
ourselves, what makes you think we know what's best for someone else?
|
| 20.4940 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Where is my real head? | Tue Aug 06 1996 19:12 | 3 |
| Who said I think that? Although, I would think it best for that
innocent little baby to live rather than be removed like some sort of
cancer.
|
| 20.4941 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 06 1996 19:20 | 1 |
| It's nobody's business but hers.
|
| 20.4942 | It was Springtime for Hitler and Germany! | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Aug 06 1996 19:44 | 1 |
| Yep. And the Final Solution was nobody's business but Germany's.
|
| 20.4943 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Aug 06 1996 19:53 | 4 |
| >Yep. And the Final Solution was nobody's business but Germany's.
If anyone is interested in the perfect use of a non-sequitur, to
"prove" a point, this is it.
|
| 20.4944 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Tue Aug 06 1996 20:16 | 17 |
| I re-read the *news* article and didn't find anywhere that the primary
reason for not having twins was because she couldn't cope. Maybe her
body can't handle the pregnancy. Maybe there is more to the story than
what is written. Unless any of us have given birth to multiple babies,
I guess we can't comment on the stress it mental and physically takes.
And for those of you who have (first I commend you profusely..second,
wow, I can't believe you're still walking) you know that maybe there is
more to this pregnancy than she "just can't cope". I didn't see
anything about both the babies being unhealthly or healthly for that
matter. So I guess no matter how distastful this situation may be to
some of you, it is her sole choice whether she wants to make this
decision, which, we can all agree, must not be easy. She alone has to
live with the decision she makes, then has to explain it to the other
children what happened. So none of us can stand in judgement of this
person before we know the WHOLE story and not the dressed up one.
|
| 20.4945 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Tue Aug 06 1996 20:20 | 2 |
| i say first we hang her, then we kill her, and then
we torture her!
|
| 20.4946 | What an intolerant bunch. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 06 1996 20:20 | 29 |
| .4936 .4937 .4941
Thank you for these entries. They serve as perfect examples of my
point.
Regarding .4937. How many of those pro-choice women that chose not to
have abortions favor restrictions on abortion? How many oppose the
blind mantra of any time, any place, for any reason mentality displayed
by these entries?
Apparently the mind-numbed robots of the pro-choice crowd have an
immeasurable ability to ignore the most vile of "choices" as the
counter to any reasonable discussion.
Also the note that referred to the 1st amendment. Remember the fact
that there are limits on free speech. If you want ot use an argument
understand what your argument entails. If you can't libel or slander
someone, or shout FIRE ina theatre, then you don't have total "choice"
under the 1str amendment. Since you like this argument, then why not
accept reasonable restrictions on a found right like abortion.
I know, this is just totally out of the question.
I really wonder how people like you can look at yourselves in the
mirror. You claim the Republicans are intolerant because they want
restrictions on abortion. You are the most intolerant of all since
anyone that doesn't toe the pro-choice line exactly at all times, is
not to be tolerated at all.
|
| 20.4947 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 06 1996 20:27 | 8 |
|
> <<< Note 20.4946 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
No, you've got it all wrong, as usual. I was saying you're
an idjit for hating the pro-choice movement because of this
woman's actions. I'm still saying that. All your other
blathering is irrelevant.
|
| 20.4948 | Smacks of having missed a dose of something strong... | SHRCTR::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Tue Aug 06 1996 20:45 | 0 |
| 20.4949 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Tue Aug 06 1996 20:55 | 28 |
| .4946
> blind mantra of any time, any place, for any reason mentality displayed
> by these entries?
> Apparently the mind-numbed robots of the pro-choice crowd have an
... etc etc
Excuse me - you seem to suggest that anyone who considers him/herself to be
prochoice is fair game to this broadest of brushes of yours. I consider
myself prochoice, and I would take exception to the implication that this
hyperbole characterizes my attitudes on the subject. Anyone with sense can see
that aborting an 8.999 month healthy foetus for convenience sake is murder.
Not being an activist, I can't say from experience, I but would suspect that
most people with prochoice leanings would NOT subscribe to the extreme view,
"any time, any place, for any reason" you portray.
Likewise, characterizing the termination of a microscopic early term embroyo
(sp?) as "murdering babies" has some pretty heavy baggage of its own -
usually in the rants of prolife extremists, often males, using emotionalism to
push their beliefs into the face of others - belief systems which are more
often than not based on religious values.
You disbelieve that some prochoicers are in favor of some reasonable limits,
well here's one. I can look in the mirror just fine, tyvm.
|
| 20.4950 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Aug 06 1996 21:06 | 12 |
| Let's see what happens when I liken all pro-lifers to doctor killers.
Or, are only pro-lifers allowed the use of ten mile wide brushes?
The blind mantra of any time, any place and for any reason it being
acceptable to kill an abortion doctor.
or
Apparently the mind-numbed robots of the pro-life crowd have the
mentality and permission from god to kill doctors who would perform
abortions.
|
| 20.4951 | No room for that here! | SSDEVO::LAMBERT | We ':-)' for the humor impaired | Tue Aug 06 1996 21:06 | 6 |
| Bruce, you're allowing reason to intrude on SOAPBOX noting again.
NNTTM.
-- Sam
|
| 20.4952 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Where is my real head? | Tue Aug 06 1996 21:07 | 1 |
| I just love it when people think in black and white.
|
| 20.4953 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Aug 06 1996 21:08 | 1 |
| I think in baby blue. :)
|
| 20.4954 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Perpetual Glenn | Tue Aug 06 1996 21:09 | 1 |
| I think in Fire Engine Red.
|
| 20.4955 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Tue Aug 06 1996 21:10 | 3 |
|
I think in my mind.
|
| 20.4956 | | THEMAX::E_WALKER | a ferret on a no-stick skillet | Tue Aug 06 1996 21:10 | 1 |
| Grey, and a kind of fuzzy grey at that.
|
| 20.4957 | I think, therefore try Spam. | SHRCTR::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Tue Aug 06 1996 21:34 | 0 |
| 20.4958 | NO, you got it wrong. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 06 1996 21:53 | 17 |
| .4947
AS usual, you've got it wrong. Gee, this is fun, but I can't quite get
to the name-calling part. I'm sure it will come in time.
My disgust with the pro-choice crowd is not based on this one woman.
That's the point you miss. My position is that the pro-choice crowd
allows for no middle ground, even in a situation like this. They will
not tolerate any restrictions at all.
That is my point. I believe there is a very large common gound that
the majority of both groups can support. The pro-choice crowd, as
respresented in the responses I listed, hold an all or nothing view.
If this is still unclear for you, then I don't know how else to put it.
But my guess would be that perhaps your ducking.
|
| 20.4959 | Just wondering. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 06 1996 21:56 | 6 |
| .4949
If, indeed, you truly hold that position, then you have no opposition
to legally identified restrictions on the any time, any place, under
any circumstances for anyone view of the rest of the pro-choice crowd.
|
| 20.4960 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Perpetual Glenn | Tue Aug 06 1996 22:44 | 1 |
| I just heard on the news that it's all moot. She's already done it.
|
| 20.4961 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Tue Aug 06 1996 22:54 | 15 |
| .4959
Your note is a little unclear, if I understand ...
Yes, I do not oppose restrictions - I do not think abortion should be
allowable "any time, any place, under any circumstances for anyone" - is
that what you mean? I thought I said that.
> of the rest of the pro-choice crowd
You really think that "the rest of the pro-choice crowd" (I take it that
means an overwhelming majority) demands black-and-white, "any time, any place,
under any circumstances for anyone" abortion rights? I don't think I've ever
met anyone who felt that way, even in my formerly liberal commie previous
life.
|
| 20.4962 | belated congrats | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 01:10 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 20.4946 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> Apparently the mind-numbed robots of the pro-choice crowd...
Looks to me as though you have the name-calling thing down
just fine.
|
| 20.4963 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 07 1996 11:46 | 5 |
| >And the Final Solution was nobody's business but Germany's., et al
Silly illogic. Doesn't fly. Your noses are wedged where they don't
belong. You have no business sticking your nose in there, unless
perhaps your name is Pinocchio.
|
| 20.4964 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 12:54 | 14 |
| <--
When another life hangs in the balance, society does indeed have a
say. The freedom of choice should be grasped before pregnancy occurs
(but I guess that is too much to ask). After that, another life is
involved and there needs to be at least *some* protections in place for
that life.
Legally, I do not take an "all or nothing" approach to this, however.
Common sense protections like "no abortion after the first trimester",
would be a good basis for law, IMO.
-steve
|
| 20.4965 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Wed Aug 07 1996 13:08 | 19 |
| While it is a moot point, twins double the risk to a woman for toxemia,
embolism, cardio-vascular collapse, diabetes, kidney failure not
related to toxemia, surgical delivery, hemorrage, back damage,
hypertension not related to toxemia, liver failure not related to
toxemia, uterine rupture, uterine atonia, uterine prolapse, and death.
the risk doubles for each addition of another fetus.
I don't know the reasons this person decided to abort one twin and from
the news articles, it isn't clear this really was a healthy fetus, or
pregnancy, and sounds like a composite of severla cases, as the Dr said
he had twisted the story to the point the "one patient" wouldn't know
herself.
Being a "blind prochoicer" who has made the choice not to abort at
least three times, I still believe the restricitons should be left to
the Dr, the person involved and her diety if she worships one. I can't
presume to make health care decisions for someone I don't know.
meg
|
| 20.4966 | | KERNEL::FREKES | Excuse me while I scratch my butt | Wed Aug 07 1996 13:14 | 5 |
| I heard that she has had it done it already. so not much pint in
arguing over it. It was her decision anyway.
Imagine what it would be like to make a heartbreaking personal decision,
and then have the entire world criticise you over it.
|
| 20.4967 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 07 1996 13:17 | 25 |
|
There is no "society" there are societies. They have different sets of
norms and values and different laws. Under UK law, Anti-Abortion
groups did obtain a court order to hold the abortion, but as Glenn said
it had already taken place, possibly well within the term limit
required by UK law.
Abortion law in the UK allows for some very different concepts of what
they British consider to be basic human rights, including the right to
determine one's own "mental well being", which under certain
circumstances can allow abortions in the second trimester even when
other health reasons would not apply.
It's not even worth trying to apply US societal values to another
society, using the rationale that all societies have the same
fundamental dichotomy between pro-life and pro-choice. The majority of
the British population is pro-choice without a second thought. Around
20% of pregnancies are terminated by abortion over there, which figure
includes no estimates for the freely-available morning after pill
(which is also freely available in the US, but just not publicised).
Colin
|
| 20.4968 | | KERNEL::FREKES | Excuse me while I scratch my butt | Wed Aug 07 1996 13:19 | 1 |
| Ahmem to that. Next topic please
|
| 20.4969 | British society would not put up with US abortion mentality | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 07 1996 13:34 | 3 |
| Abortion laws in the UK a _dramatically_ MORE restrictive than in the U.S.
/john
|
| 20.4970 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 07 1996 13:38 | 2 |
| Oh Yah. So restrictive that 20% of pregnancies end in abortions.
Check the get-out clauses /john.
|
| 20.4971 | It's disgusting, that's what it is! | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 07 1996 13:39 | 9 |
| 33% end in abortion here.
In Massachusetts, a woman can walk into a clinic and get an abortion up to
the 24th week with no questions asked.
See the ads in the yellow pages: Free parking, Credit Cards, No appointment,
Abortions thru 24 weeks.
/john
|
| 20.4972 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 07 1996 13:48 | 29 |
| Summary off the net:
Data:The Medical Facts and the Law in the UK
British Law now permits abortion up to 24 weeks when the woman requests
it and two doctors certify that to allow the pregnancy to continue
might damage the psychological or social or physical well-being of the
woman. (The effect of this in practice is that any woman who wants an
abortion - up to 24 weeks - is able to get it.) Even after 24 weeks
(right up to birth) abortion is still legal if doctors agree that the
continuation of the pregnancy might endanger the life of the woman, or
risk grave permanent damage to her physical or mental health, or if
there is a substantial risk that the child would be born seriously
handicapped. The main application of this provision is to the abortion
- at the request of potential parents - of foetuses afflicted with
serious defects or pathological conditions. (The Law in other countries
varies, but in some countries - notably the USA - a strong
anti-abortion movement actively seeks to prevent any abortions, on the
ground that they are morally wrong.)
The "get out" is mental health. Because of freely-available
nationalised medicine all women have no problem accessing and
estblishing a rapport with sympathetic pro-choice doctors. It is
almost impossible to prove that the "mental health" clause is being
misused. The law in this case is written to appear "moral" but in fact
reflects the realities of the society.
Colin
|
| 20.4973 | Health is so broadly defined as to be meaningless | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 07 1996 14:01 | 12 |
| In the U.S., there is _no_ requirement at any stage for more than one
doctor to decide that the woman should have the abortion, nor is there
any review permitted of that one doctor's decision.
Prior to "fetal viability" there is no health requirement; the woman
can have the abortion for any reason whatsoever.
After fetal viability, any factor, including financial or emotional health,
permits an abortion up to delivery, and again, there is no review of the
factor.
/john
|
| 20.4974 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 07 1996 14:11 | 27 |
| To be perfectly clear:
The United States has the least restrictive abortion laws of _any_ Western
country, and possibly any country other than China.
Any attempts to reduce the number of women having abortions are vigourously
opposed by the strong pro-abortion lobby.
For example: in Pennsylvania, an informed consent law was UPHELD by the
U.S. Supreme Court. The Court held that it was legal to require women be
given scientific information about fetal development, so that they would
know that what they are aborting is not microscopic, but in fact, a
one-to-two inch miniature human.
Last I heard, the pro-abortion lobby had again won an injunction, claiming
that the materials were not completely neutral; that a picture of a fetus
is an attempt to pursuade women to choose to keep their children.
While some people writing here claim that not all "pro-choice" people are
this radical, and certainly few are as radical as the participant in this
conference who would extend legal abortions to include killing newborn
babies (read it here, he did say that) it is this radical pro-abortion
lobby that is setting the policy and ensuring that there is an abortion
performed every 20 seconds, 4000 times a day, every day, here in these
United States.
/john
|
| 20.4975 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 07 1996 14:13 | 18 |
| But in the US there's no RU486 or morning after pill, so the
figure in the UK is purely for surgical procedures.
And in the UK they don't murder doctors for performing abortions.
And in the US there is a very strong anti-abortion lobby to fund legal
cases and candidates.
And in the UK there is free contraception (and still high abortion
rates persist).
And in the US the age of consent is different.
My point is it makes NO difference WHAT the law says. What actually
happens in a society reflects what the people want and believe.
Whatever pro-lifers want to say, they can't point to Europe and say
that "society" is naturally pro-life. It's clear to me that the
debate is largely over there. YMMV.
|
| 20.4976 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Wed Aug 07 1996 14:33 | 10 |
|
I find this whole episode so incredibly sad.
The report I heard on WBZ radio was that both babies
were healthy, and that the reason the woman wanted
to abort one child was that she "couldn't handle another
child".
:-(
|
| 20.4977 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 07 1996 14:51 | 17 |
| .4974
> Any attempts to reduce the number of women having abortions are
> vigourously opposed by the strong pro-abortion lobby.
Casuistry at its finest, /john boy.
First lie: "the strong pro-abortion lobby"
There is no pro-abortion lobby. There is a pro-chjoice lobby. The two
terms are not synonymous.
Second lie: "Any attempts to reduce the number of women having
abortions are vigourously opposed"
No such attempts are opposed. What *is* opposed is the pro-control
lobby's vigorous efforts to impose its own morality on others.
|
| 20.4978 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 07 1996 14:53 | 8 |
| .4976
> The report I heard on WBZ radio was that both babies
> were healthy,
The report in this morning's Globe says that the woman's doctor has
been forced by the publicity to admit that she's already had the
operation.
|
| 20.4979 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:00 | 4 |
|
Yes, I know. Sadder, still.
|
| 20.4980 | comparative laws | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:11 | 77 |
| <<< Note 20.4974 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
To be perfectly clear:
The United States has the least restrictive abortion laws of _any_
Western country, and possibly any country other than China.
-----------------------------------------------------
To be perfectly clear, you should really provide some comparative data
and sources:
(Time in weeks after Conception, ? indicates uncertainty)
Country Law Limit Demand Distress Rape Handicap Maternal Risk
Australia State Laws 14 28 28 28 28
Belgium 1990 Bill 12 12+ 12+ 12+ No Limit
Canada No - 22? 22? 22? 22?
Denmark #350,1973 12 22 22 22 22?
France #79-1204,'79 10 10 10 No Limit No Limit
Germany #15, 1976 0(12) 12 12 22 No Limit
Greece #1609,1986 12 19 19 24 No Limit
Hungary 1986 12 12 20 No Limit No Limit
Islamic Koran 0 <17 <17 <17 No Limit
Italy #194, 1978 13 13 No Limit No Limit No Limit
Japan #? 1948 24 24 24 24 24?
Nederland 1981 13 24 24 24 24
Norway #66,1978 12 12 18 18 18
Spain #9,1985 0 No Limit 12 22 No Limit
Sweden #595, 1974 18 18+ 18+ 18+ 18+
U.K. 1990 - 22 22 No Limit No Limit
U.S.A. 1973,1989? 12 20 20 20? 20?
(Darryl R. J. Macer, Ph.D. Eubios Ethics Institute 1990)
A more controversial decision in Britain, was the separation of the
Abortion Act from the 1929 Infant Life Preservation Act. This means
that a doctor is exempt from the new 24 week limit where an abortion is
needed to "prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental
health" of a woman or where there is a "substantial risk of serious
fetal handicap" (Wood 1990). This decision was welcomed by doctors, as
although there are small numbers of these abortions, they are very
stressful for patient and doctor if they are unsure of the real law.
However, the exception will apply to a tiny proportion of abortions,
and people favour early abortions.
There is a trend in Europe for the liberalisation of abortion laws,
even in strongly Catholic countries such as Spain and Italy. Abortion
is still illegal in the Republic of Ireland, but elsewhere certain
types of abortion are legal. The time limits vary widely, as seen in
Table 5-1. West Germany and the Netherlands have liberal laws.
Britain is fairly liberal. The most restrictive abortion law, outside
of Ireland, is in Italy, where abortion on medical and socio-economic
grounds is permitted only up until 12 weeks.
In the USA many states want to ban all abortions, and in July 1990 the
state of Lousiana passed such a law. The 1973 Supreme court decision
in the case Roe versus Wade protected a woman's right to privacy by
granting a constitutional right to terminate pregnancy before the fetus
is viable. Up until 12 weeks, abortion is available upon request,
during the second trimester a state can regulate abortion to protect
the mother's health, but a state may ban abortion in the third
trimester, except if the mother's life is in danger. In 1989, the
Supreme Court upheld a Missouri state law limiting abortion to 20
weeks. The Louisiana law will directly challenge the Supreme Court,
though it may be several years before the law has finished challenges
through the state courts. During this time the law will not be in
effect. The composition of the Supreme court has been deliberately
adjusted over the last decade, to introduce new members who are against
abortion, thus the balance of views is very different to 1973. Rather
than abortion being only an ethical issue, it has become a political
issue in the USA, and the results are impossible to predict at this
stage.
|
| 20.4981 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:12 | 9 |
| And more of the truth is that many so-called pro-lifers are not
pro-life at all, otherwise they would also be against the death
penalty.
"Pro-Control" really does accurately describe their true motives.
And they, like almost everyone throughout history who has felt the need
to justify their actions against their fellow humans, use God, bible,
and other religious tools to try to do so.
|
| 20.4982 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:15 | 12 |
| That list, which claims that abortion on demand is restricted to 12 weeks,
is absolutely wrong.
I don't know whether it's a deliberate lie or ignorance.
I stand by my earlier statement, and I challenge you to read the two landmark
decisions, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton which provide for abortion on demand
throughout the entire pregnancy, with health restrictions permitted only
during the last trimester, but with health loosely defined and no review
of the single doctor's decision permitted.
/john
|
| 20.4983 | what ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:19 | 8 |
|
Colin Walters : the table you present is illegible. I have
no idea how to read it. What are the numbers in the columns
supposed to mean ? It is very confusing. If I am reading
it the way I think, it also appears to be inaccurate.
bb
|
| 20.4984 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:23 | 36 |
| Actually, your information is presented in the usual equivocating way:
> Roe versus Wade protected a woman's right to privacy by
> granting a constitutional right to terminate pregnancy before the fetus
> is viable.
This means abortion on demand through the first TWO trimesters.
> Up until 12 weeks, abortion is available upon request,
> during the second trimester a state can regulate abortion to protect
> the mother's health,
Note that the only regulation in the second trimester is to protect the
mother's health. Abortion is still available on demand, but clinics doing
abortions have to meet more stringent safety standards. Nothing can be
done to regulate whether an abortion is done or not.
> but a state may ban abortion in the third trimester, except if the
> mother's life is in danger.
This is a bald-faced lie. Roe v. Wade said "life or health". And then
the companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, which the "pro-choice" people never
tell you about, so defines "health" that any factor at all, including
emotional, social, or financial health, may be used, and it further
prohibits any review of the decision about the woman's health by the
doctor actually performing the abortion.
> In 1989, the Supreme Court upheld a Missouri state law limiting
> abortion to 20 weeks.
The only limit placed by the Missouri law was on the type of facility
in which it could be performed. The law did not prohibit abortions
after 20 weeks if a single doctor decided that it was necessary and
admitted the woman to an appropriate facility.
/john
|
| 20.4985 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:31 | 11 |
|
Hey, the source is quoted, you can look it up on the web.
If it's illegible, then you must have a hardware problem,
if simply ill-formated, go to the source.
If you don't like the data, that's your personal problem.
If you have alternate data, post it.
I detest whiners.
|
| 20.4986 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:34 | 1 |
| you go, boy!
|
| 20.4987 | garbage | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:37 | 14 |
|
Well, look. You have a row that says "country whatever" and
a column that says "rape". In the matrix position marked by
those two positional locators, I find an integer. What is this
integer ? The number of rapes in that country ? The number of
abortions resulting from rapes ? I THINK it's supposed to be a
number of weeks that abortion is allowed, but in fact I know
that several of the countries you mention do not express any
such limitations in terms of weeks.
There is no 12-week limit on anything related to abortion in the
United States, and there never was.
bb
|
| 20.4988 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:48 | 2 |
|
It says it's time, in weeks, after conception. At the top.
|
| 20.4989 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:49 | 1 |
| There you go again, Di, expecting write-only noters to read.
|
| 20.4990 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 15:51 | 3 |
|
.4989 Er, actually I think Herr Braucher normally reads quite
carefully.
|
| 20.4991 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Aug 07 1996 16:09 | 21 |
| >Note 20.4981 Abortion 4981 of 4990
>RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" 9 lines 7-AUG-1996 11:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> And more of the truth is that many so-called pro-lifers are not
>pro-life at all, otherwise they would also be against the death
>penalty.
So everyone who is Pro-Choice should also be Pro-Choice on gun, any
gun, unrestricted gun ownership? After all it affects the health of the
person, no?
> "Pro-Control" really does accurately describe their true motives.
> And they, like almost everyone throughout history who has felt the need
> to justify their actions against their fellow humans, use God, bible,
> and other religious tools to try to do so.
Or that they know best. More than the ignorant gun owners, logic,
statistics be damned...
Steve
|
| 20.4992 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Wed Aug 07 1996 16:22 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.4983 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
| If I am reading it the way I think,
How else would you read it???? :-)
| it also appears to be inaccurate.
Colin can't be held responsible for your thinking! :-)
|
| 20.4993 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Wed Aug 07 1996 16:23 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.4985 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>
| I detest whiners.
Red or white?
|
| 20.4994 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Wed Aug 07 1996 16:51 | 4 |
| Actually many pro-choicers are also pro-choice on gun ownership,
substance-use, prostitution and a host of other items.
meg
|
| 20.4995 | missed that | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Aug 07 1996 16:58 | 11 |
|
Oops, sorry. Didn't see parentheses. Not that it matters.
There is no federal law in the USA legalizing or illegalizing
abortions - the 1973,1989 are SCOTUS rulings. While Roe v. Wade
established a "trimester" system, that was thrown out in 1989,
in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which does mention
20 weeks, but not as a time when abortion can be prohibited. In
practice, in the USA and many of the other countries in your table,
abortions is done routinely right up to during birth.
bb
|
| 20.4996 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:07 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 20.4994 by CSC32::M_EVANS "watch this space" >>>
> Actually many pro-choicers are also pro-choice on gun ownership,
> substance-use, prostitution and a host of other items.
Amen, sister.
Pro-freedom. It's an idea who's time came over 200 years ago. Hasn't been
seen in this country for around 130 years.
|
| 20.4997 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:10 | 11 |
|
>Pro-freedom. It's an idea who's time came over 200 years ago. Hasn't been
>seen in this country for around 130 years.
except for those who happen to be a few short weeks from "viability".
Jim
|
| 20.4998 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:23 | 5 |
| > <<< Note 20.4997 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>
> except for those who happen to be a few short weeks from "viability".
Hey, I'm less than thrilled with the thought of it myself, but it's none of
my business what you decide for yourself.
|
| 20.4999 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:26 | 9 |
| RE Meg:
Ah, but are all of them, the majority of them? How do the ones who are
not justify not be Pro-choice-gun
Steve
|
| 20.5000 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:32 | 1 |
| men going on and on and on about abortion SNARF!!!!
|
| 20.5001 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:34 | 8 |
| Oliver_b
Are you Pro-Choice-Gun?
Or just trying to limit debate to your side?
Steve
|
| 20.5002 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:41 | 3 |
| gee, call me thick-headed but i fail to see the
connection between the reproductive rights of a
_woman_, and the "right" to own an uzi. so sorry.
|
| 20.5003 | what's logic got to do with it? | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:44 | 4 |
| Just because the Consitution specifically enumerates the RKBA and is
silent on the topic of abortion doesn't mean we should limit ourselves
to what's really in there; after all, we support judicial activism (so
long as it's done for our side.)
|
| 20.5004 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:48 | 5 |
| the holy Constitution is not only silent on abortion,
but silent on that particular half of the population
able to have one. so don't give me that tired line
of "reasoning".
|
| 20.5005 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:52 | 5 |
| .5002
I fail to see the parallel between execution of murderers (the usual
crime of death row inmates) and the execution of an innocent human.
|
| 20.5006 | similar in one respect... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:55 | 11 |
|
Bonnie, I won't call you thick-headed. Since both are claimed
as "rights", a pretty irrational concept to begin with, they
are similar. "Rights" were an Enlightenment creation, pretty
much, and the assertion in the Declaration that it is "self-evident"
that rights are part of the installation kit took the market by
storm. Alas, science offers no basis for any rights, and neither
does logic,nor religion. It's like french fries. You know it
makes no sense, but you eat them anyways.
bb
|
| 20.5007 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:56 | 16 |
| >Note 20.5002 Abortion 5002 of 5005
>LANDO::OLIVER_B "it's about summer!" 3 lines 7-AUG-1996 13:41
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> gee, call me thick-headed but i fail to see the
> connection between the reproductive rights of a
> _woman_, and the "right" to own an uzi. so sorry.
If my life is in danger due to another individual or group acting in an
unlawful manner, don't I have the right to life an my personal choice
as to how to live it and end it?
Is this SOO hard to understand. If I was a woman, and wanted an
abortion to save my life, you would be all for it. What is your
problem?
Steve
|
| 20.5008 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:58 | 1 |
| you aren't a woman. /hth
|
| 20.5009 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:58 | 4 |
| >I fail to see the parallel between execution of murderers (the usual
>crime of death row inmates) and the execution of an innocent human.
I don't see it either. But, what's that got to do with abortion?
|
| 20.5010 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 07 1996 17:58 | 6 |
| >the holy Constitution is not only silent on abortion,
>but silent on that particular half of the population
>able to have one. so don't give me that tired line
>of "reasoning".
read: I don't wanna hear it.
|
| 20.5011 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:09 | 1 |
| .5005 a piece of tissue is not a human. /hth
|
| 20.5012 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:10 | 6 |
| >I fail to see the parallel between execution of murderers (the usual
>crime of death row inmates) and the execution of an innocent human.
Well if you can't see any parallel between killing an adult, and
abortion, then what are you squawking about in the first place?
|
| 20.5013 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:11 | 3 |
|
Now THAT'S gonna leave a mark.
|
| 20.5014 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:19 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 20.4999 by APACHE::KEITH "Dr. Deuce" >>>
> Ah, but are all of them, the majority of them? How do the ones who are
> not justify not be Pro-choice-gun
Are you asserting that anyone who is pro-choice on abortion should
therefore be pro-choice when it comes to gun ownership, to be
consistent? Does that mean that if you're _not_ pro-choice on
abortion, you should not be pro-choice on gun ownership, to be
consistent? No, that wouldn't necessarily follow either, would
it? It's absurd to be comparing the two issues.
|
| 20.5015 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:27 | 4 |
| .5008
/you aren't a woman.
yes, i daresay this has a lot to do with it.
|
| 20.5016 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:37 | 11 |
|
> .5005 a piece of tissue is not a human. /hth
..and what is a "piece of tissue" with a beating heart, brain waves,
consumption of nourishment, elimination of waste and obvious reaction
to external stimulation called?
Jim
|
| 20.5017 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:40 | 1 |
| .5014 an intellectual swat if i ever saw one. ;)
|
| 20.5018 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Where is my real head? | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:40 | 1 |
| A mini-human being?
|
| 20.5019 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:42 | 58 |
|
.4995
From THOMAS, legislative search engine case synopsis, I direct
your attention to the final sentence, and question your assertion
that any part of Roe V Wade was in fact "thrown out".
_________________________________________________
The Facts
In 1986, the state of Missouri enacted legislation that placed a number
of restrictions on abortions. The statute's preamble indicated that
"[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and the law
codified the following restrictions: public employees and public
facilities were not to be used in performing or assisting abortions
unnecessary to save the mother's life; encouragement and counseling to
have abortions was prohibited; and physicians were to perform viability
tests upon women in their twentieth (or more) week of pregnancy. Lower
courts struck down the restrictions.
The Conclusion
In a controversial and highly fractured decision, the Court held that
none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri legislation were
unconstitutional. First, the Court held that the preamble had not been
applied in any concrete manner for the purposes of restricting
abortions, and thus did not present a constitutional question. Second,
the Court held that the Due Process Clause did not require states to
enter into the business of abortion, and did not create an affirmative
right to governmental aid in the pursuit of constitutional rights.
Third, the Court found that no case or controversy existed in relation
to the counseling provisions of the law. Finally, the Court upheld the
viability testing requirements, arguing that the State's interest in
protecting potential life could come into existence before the point of
viability. The Court emphasized that it was not revisiting the
essential portions of the holding in Roe v. Wade.
________________________________________
The current position is that SCOTUS has really established
constitutional "guidelines" for the states that the states can
challenge - as Penn and Missouri already have. States have varying
legislation on abortion and PA's laws have been upheld and are more
restrictive than many European countries. Mass may be less
restrictive. The scenario is similar in Germany, where states such as
Bavaria have different laws to the federal laws.
Your use of the word "routinely" is also interesting. In any
country, second and third trimester abortions are extremely rare
to nonexistent. Unless you have alternate figures, of course.
Colin
http://oyez.at.nwu.edu/cases/88-605/
http://www.acusd.edu/ethics/abortion.html#On-Line Articles
http://thomas.loc.gov/
|
| 20.5020 | Got to follow the thread. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:43 | 20 |
| .5014
I believe the response was to the silly question about pro-life people
having to be opposed to the death penalty. If you feel the response
was questionable, well, so was the original question.
If the writer of the original question is unable to determine a
diference between abortion and the death penalty, then apparently the
writer is significantly handicapped in terms of differentiating
completely different actions or is being intentionally niave.
Under any circumstances there is no such thing as an absolute right or
freedom. I can not identify any area covered in the Constitution that
does not contain some restrictions on a right or freedom. It appears
that only in the area of abortion do the abortion supporters feel that
there should be no restrictions.
This is the primary source of my personal disagreement with the whole
pro-abortion crowd.
|
| 20.5021 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:46 | 9 |
| .5016
jim, the majority of abortions are performed in the
first trimester. no brain waves.
look, that recent british case appalled me. but cases
like this are the exception to the rule - the rule
being that most abortions are performed very early in
the pregnancy.
|
| 20.5022 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:48 | 3 |
| >look, that recent british case appalled me.
No kiddin'. You sure held it well; no one would have ever guessed.
|
| 20.5023 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:53 | 5 |
| .5022
|No kiddin'. You sure held it well
held _what_ well?
|
| 20.5024 | Where's that 'Pot + Kettle' topic? | SSDEVO::LAMBERT | We ':-)' for the humor impaired | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:55 | 14 |
| .5020
> If the writer of the original question is unable to determine a
> diference between abortion and the death penalty, then apparently the
> writer is significantly handicapped in terms of differentiating
> completely different actions or is being intentionally niave.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
> This is the primary source of my personal disagreement with the whole
> pro-abortion crowd.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ever hear the term "pro CHOICE"?
-- Sam
|
| 20.5025 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:55 | 1 |
| That you were at all affected by "that british case".
|
| 20.5026 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 18:58 | 6 |
| .5025
oh well, mark, i'll write a daily newsletter containing
all my thoughts and opinions on current events and post
it in here at 9:00 a.m. sharp every morning to keep you
up to date.
|
| 20.5027 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:02 | 20 |
| > <<< Note 20.5020 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> -< Got to follow the thread. >-
I _have_ followed the thread, thankyouverymuch.
> If you feel the response
> was questionable, well, so was the original question.
Yes. And...?
> It appears
> that only in the area of abortion do the abortion supporters feel that
> there should be no restrictions.
> This is the primary source of my personal disagreement with the whole
> pro-abortion crowd.
There you go with the misnomers and generalizations, once again.
I'm sure lots of pro-choice people feel that there should be
restrictions.
|
| 20.5028 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:04 | 6 |
| > <<< Note 20.5022 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "and your little dog, too!" >>>
> No kiddin'. You sure held it well; no one would have ever guessed.
Wrong. I, for one, would have guessed.
|
| 20.5030 | restrictions? nobody to negotiate with! | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:09 | 17 |
| One problem with 'restictions' is that we simply don't trust the
prolifers to act reasonably. "They" have, for example, managed to hand
the GOP presidential nominee-apparent a huge embarassment/loss on the
eve of his nomination, by insistence upon retaining a plank in the GOP
platform calling for a constitutional ban on abortions. You expect us
to debate 'reasonable restrictions' with people willing to sabotage
their own party in the name of their extremism? As Dole just found
out, with friends like those the Democrats are the least of his
worries. With such fanatics, we don't dare give them an inch of
reasonable restrictions on a woman's right to choose, yea, even up to
the end of the third trimester. Because once given an inch, they'll
never stop. Better instead, politically, that we stay on the ramparts
and let their extremism force them back out to the fringes, let the
body politic continue to support legal abortion as they have, in the
main, and in continued majorities, for over twenty years.
DougO
|
| 20.5031 | Yes, I have. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:10 | 6 |
| .5024
Yeah, I have heard of the term. I just don't chose to use it. I could
when the terms anti-abortion and pro-life stop being used
interchangeably.
|
| 20.5032 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:11 | 3 |
| Well, Oph, you did manage to get 10 notes in here before it slipped
that you weren't truly delighted by the "choice" the woman made with
regard to that inconvenient piece of tissue.
|
| 20.5033 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:11 | 3 |
| > Wrong. I, for one, would have guessed.
That's cuz you're so much smarter than everyone else.
|
| 20.5034 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:12 | 7 |
| .5031
Remember, if you please, that it is the anti-abortion crowd that has
designated itself "pro-life." The pro-choice crowd has NEVER
designated itself "pro-abortion."
What goes around comes around. Get used to it.
|
| 20.5035 | Yes, 20 weeks is a new number from 1989... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:12 | 44 |
|
Well, of course the SCOTUS rulings set guidelines which some
states then test in various ways. That's what is supposed to
happen, not just on abortion. The Court generally won't decide
questions until they actually come up. It isn't a legislature,
and doesn't pass comprehensive legislation trying to cover all
contingencies.
In the original Roe v. Wade, the states could regulate second
trimester abortions, but not prohibit them. They could prohibit
then in the third trimester, except to protect the life of the
woman. Webster, plurality by Rehnquist, O'Connor in concurrence,
Blackmun in dissent, basically didn't challenge the basic idea
in Roe v. Wade, but the "20 weeks" in the Missouri law is not a
Roe v. Wade number. The "viability test at 20 weeks" was an
attempt to reflect changing technology, and Blackmun and O'Connor
were barely apart here. After all, 24 weeks was the rule before
the case.
I have no idea what the Court might say about other numbers, in
other states. You have to ask them to find out. Of course, most
abortions happen as soon as the woman finds out she's pregnant, no
matter what the law is. But there is no problem getting a legal
abortion is Massachusetts any time during pregnancy. And I know
there is no problem in New York.
Colin, the problem with putting "12" or "24" or "20" in the
chart in .4980 is that no number reflects the legal situation in
the United States. I wonder how well the numbers in the chart
for some of the countries I DON'T know about reflect them either.
Why would somebody put a bogus precision like this in, to give
people a false impression ? A foreigner travelling in the USA
reading this chart might assume that a woman in the USA can't get
an abortion after 12 or 20 weeks of pregnancy. But that isn't
what the numbers in the chart are.
They are those numbers which states have used, which have been
challenged in court, and which SCOTUS ruled are constitutionally OK
for a state to use, for various types of regulation, but not absolute
prohibition of abortion in their jurisdictions. The chart is misleading.
There is no time during pregnancy at which it it not possible to get
a legal abortion in the United States.
bb
|
| 20.5036 | Oh, really?? | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:15 | 11 |
| .5027
If, indeed, many of the pro-choice people feel there should be
restrictions, I would be most interested in seeing some of those
identified here. so far, I have never, as far as I can recall, ever
seen any response entered other than, "It's nobody's business but the
woman's, so everyone else just shut up."
It's this response that seems to be the overwhelming response that
leads me to my generalizations.
|
| 20.5037 | | SSDEVO::LAMBERT | We ':-)' for the humor impaired | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:17 | 10 |
| ? Yeah, I have heard of the term. I just don't chose to use it. I could
? when the terms anti-abortion and pro-life stop being used
? interchangeably.
And the difference is? I'm asking seriously, as I don't see one in the
context of abortion.
If you don't see the difference between "pro abortion" and "pro choice"
then I submit that you are, in fact, being "intentionally naive".
|
| 20.5038 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:17 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 20.5033 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "and your little dog, too!" >>>
> That's cuz you're so much smarter than everyone else.
Sheesh.
No, it's because I've been reading Oph's notes for quite
a long time, and it's in character.
|
| 20.5039 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:20 | 10 |
| > I would be most interested in seeing some of those identified here.
As I just said in .5030, Rocush, there's no point in negotiating with
fanatics, so you won't see any compromises from the prochoice side.
Not that we wouldn't prefer to, just that we can't find anyone to talk
to about it. Moderate GOP candidates get sandbagged by their party
fringes. Once the GOP undertakes the necessary discipline to sideline
the fanatics, we'll talk.
DougO
|
| 20.5040 | | SSDEVO::LAMBERT | We ':-)' for the humor impaired | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:22 | 13 |
| > seen any response entered other than, "It's nobody's business but the
> woman's, so everyone else just shut up."
> It's this response that seems to be the overwhelming response that
> leads me to my generalizations.
Why do you need another response? Does freedom upset you that much?
The fact that you disagree with something does not make it "wrong".
Not that your stance isn't without precedent.
-- Sam
|
| 20.5041 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:23 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 20.5036 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> -< Oh, really?? >-
Let me get this straight here. Are you saying that when you
refer to "the whole pro-abortion crowd", you're referring only to
the pro-choice Soapboxers who have expressed opinions in this
forum?
|
| 20.5042 | minors | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:24 | 13 |
|
Well, the most controversial "restriction" is parental
consent (also, notification) when the mother is a minor.
As I understand it, this restriction was upheld in Hodgson v.
Minnesota (requiring consent of a parent or a judge for minors
to get an abortion). But I confess I may be mistaken.
Some states require parental consent for ANY medical practice
on children, so in that sense, abortion would be no different.
But in Massachusetts, parental consent IS NOT required.
bb
|
| 20.5043 | Wrong, again. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:24 | 12 |
| .5034
Wrong, again. I consider myself very much a pro-life person. I do
not, however, consider myself anti-abortion. The two terms get used
consistently incorrectly and as far as I know, the pro-life people
never used the the term anti-abortion to describe themselves.
Based on your inaccurate use of the terms it remains equally valid to
use pro-abortion as equivalent to pro-choice.
What goes around comes around. Get used to it.
|
| 20.5044 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:26 | 7 |
| rocush,
I believe the restrictions should be made by a person, her dr, and her
god. There are very few medically qualified people in the legislature,
and I fail to see why they should legislate medical procedures.
meg
|
| 20.5045 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Perpetual Glenn | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:30 | 1 |
| <--- That's because you're a heathen.
|
| 20.5046 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:31 | 4 |
| > <<< Note 20.5043 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
If you acknowledge that a term is being used incorrectly,
why would you continue to use it that way? Just for spite?
|
| 20.5047 | My .02 | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:32 | 15 |
| .5039
Oh, I get it. Just because the Republicans hold a very strong pro-life
position, no discussion can be entered into.
Do you, perhaps, think that just maybe the attitude you display leadws
to the hard line approach. Since there is no rational discussion going
on then it would seem that you force people into a position of asking
for the world when they would be willing to accept much less.
Keep you position and the other extreme will keep theirs and when the
pendullum swings you will find a much less desirable result.
I would suggest a more temperate approach.
|
| 20.5048 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:34 | 23 |
| >As I just said in .5030, Rocush, there's no point in negotiating with
>fanatics, so you won't see any compromises from the prochoice side.
>Not that we wouldn't prefer to, just that we can't find anyone to talk
>to about it. Moderate GOP candidates get sandbagged by their party
>fringes. Once the GOP undertakes the necessary discipline to sideline
>the fanatics, we'll talk.
That's a steaming pile. The fact of the matter is that the moderates
on the pro-choice side have no greater control over their zealots than the
moderates of the pro-life have over theirs. As soon as moderate
pro-choicers started talking about 'reasonable restrictions'
pro-choicers would be quite splintered with the zealots making speech
every bit as extreme as the RR.
There are plenty of people with whom to talk about reasonable
restrictions if you are at all inclined. And unlike your intimation,
talking about reasonable restrictions is simply not the same thing as
negotiating. Nobody's changing anything; we're just talking. Well,
except you can't even bring yourself to talk about it. In 8 years, I've
never heard you utter a restriction upon abortion that you'd find
reasonable. It's always been "herbodyherchoice", period.
|
| 20.5049 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:36 | 11 |
| .5041
By and large. I also include those who claim to reprsent the
pro-choice movement in the media and various marches, etc. these
people tend to hold the same views as those in here.
As with any generalization, it excludes some, but I try to identify the
targets of my generalizations.
Yeah, pretty much.
|
| 20.5050 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:38 | 6 |
| BTW- It's my contention that if moderate pro-choicers were willing to
engage in a dialogue regarding reasonable restrictions to abortion, the
groundswell of public support for the common ground would be so
overwhelming as to relegate radical pro-life/anti-abortionists to the
lonely fringe. IMO, it's the insistence upon restrictionless abortion
that gives such legs to the anti-abortion movement.
|
| 20.5051 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:39 | 7 |
| > the majority of abortions are performed in the
> first trimester. no brain waves.
Wrong. Brain waves can be detected and measured beginning at the 40th
day. Most abortions are performed after the 40th day.
/john
|
| 20.5052 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:39 | 15 |
| .5043
> I do not, however, consider myself anti-abortion.
Then you believe that abortion is all right, or else you hold no
position whatever on abortion. What, then, are you doing in this
topic?
> as far as I know, the pro-life people
> never used the the term anti-abortion to describe themselves.
As I said, anti-abortion people do call themselves pro-life. If you're
pro-choice wrt abortion and still pro-life, then you should be out
there pissing and moaning about the anti-abortion crowd's usurpation of
your self-descriptive epithet.
|
| 20.5053 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:40 | 18 |
|
.5035
It's pretty clear to me that the rider:
(Time in weeks after Conception, ? indicates uncertainty)
And the presence of the question mark after the US figures acknowledges
the uncertainty over the US laws. The table provides the relevant
legislation for each country, right down to a reference to the Koran.
However, even with the uncertainty, there is sufficient evidence
there to cast doubt on /john's assertion that:
"The United States has the least restrictive abortion laws of _any_
Western country, and possibly any country other than China."
Which was the point under discussion.
|
| 20.5054 | bah ! | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:40 | 14 |
|
What a silly bunch of spin doctiring and word smithing.
OF COURSE, "pro-life" is the same as "anti-abortion".
And OF COURSE, "pro-choice" is the same as "pro-abortion".
There's well over a million abortions in the US a year. Either
you think there should be, or you think there shouldn't.
I hate it when people try to influence a good, nasty argument
by pussyfooting around, trying to score points with what things
are called.
bb
|
| 20.5055 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:45 | 6 |
| .5011
> a piece of tissue is not a human. /hth
Ah, I see. The old "it's just a clump of cells" rationale. <sigh>
|
| 20.5056 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:45 | 6 |
| > Brain waves can be detected and measured beginning at the 40th
> day. Most abortions are performed after the 40th day.
You said that before. I asked you what kind of brain waves and
observed that any embryo exhibits the same phenomena. Any update on
the source?
|
| 20.5057 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:47 | 26 |
| > <<< Note 20.4946 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> Also the note that referred to the 1st amendment. Remember the fact
> that there are limits on free speech. If you want ot use an argument
> understand what your argument entails. If you can't libel or slander
> someone, or shout FIRE ina theatre, then you don't have total "choice"
> under the 1str amendment. Since you like this argument, then why not
> accept reasonable restrictions on a found right like abortion.
> I know, this is just totally out of the question.
> I really wonder how people like you can look at yourselves in the
> mirror. You claim the Republicans are intolerant because they want
> restrictions on abortion. You are the most intolerant of all since
> anyone that doesn't toe the pro-choice line exactly at all times, is
> not to be tolerated at all.
This rant was directed at me. You, Mr. Rocush, would have no
way of knowing what my stand is on abortion, other than the fact
that I'm pro-choice (which you might not even have known), because
I rarely participate in this topic. I thought it was idiotic of
you to blurt out your hatred for pro-choicers because of the
incident in England. From that, you've somehow decided that I'm
intolerant of anyone who doesn't "toe the pro-choice line exactly
at all times". That's utter nonsense. You are most certainly _not_
aware, when it comes to the targets of your generalizations.
|
| 20.5058 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:47 | 17 |
| .5054
> Either you think there should be [over a million abortions a year],
> or you think there shouldn't.
Pure unadulterated crap.
I do not think there should be more than a very few thousand abortions
a year. I do not believe abortions for any reason other than sound
medical judgment should occur. I include in the "should not occur"
category all abortions due to rape or incest.
I also do not believe that I have the right to shove my spiritual
beliefs, on which my abortion position is based, down the gorge of
anyone else. This is, as was pointed out, what *freedom* is all about.
It includes the freedom to make mistakes, even very bad ones, and even
ones that violate other people's morals.
|
| 20.5059 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Aug 07 1996 19:50 | 13 |
| If I want to own an xxx weapon or yyy car or nnn anything, who are YOU
to have veto power over me. It is MY choice! If I chose to use an Uzi
for self protection of the MOTHER of my children to protect her or MY
Life Liberty or Persuit of Happiness, it IS NON OF YOU BUSINESS.
When I break a law, not related to self preservation, then you may have
a say. Until them BUG OUT!
If people don't like the above, don't get too upset when I chose to
limit things you consider sacroscant (sp) such as abortion.
Get use to it...
Steve
|
| 20.5060 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:10 | 24 |
| >I do not, however, consider myself anti-abortion.
Oh. Glad you finally came around.
>I can not identify any area covered in the Constitution that
>does not contain some restrictions on a right or freedom.
You would liken the proposed constitutional amendment banning
abortion wtih the existing constitutional amendment guaranteeing
free speech by saying that both free speech and abortion have
some restrictions? That's absurd on the face of it.
>If I want to own an xxx weapon or yyy car or nnn anything, who are YOU
>to have veto power over me. It is MY choice! If I chose to use an Uzi
>for self protection of the MOTHER of my children to protect her or MY
>Life Liberty or Persuit of Happiness, it IS NON OF YOU BUSINESS.
>When I break a law, not related to self preservation, then you may
have
>a say. Until them BUG OUT!
He gets it when it is about himself. I wonder why he can't get it when
it is about somebody else?
|
| 20.5061 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:11 | 4 |
| .5059
what got you so hot under the collar? your failure
to answer the questions posed to you in .5014?
|
| 20.5062 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:11 | 22 |
| >BTW- It's my contention that if moderate pro-choicers were willing to
>engage in a dialogue regarding reasonable restrictions to abortion,
the
>groundswell of public support for the common ground would be so
>overwhelming as to relegate radical pro-life/anti-abortionists to the
>lonely fringe. IMO, it's the insistence upon restrictionless abortion
>that gives such legs to the anti-abortion movement.
When they passed the Brady Bill, Clinton or somebody was quoted in the
press as saying something like, "Well, it's a good first step, but we
have to keep fighting, one little law at a time, until all guns are
banned in America."
People hear those kinds of comments and they know damn well that a
compromise with extremists does nothing but establish a new starting
negotiating position, with them half way to their eventual goal,
which is to take away all you rights or all you freedom or all of
whatever it is they want from you.
Some things do not need to be compromised, such as one's rights
to determine what happens in one's own body.
|
| 20.5063 | Different information leads to different responses. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:20 | 15 |
| .5057
Once again you've not used all of the responses. I repsonded to your
reference to the 1st amendment as being without merit. Also, your
responses have genrally never left any doubt about unrestricted
abortions. Your most recent responses have indicated something
different than your earlier notes.
If you add more information, then I certainly can form a different
opinion.
And, yes, I do have a real problem with the folks in England that
represent the most distateful segment of the argument. These radicals
do nothing but lead to further polarization.
|
| 20.5064 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:20 | 9 |
| Re question on pro-choice in guns and abortion.
I had changed my mind a couple of years ago to be extreemly reluctant
in allowing abortions so as not to be hyppocritical (sp) when it comes
to being pro-choice on guns, cars or other things. I do not however favor
unrestricted gun ownership or unrestricted abortion. Both need limits
from society. Atomic weapons should be out, so should late term
abortions, That said, how do you feel?
|
| 20.5065 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:23 | 8 |
|
> That said, how do you feel?
Well, I've got a headache, I'm kinda tired, but generally I feel pretty
well, thank you very much. And you?
|
| 20.5066 | You got it wrong. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:26 | 9 |
| .5060
I haven't come around anywhere. I have not changed my basic position
since the original Roe v Wade decision.
Also, your second paragraph is wholey without substance since you
obviously have no concept about the restrictions that exist on
freedoms.
|
| 20.5067 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:26 | 17 |
| > <<< Note 20.5063 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> Also, your
> responses have genrally never left any doubt about unrestricted
> abortions. Your most recent responses have indicated something
> different than your earlier notes.
What?? You must be confusing me with someone else, that's the
only explanation I can come up with. You're totally wrong here.
> And, yes, I do have a real problem with the folks in England that
> represent the most distateful segment of the argument.
What?? You went ranting on about why you hate pro-choicers,
not why you have a problem with these "folks in England". You're
all over the place.
|
| 20.5068 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:35 | 4 |
| .5064
steve keith, sorry, i cannot put all those
ingredients in the blender.
|
| 20.5069 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:45 | 7 |
| .5062
The disconnect that the "it's my body, but out" folks seem to have, is
that it isn't *just* their body. This is where the parallel between
the so-called right to abortion and other rights fall apart.
-steve
|
| 20.5070 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:48 | 3 |
| >it isn't *just* their body.
It's entirely *within* just their body. That's what you are ignoring.
|
| 20.5071 | not a dime's worth of difference, in practice | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:50 | 25 |
|
re, .5058 - well, from a "macro" or "policy" point of view, it
makes no difference how many abortions either of us think "there
ought to be", all that matters is what is the actual effect of
the policies our society adopts. We know what the change that
SCOTUS made did to the demographics of the country, a step function
in the mid-70's, followed by stasis at the new levels.
Can our "constitutional" society have a "population policy" ? It
appears that SCOTUS has ruled out any societal influence over the
birth rate, and effectively, over the death rate. The only thing
left is immigration. I use this point to demonstrate that what
may "appear" to have no affect on me, could end up being the thing
with the most effect on me. If SCOTUS has dictated there will be
a decrease of 1.3 megababies/year, and this holds from 1973 till
my retirement some 37 years later, I will reap the rewards and
punishments of having a vastly different society around me in my
dotage. Whether the difference will be for the better or for the
worse, is a matter of opinion.
Meanwhile, we have Unplanned Demographics by judicial fiat, while
at the same time deploring other countries who also can't seem to
plan their populations. But this is the least of our inconsistencies.
bb
|
| 20.5072 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 07 1996 20:53 | 2 |
| no steve, you are wrong. a equals a. a person's
body is a person's body. period.
|
| 20.5073 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Aug 07 1996 21:00 | 4 |
| No Bonnie, you are wrong. a != b. A person's body != their fetus'
body.
Isn't this fun? 8^)
|
| 20.5074 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Aug 07 1996 21:02 | 1 |
| FWIW, I think that abortions should be totally, 100% unrestricted.
|
| 20.5075 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 07 1996 21:06 | 19 |
| .5071
> all that matters is what is the actual effect of
> the policies our society adopts.
In case you've never had this explained to you, here is the problem in
a nutshell. You cannot legislate morality. Those who disagree with a
law will simply find ways to avoid it. Abortions will continue to
happen, whether in clinics or in back alleys, whether in the United
States or in some other country, whether you like it or not. Throwing
women who have abortions, or doctors who perform them, into jaill will
not stop abortions, but it will increase the prison population.
The policies our society should adopt are loving policies of
understanding and helping, not draconian and unenforceable police-state
policies of control. It's a carrot-and-stick thing. Understanding the
benefits of not having promiscuous sex, understanding the benefits of
not having children when they're not wanted, these are carrots. Being
threatened with jail, this is a stick.
|
| 20.5076 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Aug 07 1996 21:15 | 16 |
| > <<< Note 20.5014 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>
> Are you asserting that anyone who is pro-choice on abortion should
> therefore be pro-choice when it comes to gun ownership, to be
> consistent? Does that mean that if you're _not_ pro-choice on
> abortion, you should not be pro-choice on gun ownership, to be
> consistent? No, that wouldn't necessarily follow either, would
> it? It's absurd to be comparing the two issues.
Not necessarily. If one's "thing" is "Gov't out of my life", it follows very
naturally that one should be pro-choice for both.
If you have no problem with heavy-handed state control of one part of your
life, it would be hypocritical to say "Gov't out" in another part.
Then again, a lot of people never examine their views for these kinds of
inconsistencies, and they're all over the map.
|
| 20.5077 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 07 1996 21:31 | 10 |
| > <<< Note 20.5076 by ASIC::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>
>Not necessarily. If one's "thing" is "Gov't out of my life", it follows very
>naturally that one should be pro-choice for both.
I didn't say that there aren't criteria for which one would need
to have both views in order to be consistent. It's almost
always possible to narrow or expand the criteria such that that works.
But it's been presented here as "if A, then B, or you're being
inconsistent". Far too simplistic.
|
| 20.5078 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Aug 07 1996 23:50 | 15 |
| > Oh, I get it. Just because the Republicans hold a very strong
> pro-life position, no discussion can be entered into.
That isn't what I said. You appear to be ignoring the defeat just
handed to Dole over the platform language. That's ok, you can pretend
the GOP isn't split between fanatics and moderates on the issue. Won't
change the fact. But if you can't even recognize the *existence*
within the GOP of alternate views, how can you expect to be taken
seriously as a negotiator?
> I would suggest a more temperate approach.
Where's that P & K note?
DougO
|
| 20.5079 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Aug 08 1996 00:15 | 63 |
| >> Once the GOP undertakes the necessary discipline to sideline
>> the fanatics, we'll talk.
> That's a steaming pile. The fact of the matter is that the moderates
> on the pro-choice side have no greater control over their zealots than
> the moderates of the pro-life have over theirs.
The fact you cite is correct. The only thing is, we *don't* have to
discipline our zealots because both the law and the country are with
us. On other issues, at other times, the Democrats allowed their
fanatics free rein, with the resulting fiasco at the '84 convention,
for a case in point. But having an extremist position which isn't all
that far from the middle of public opinion reduces the apparent
extremism on our side.
The clinic bombers and assassins on the other side, however, make the
radical right extremists look like loonies. Holding Dole hostage on
the platform he's supposed to run on is only slightly less extreme, and
will probably lose the GOP the election just like the cultural war
Buchanan tried to start in '92 did.
Simply put, Mark, the middle-of-the-road in public opinion is a lot
closer to the pro-choice position, so the danger our radicals do to our
cause is less, so the pressure to marginalize them is less. On the
other hand, the pressure to marginalize the radical right after they
torpedo the convention in San Diego will be immense. I see *no* way
the GOP will avoid a floor fight, and if I were you, I'd save your
"steaming pile" comments for the aftermath of that mess.
> There are plenty of people with whom to talk about reasonable
> restrictions if you are at all inclined. And unlike your intimation,
> talking about reasonable restrictions is simply not the same thing as
> negotiating. Nobody's changing anything; we're just talking. Well,
> except you can't even bring yourself to talk about it. In 8 years, I've
> never heard you utter a restriction upon abortion that you'd find
> reasonable. It's always been "herbodyherchoice", period.
Many of us in here have talked about reasonable restrictions. Many of
us are comfortable with no abortions beyond the point of viability.
Some are willing to accept the brain-wave standard, but with Covert
talking about the first squiggles of electrical activity from the first
two neurons that happen to bump into each other and fire at random, I'm
not one of them. So you clearly haven't been listening, "period". But
lets not pretend that there's been active discussion in here for the
past 8 years. Most of the activity is radicals screaming at each
other, hardly a discussion worthy of the name. And I simply won't
waste the time on it I used to. Been there, done that. The real thing
is, I find all the hootin' and hollerin' about "restrictions" to be
evidence that we simply don't see the same problem. "restrictions" are
a bandaid. The vast majority of abortions are done in the first
trimester. You want to convince me there's pro-life moderates who want
to reduce the number of abortions, you're going to put up a ton of
money for birth control education, prenatal care so women can have
healthy babies, and other straightforward efforts to address the poverty
traps that result in so many unplanned pregnancies. So far, all I see
in talk of restrictions is punishment for unmarried sex. Well, I won't
participate in that discussion, I don't see any need to punish people
for having sex. Helping them go about it smarter, addressing the
largest part of the problem, sex w/o birthcontrol, unmarried jobless
teens having babies- lets talk. Restrict abortions FIRST? That
doesn't look to me like you want to solve the real problems.
DougO
|
| 20.5080 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 08 1996 01:47 | 1 |
| you go, dougo!
|
| 20.5081 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Thu Aug 08 1996 01:48 | 11 |
| RE: .5079
> Many of us in here have talked about reasonable restrictions. Many of
> us are comfortable with no abortions beyond the point of viability.
DougO, are you willing to allow scientific advances take away your
rights and freedoms? If you aren't, then you cannot use the point of
viability because the point of viability can be altered by
technological and scientific advances.
-- Dave
|
| 20.5082 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Thu Aug 08 1996 02:06 | 16 |
|
<<< Note 20.5069 by ACISS2::LEECH >>>
> The disconnect that the "it's my body, but out" folks seem to have, is
> that it isn't *just* their body. This is where the parallel between
> the so-called right to abortion and other rights fall apart.
Steve, you need to see the fetus as a parasite, and then you'll have
a better understanding, or so I've been told.
Jim
|
| 20.5083 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Thu Aug 08 1996 10:42 | 57 |
| >Many of us in here have talked about reasonable restrictions.
Oh, I've heard vague intimations about a willingness to accept
reasonable restrictions on a very few occasions (as opposed to the
mantra-like "herbodyherchoice" which occurs with heartbeat regularity.)
But nothing of substance.
>Many of us are comfortable with no abortions beyond the point of viability.
Ooh! Substance. Well, it's a start.
>Some are willing to accept the brain-wave standard, but with Covert
>talking about the first squiggles of electrical activity from the first
>two neurons that happen to bump into each other and fire at random, I'm
>not one of them.
I'm a brain-wave guy. Not occasional squiggles, but some meaningful
and reasonably objective measure, such as alpha waves, indicating a
particular milestone in development.
>But lets not pretend that there's been active discussion in here for the
>past 8 years.
Not here, particularly, but this isn't the only forum in which we both
participate and in which the subject of abortion comes up. And I
certainly admit to being a rare participant in this thread.
>You want to convince me there's pro-life moderates who want
>to reduce the number of abortions, you're going to put up a ton of
>money for birth control education, prenatal care so women can have
>healthy babies, and other straightforward efforts to address the poverty
>traps that result in so many unplanned pregnancies.
So this is a hold up? Gimme your money or I don't believe you? Swell.
I support birth control education, etc, but I don't think that free
prenatal care (or free anything else) makes sense. Sure, make prenatal
care available to women, but make them do something for it. If it's
free, they won't appreciate it, they won't value it. And part of the
problem is that too many of them are too stupid to take advantage of
prenatal care even when it is free. We have to work to educate young
girls about the dire importance of prenatal and postnatal care before
they start getting pregnant.
>addressing the
>largest part of the problem, sex w/o birthcontrol, unmarried jobless
>teens having babies- lets talk.
Absolutely. You got any bright ideas about how to stop young, dumb,
unemployed people from having babies, I'd love to hear them.
>Restrict abortions FIRST? That doesn't look to me like you want to
>solve the real problems.
Who said it couldn't be done simultaneously? And regardless of which
happens first, the whole job needs to be done. So it's not like I
support only doing part of the job.
|
| 20.5084 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Aug 08 1996 11:10 | 14 |
| It's my body, it's my life, I intend to protect it with a gun BUT OUT
NO different than It's my body, it's my decision
If a woman can have an abortion to protect her life, I defy someone in
her to tell me why I cannot protect my own life in other ways.
But we all know that too many people are hipocrites (sp) and that they
will just ignore the question or change the discussion. Then they will
vote for and support political hacks that support an illogical
unsupportable position on taking away basic rights to life. They should
read some history and find out about tyrany (sp) and on how wars start...
Bet they believe in 'teaching peace' too.
|
| 20.5085 | /hth | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Thu Aug 08 1996 11:17 | 17 |
| >BUT OUT
Butt out.
>I defy someone in her to tell me why
One expects someone in her to be A) busy or B) incommunicado.
>hipocrites
hypocrites
>tyrany
tyranny
|
| 20.5086 | | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Strangers on the plain, Croaker | Thu Aug 08 1996 11:43 | 11 |
| 20.5087 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Aug 08 1996 11:49 | 138 |
|
Survey says teen abortions are down, contraceptive failure on the
increase
By Kelly Ryan, Associated Press, 08/07/96
Dallas Morning News
(KRT)
Fewer teen-agers are having abortions, the number of Hispanic women
having the procedure increased and six out of 10 women said their
contraception failed, indicates a survey of nearly 10,000 women to be
released Thursday.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute survey indicates that abortions are
common among all groups of women, despite age, religion, education,
income or ethnicity.
``Our goal is for people to have a more realistic view of abortions,''
said Dr. Stanley Henshaw, deputy director of research at The Alan
Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.
Some abortion opponents questioned the results because the institute
supports legalized abortion.
``I have a fundamental doubt about the credibility about any of their
studies,'' said Clarke Forsythe, president and attorney for the
Americans United for Life, a Chicago-based legal and public policy
organization. ``They wouldn't release any data that would go against
their mission.''
An estimated 1.3 million American women have abortions each year, the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention data shows, but the
government study does not do a complete demographic breakdown. The
Guttmacher survey is cited by the government has a reliable source of
information.
The survey results are based on a questionnaire that was given to
11,288 women who had abortions during 1994-95 in hospitals, clinics and
doctor's offices that perform abortions nationwide. The facilities were
chosen at random and the women were asked to voluntarily fill out the
form and return it. About 9,985 returned completed surveys.
The findings will be used as part of a long-term research project on
contraceptive use that likely won't be complete until 1998, Henshaw
said.
This is the second survey the institute has conducted that identifies
who has abortions. Henshaw compared the 1987 data of 10,000 women with
the survey scheduled to be released Thursday.
In 1987, the New York-based institute also reported that 46 percent of
all U.S. women will have an abortion at some point in their lives.
The survey found that teen-agers made up a smaller proportion of those
having an abortion, 21.5 percent, down from 25.5 percent in 1987.
Forsythe said that's a good sign.
``I think there are two factors: cultural trends that have pointed out
the dangers of adolescent sexual activity, such as AIDS ... and the
impact of parental notice and consent laws,'' Forsythe said, referring
to states that require juveniles obtain consent before getting an
abortion.
Henshaw attributed the drop to increased sex education programs in
schools and increased use of condoms.
While most of the women continue to be white and middle-class, the
proportion who were Hispanic increased to 20 percent, from nearly 13
percent in 1987, the survey shows.
Rodolfo de la Garza, vice president of the Tomas Rivera Policy
Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, a Latino public policy
research group, said that although Hispanics largely are Catholic, it
does not stop some from having abortions.
``Latinos are ambivalent on abortions,'' he said. ``Catholicism is in
and of itself not a barrier because all Hispanics are not intensely
Catholic.''
The survey appeared to support that assumption. Among those surveyed,
Catholic women are as likely as women in the general population to have
an abortion, while Protestants are 69 percent as likely and Evangelical
or ``born again'' Christians are 39 percent as likely to have
abortions.
Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights Action
League, said it was ironic that the same groups who oppose abortion
also oppose sex education, which she said would decrease the number of
abortions.
``Those who oppose abortion are quite hypocritical because women among
those groups use the service just as much as other groups in this
survey,'' she said.
Dr. William Donohue, president of the New York-based Catholic League,
said he would like to know how many of the Catholic women surveyed
attend church regularly.
``The greater the frequency of the church attendance, the greater
likelihood that they (women) would follow the church teachings,'' he
said.
The survey also showed that a disproportionate number of women,
compared to the general female population, were minorities, aged 18-24,
separated and never-married women, had an annual income of less than
$15,000 or were on Medicaid.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN TRIM HERE)
For example, non-white women make up 18.9 percent of the
childbearing-age population, but accounted for 38.7 percent of the
abortions, Henshaw told The Associated Press.
Citing the increased number of failed contraceptive use, Henshaw said
it's important for more couples to realize that once they stop using a
preventative method, the women immediately could become pregnant.
He said the survey indicates some couples aren't following
contraception directions closely. Fifty-eight percent of women having
abortions reported contraception failure, an increase of 12 percent
since the 1987 survey.
``The large majority of contraceptive failure is because the couples
didn't use the method correctly,'' Henshaw said.
GRAPHIC (from KRT Graphics Network, 202-383-6064):
08/07 ABORTION SURVEY, 2x5, new figures from the Guttmacher Institute
on the women who have abortions
(c) 1996, The Dallas Morning News. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune
Information Services.
AP-NY-08-07-96 2004EDT
|
| 20.5088 | switcheroo | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Aug 08 1996 12:27 | 11 |
|
In a rebuff to Pat Robertson et al, Weld, Pataki, Olympia Snowe
and Wilson refused to go quietly on the tolerance addendum. They
had the votes (6 states) to force a floor fight unless Ralph Reid
and Pat Buchanan allowed a "tolerance addendum". Faced with a
public relations disaster next week, Dole's cave-in yesterday
caved out, and the Tolerance Plank, written by pro-Choice Republicans,
is back in, as a sort of Appendix. It was that, or internecine
warfare on national TV. Stay tuned.
bb
|
| 20.5089 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Thu Aug 08 1996 13:05 | 5 |
| .5075
When abortion was not legal (pre Roe v. Wade), I can't recall any women
who obtained illegal abortions being tossed in the slammer. Maybe a
few practitioners, but not the women.
|
| 20.5090 | quantities | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Aug 08 1996 13:18 | 7 |
|
There were illegal abortions. There were never anything like
1.3 million per year. The quantities increased by at least one
order of magnitude in the 1970's. And live births took a tumble
to match.
bb
|
| 20.5091 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Thu Aug 08 1996 13:34 | 8 |
|
> Steve, you need to see the fetus as a parasite, and then you'll have
> a better understanding, or so I've been told.
Ah...that would explain it. For some odd reason I see the unborn as
a human life worthy of protection... guess I'm just blinded by my own
extremism, eh?
|
| 20.5092 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 08 1996 13:41 | 5 |
| Barricade the gates, boys! I hear tomtoms and chanting, the savages
may be massing for another attack!
:-)
|
| 20.5093 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Aug 08 1996 15:49 | 10 |
| >For some odd reason I see the unborn as a human life worthy of protection.
So? If you think this great, don't ever have an abortion. There are
those who don't agree. But of course you're the only one who can be
right in this matter, so forcing others to comply with your opinion is
the only "moral" thing to do.
>guess I'm just blinded by my own extremism, eh?
Apparently
|
| 20.5094 | profile | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Thu Aug 08 1996 15:55 | 61 |
|
Few changes in profile of women getting abortions
Women getting abortions in the mid-1990s are more likely to be
contraceptive users and less likely to be teen-agers than those who
had abortions in the late 1980s, a new study shows.
But in most ways, the profile of abortion patients has changed little,
says Thursday's report from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York.
Women who are poor, not white, not religious or who live with their
partners outside marriage still get a disproportionate number of the
abortions. And born-again Christians, married women and women over age
35 get fewer abortions than average.
The bulk of the abortions, however, occur among women who make up the
bulk of the population: White, middle-class women who identify with
one religion or another.
"All sorts of women have abortions," says lead researcher Stanley
Henshaw, a sociologist. "But if you restricted abortion it would
affect low-income women and minorities disproportionately."
Guttmacher, a nonprofit group that supports abortion rights, is
considered the best source of abortion statistics. The study was done
in 1994 and 1995 in 100 hospitals and clinics. Nearly 10,000 women
filled out surveys, usually while waiting for their abortions.
The study was not designed to count the total number of U.S.
abortions. That number was estimated at 1.4 million in 1994. But the
researchers say their sample should be representative of abortion
patients:
* Women ages 15-to-17 got 8.8% of the abortions, and made up 8.8% of
the childbearing-aged population. In 1987, the last time a similar
study was done, young teens were 15% more likely than other women
to have abortions.
* The highest rate of abortion was in women aged 20-24.
* Most patients, 58%, said they used birth control the month they
got pregnant, up from 51% in 1987. Condoms were involved in 56% of
the birth control failures, up from 29% in 1987. But researchers
rejected the notion that condoms replaced more effective methods,
such as the pill: Instead, they said women switched from other
barrier methods or no method at all.
* Unmarried women living with partners got 20% of the abortions but
made up only 6% of the population.
* Women who named no religion, also 6% of the population, got 24% of
the abortions. Women who called themselves evangelicals or
born-again Christians, almost half the population, got 18% of the
abortions. Catholics, 31% of the population, had 31% of them.
The study should counter the notion that "abortion happens to bad
women, irresponsible women, women who never use contraception," says
Guttmacher head Jeannie Rosoff.
But Kristi Hamrick, of the Family Research Council, says: "It's not
because we don't know that the people around us have abortions that
we're pro-life, it's because we do know. We have seen the devastation
that comes into the lives of women who are told abortion is a quick
fix."
By Kim Painter, USA TODAY
|
| 20.5095 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Aug 08 1996 17:01 | 13 |
| >>For some odd reason I see the unborn as a human life worthy of protection.
>
> So? If you think this great, don't ever have an abortion.
That's like saying that if you believe that slavery is wrong, just don't own
slaves.
For those who believe that human rights begin before birth, defense of
the rights of pre-born humans does have to go beyond personal decisions
about having abortions.
/john
|
| 20.5096 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Aug 08 1996 17:20 | 25 |
| >That's like saying that if you believe that slavery is wrong, just
>don't own slaves.
As you prove time and time again, you are the king of the non sequitur.
From the "American Heritage Dictionary":
non sequitur - 1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the
premises or evidence. 2. A statement that does not follow logically from
what preceded it.
Using your example however, forcing people into forced servitude is
immoral. Why? Because it uses unwanted force to compel individuals to
comply to other's rules, opinions and laws. Using this example,
prohibiting abortion is using unwanted force to compel individuals to
comply to other's rules, opinions and laws, hence it is immoral.
>For those who believe that human rights begin before birth, defense of
>the rights of pre-born humans does have to go beyond personal decisions
>about having abortions.
For those who believe that human rights begin after birth, their human
rights are continuously violated by those who go beyond personal
decisions about having abortions, by forcing their rules, opinions and
laws onto others.
|
| 20.5097 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Aug 08 1996 18:30 | 22 |
| Since almost 60% of abortions were a direct result of contraceptive
failure, maybe those who don't care for abortion might want to put
money and encouragement into more contraceptive research?
Over 40% of pregnancies in this country are unplanned, according to the
Guttmacher Institute. One would think that better contraception and
contraception instuction might reduce the number of abortions
significantly, without getting the government involved in one of the
most personal parts of a woman's body.
I have no problem with restiricting abortions after the 26th week to
those of grave life-threatening situations for the woman, or for gross
fetal deformaties, inconsistant with life beyond the womb. With the
exception of those heavily into substance abuse, or the very young who
are strongly into denial of a pregnancy this is already what effectivly
takes place in this country today. alternatively, I propose a lottery
if abortions are banned. Each person who weighs in as prolife, gets a
woman with an unplanned, unwated pregnancy assigned to them. Whatever
happens to her body throughout the pregnancy will also happen to the
body of the person who was assigned to them.
meg
|
| 20.5098 | logical problem | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Aug 08 1996 18:34 | 30 |
|
> For those who believe that human rights begin after birth, their human
> rights are continuously violated by those who go beyond personal
> decisions about having abortions, by forcing their rules, opinions and
> laws onto others.
Consider an argument of the form "If you believe it is wrong to do X,
then don't do X yourself. But it is wrong of you to force your rules,
opinions and laws onto others."
But in the everday situation, you (person A) observe person B forcing
his rules, opinions or laws onto person C. By your own rule, you cannot
intervene, so your rule is ineffective. (It didn't stop you from
doing it in your reply, though - you forced your opinions on the
noter you were replying to.)
You could try to get around this anomoly by altering your argument to
"It is wrong to force your rules, opinions, and laws onto others,
except for this one." But now if you intervene, how do you stop
person D, who intervenes in your intervention, citing your very own
exception, as his cause for preventing you from coercing the coercer (B).
Your philosophy needs work.
And by the way, your argument is a mere assertion, backed by nothing.
It is not a principle of US society, thank goodness, that the society
may not impose standards of behavior on its members. If you took a vote,
this principle would go down to defeat by a big margin.
bb
|
| 20.5099 | | BUSY::SLAB | Stand back,I dunno how big it gets! | Thu Aug 08 1996 18:36 | 8 |
|
>Since almost 60% of abortions were a direct result of contraceptive
>failure
This is considered a direct result?
That's indirect at best.
|
| 20.5100 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 08 1996 18:41 | 7 |
| >Since almost 60% of abortions were a direct result of contraceptive
> failure, maybe those who don't care for abortion might want to put
>money and encouragement into more contraceptive research?
Yeah, you would think that, wouldn't you? It's kinda funny the way so
many of those who are against abortion are also against contraception.
Makes you wonder, what exactly *is* their agenda?
|
| 20.5101 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Where is my real head? | Thu Aug 08 1996 18:44 | 3 |
| AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Reading this string may be hazardous to your mental health.
|
| 20.5102 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Thu Aug 08 1996 18:44 | 3 |
|
Read _The Handmaid's Tale_ by Margaret Atwood.
|
| 20.5103 | | BUSY::SLAB | Stand back,I dunno how big it gets! | Thu Aug 08 1996 18:49 | 3 |
|
I'd rather watch the movie and drool over Natasha Richardson.
|
| 20.5104 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Thu Aug 08 1996 18:50 | 1 |
| i'm sure she'd enjoy that, shawn.
|
| 20.5105 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 08 1996 18:58 | 1 |
| it would be the salivation of her.
|
| 20.5106 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Thu Aug 08 1996 19:00 | 1 |
| The movie was quite depressing enough, ttvm.
|
| 20.5107 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 08 1996 19:00 | 1 |
| It would probably be unexpectorated.
|
| 20.5108 | | BUSY::SLAB | Stand by stomach - here come banana. | Thu Aug 08 1996 19:04 | 3 |
|
And the story was a little too tough to swallow.
|
| 20.5109 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Aug 08 1996 19:25 | 29 |
| > DougO, are you willing to allow scientific advances take away your
> rights and freedoms? If you aren't, then you cannot use the point
> of viability because the point of viability can be altered by
> technological and scientific advances.
The picture is sufficiently complex that I'm unwilling to make a
general yes-or-no answer to the question. As technology evolves, it
will impinge upon areas and thus require judgement in grey areas that
were formerly philosophically black or white. Before telephones there
were no wiretap laws to prevent the government from listening to
conversations that you may or may not have had reason to believe were
private. Before antibiotics, few societies had enough oldsters around
to need a right to die which we still don't have, in a legal sense.
I'm groping for a better way to express the quandary. Suppose science
and technology come up with the artificial womb. Suppose that the
societal response to persuade people not to abort is to persuade them
to sign a quit-claim on the fetus and let the prolifers pay for the
womb rental and the raising. If there's to *be* no significant impact
in terms of months of involuntary pregnancy and consequent health
risks from that solution to unwanted pregnancy, I'm willing to
entertain a discussion about it. If its *better* than abortion then
it will replace abortion. I'd rather it be left voluntary- so am I
willing to let scientific advances take away rights and freedoms? I'd
rather formulate the question as, am I willing to re-examine the
meanings of particular rights and freedoms in the new light of new
technologies? Seems to me one has to. Note that I'm not answering
your question- I'm reposing it. Anyone else?
DougO
|
| 20.5110 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Aug 08 1996 19:45 | 64 |
| >> You want to convince me there's pro-life moderates who want
>> to reduce the number of abortions, you're going to put up a ton of
>> money for birth control education, prenatal care so women can have
>> healthy babies, and other straightforward efforts to address the poverty
>> traps that result in so many unplanned pregnancies.
>
> So this is a hold up? Gimme your money or I don't believe you? Swell.
Well, its more in the nature of hyperbole. I actually don't think that
birth control education costs a lot, you just have to get the rabid
types who block it out of the way and get the school boards to approve
it. Prenatal care is a helluva lot cheaper than AFDC for women who have
kids too sickly to let them work, so that one pays for itself. All I'm
really talking about are startup costs.
> I support birth control education, etc, but I don't think that free
> prenatal care (or free anything else) makes sense. Sure, make prenatal
> care available to women, but make them do something for it. If it's
> free, they won't appreciate it, they won't value it. And part of the
> problem is that too many of them are too stupid to take advantage of
> prenatal care even when it is free. We have to work to educate young
> girls about the dire importance of prenatal and postnatal care before
> they start getting pregnant.
Arguable points, I don't have data that support or negate your
contentions. Clearly we have points of common understanding here,
that go well beyond the previous discussion about the bandaid of
restricting abortion.
> Absolutely. You got any bright ideas about how to stop young, dumb,
> unemployed people from having babies, I'd love to hear them.
The welfare bill that Clinton just signed, changing the nature of
welfare from a perpetual entitlement to a five-year-max assistance
plan, was key. Harsh, but when a culture of welfare dependency has
evolved over 60 years, it must be broken. I just wonder if everyone
will have the stomach to maintain it when the perpetually unworking
classes start starving. This is social darwinism, btw. Ten years from
now we'll see positive results, but the politics of assistance will be
real ugly meanwhile. The only way we'll cope is if the economy creates
a lot of jobs, and the schools educate most of the kids. About the
former I have some hopes, about the latter I've more concerns. Seems
to me the biggest task of the next Congress will be education reform,
and of course I'd like to see room made for market-driven school
choice to get the same call on tax dollars as the bloated and
ill-performing educational establishment. Getting from here to there
is no easy task.
>> Restrict abortions FIRST? That doesn't look to me like you want to
>> solve the real problems.
>
> Who said it couldn't be done simultaneously? And regardless of which
> happens first, the whole job needs to be done. So it's not like I
> support only doing part of the job.
Restrictions, I said before, are a bandaid, a feel-good non-solution.
I'd rather not waste the effort on cosmetics, especially when, as I
said before, it looks to be motivated by the social morality of the
misguided imposers of religious claptrap. We're talking instead about
solving the real problems. Restricting abortion will be unnecessary
when we solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Imposing religion
on people is simply not part of that job.
DougO
|
| 20.5111 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Aug 08 1996 19:46 | 7 |
| >One would think that better contraception and
>contraception instuction might reduce the number of abortions
>significantly, without getting the government involved in one of
>the most personal parts of a woman's body.
But meg, if this happens people will have SEX! WHAT ARE YOU
THINKING?!?!? :)
|
| 20.5112 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Aug 08 1996 19:58 | 15 |
| re: .5098
>Consider an argument of the form "If you believe it is wrong to do X,
>then don't do X yourself. But it is wrong of you to force your
>rules, opinions and laws onto others."
Your argument falls apart in this first paragraph, when it refers to
any philosophy of mine. You can create this scenario if you like, but it
is useless unless it applies to any group or individual. It does not
apply to me. My philosophy would never force you to conform to anybody
else's rules, opinions or laws. Also, force is an action. In your
argument you argue that inaction is also force. It is immoral to force
your will onto others. You define not forcing your will onto others as
force also, attempting to place inaction in the same catagory as
action. This is flawed logic.
|
| 20.5113 | nope | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Aug 08 1996 20:07 | 8 |
|
Well, Tom, I don't get it. You completely lost me. If I force
my ideas onto somebody other than you, will you try to stop me,
or not. Your argument is lost, either way. If you DON'T try to
stop me, I can safely disregard your arguments. If you DO try to
stop me, you just violated your own rules. Have it your way.
bb
|
| 20.5114 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Aug 08 1996 20:34 | 2 |
|
I think he has you there, Tommy.
|
| 20.5115 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Thu Aug 08 1996 21:02 | 4 |
| .5100
Who's against contraception?
|
| 20.5116 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 08 1996 21:06 | 1 |
| Townshend maybe, but I'm sure Daltry isn't.
|
| 20.5117 | There is an alternative. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 08 1996 21:48 | 22 |
| I believe there was a statement that 60% of the abortions were due to
failed contraceptive methods. Another response indicated that better
sex education would reduce the abortion rates. Well, it seems that
people understand contraception, but basically don't really bother for
whatever reason.
If the idea is to reduce pregnancies, there is one absolutely effective
method that is 100% effective every time it is tried. This method of
contraception is easy, cheap and always available. It's called
abstinence. In that respect I am 100% pro-choice. You can chose to do
whatever you like, but then be prepared to face the consequences of
your actions.
I really wonder what would happen to pregnancy rates, teen pregnancy
and sexual activity rates and STD rates if abortion were unavailable
except in very specific cases. Might this end up as a self-regulating
issue with incredible positive benenfits to all parties concerned.
It's kind of like Russian Roulette. Feel free to play all you want.
If, however, you blow half your brain away don't expect society to pay
for your choice.
|
| 20.5118 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Aug 08 1996 21:50 | 21 |
| >Well, Tom, I don't get it. You completely lost me. If I force
>my ideas onto somebody other than you, will you try to stop me,
>or not. Your argument is lost, either way. If you DON'T try to
>stop me, I can safely disregard your arguments. If you DO try to
>stop me, you just violated your own rules. Have it your way.
Again you create a scenario that doesn't apply to me. I am well
documented here in the BOX, on the use of retaliatory force being the
only moral force. Retailiation is not the action, it is the reaction.
I will repeat that philosophy here:
1. No person, group of persons or government may
initiate force, threat of force, or fraud
against any individual's self or property.
2. Force may be morally and legally used only in
self-defense against those who violate Article 1.
3. No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.
This is the main points of a no-force philosophy.
|
| 20.5119 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Fri Aug 09 1996 03:18 | 11 |
| RE:.5097
> In 1987, the New York-based institute also reported that 46 percent of
> all U.S. women will have an abortion at some point in their lives.
Is it just me, or does this number seem exceptionally high? It almost
feels like they took the number of (projected) abortions and divided by
the number of women -- ignoring that some women will have multiple
abortions.
-- Dave
|
| 20.5120 | Of COURSE it's wrong | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Every neck shall break\ | Fri Aug 09 1996 03:20 | 2 |
| Well, what did you expect from a New York-based institute?!?
|
| 20.5121 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | RIP-08/30/96 | Fri Aug 09 1996 04:08 | 1 |
| The Liberal Capital of America
|
| 20.5122 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Where is my real head? | Fri Aug 09 1996 04:10 | 2 |
| 46% percent may be high, although I'm sure at least 46% of my closest
personal friends have had one.
|
| 20.5123 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Fri Aug 09 1996 04:14 | 18 |
| In regards to the 100% method, it seems to have failed in 100% of all
pregnancies.
I know myself to well to believe that telling my kids not to have
vaginal intercourse is going to prevent pregnancies, and obviously
given the majority of pregnancies these people are intelligent enough
to know that abstinence works with only one semi-statistical failure.
(may I say Jesus?)
Better contracetion that is convenient would have saved my neighbor's
child from at least a couple of her three teen pregnancies. Oviously
telling her not to do the horizontal bop didn't succeed well. (Her
mother is a big abstinence fan) Baby number 3 is due in December.
Baby number one was aborted by nature or g-d.
meg
meg
|
| 20.5124 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | RIP-08/30/96 | Fri Aug 09 1996 05:13 | 1 |
| Some just love spitting them out.
|
| 20.5125 | Everybody's doin' it, so you can do it, too! | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Aug 09 1996 11:11 | 12 |
| RE:.5087
> In 1987, the New York-based institute also reported that 46 percent of
> all U.S. women will have an abortion at some point in their lives.
This is called marketing.
Remember, Alan Gutmacher is the founder of both the Gutmacher Institute
*AND* Planned Parenthood, the country's largest abortion provider.
/john
|
| 20.5126 | | CHEFS::COOKS | Half Man,Half Biscuit | Fri Aug 09 1996 11:44 | 6 |
| Isn`t abstinance really boring??
It`s just not natural,is it.
Everyone likes a bit of slap n`tickle after all.
|
| 20.5127 | I said this before. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Aug 09 1996 12:11 | 54 |
|
re, .5118 - OK, so the answer is you (A) do intend to try to stop,
by force, person B from coercing person C. By your own rules, it
is therefore OK for person D to try to stop you from doing this.
See your own rule number (2). You made 2 rules. You are imposing
them on person B, who thinks they are ridiculous. So, by your own
rule (2), it is OK to stop you by force.
In the course of arguimg against your 2 rules, I've used many
arguments, some of which I've gone into in great detail, so I'll
summarize these different trains of thought :
(1) They come, literally, from nowhere. No rational basis.
(2) They certainly aren't what happens in nature with other species.
(3) They aren't the rules of any primitive peoples.
(4) They aren't the rules of any modern peoples.
(5) In modern societies, the ones that have relatively weak
governments and the weakest rules are exactly the ones where
people are poor, unhealthy, insecure, and unhappy.
(6) If applied through time, these rules would result in grossly
lopsided societies, a few monopolists and millions living in
hovels.
(7) If applied to our society, none of the cooperative endeavors
of which our society is most proud could possible take place.
Not our transportation, communications, education, or defense
systems. Free markets would disappear in a maze of price
collusion, deceptive practices, and combinations in restraint
of trade.
(8) The application of your rules would represent a radical change
in a complex technological society, with no analysis of the
effects. It is completely impractical to make taxes voluntary,
to permit a single landowner to block an interstate highway,
to abolish all regulation of prescription medicines, to leave
our environment to the tender mercies of for-profit business,
to allow airplanes to fly wherever they wish. You are living
in a fantasy world. Wake up.
(9) Nownere in your view of society is any allowance made for the
opinions of the people. You expect somehow to impose this
philosophy of "individual autonomy" in a wildlt unnatural way.
How you expect to maintain it is beyond me. If John D.
Rockefeller monopolizes oil souces, you think the millions
to simply acquiesce, live in poverty, and pay his rates. Such
a society wouldn't last a week. The fact is the multitude in
society have POWER. Power to stop activities that work against
their interests. Where do you expect to get all the cops to
protect your autonomous billionaires ? That the people HAVE the
power to overwhelm an individual is GOOD. It is one of the
factors that make life worth living.
(10) And furthermore, your own philosophy collapse by its own logic.
It is a hypocracy. You say won't impose your views on others in
rule (1), then you say you will, in rule (2). Using your own
rules, they are overthrown.
bb
|
| 20.5128 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Aug 09 1996 12:29 | 3 |
| hypocrisy
nnttm
|
| 20.5129 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Fri Aug 09 1996 13:49 | 18 |
|
> Isn`t abstinance really boring??
At times, yes, but on the other hand I don't have to be bothered worrying
about birth control, std's, etc.
> It`s just not natural,is it.
What is not natural is hopping from bed to bed, and aborting the natural
result of the activity because one cannot say "no".
Jim
|
| 20.5130 | A perfect example. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 09 1996 14:50 | 31 |
| .5123
Your note is a perfect example of what's wrong with the concept of
better sex education and easier access to contraception is the answer
to teen and/or unwanted pregnancies.
I make an assumption here, but I am quite sure this young lady knows
exactly where babies come from. I am equally sure that the
overwhelming majority of the population knows where babies come from.
there may be some locations in the country where there is a basic
ignorance of procreation, but I would guess these are so insignificant
to be irrelevant.
This young lady and her sexual partners have easy access to
contraception. In just about every super market and drug store, at
least two forms of birth control are available on the shelves for
purchase by anyone. The fact that this girl had three pregnancies has
nothing to do with a lack of knowledge or availability. It appears
that there are other factors at play here, not the least of which is a
perceived acceptance/approval by society of her promiscuity.
In this particular case, abstinence would have insured that she would
not have had the first pregnancy, let alone the next two.
I still contend that a change in societal acceptance is the only thing
that will bring a dramatic reduction in teen pregnancies/sexual
activity, "unwanted" pregnancies and STDs. Does this mean that there
will not be those who chose to ignore societal values, of course there
will be, but I contend the number will be significantly less and the
damage to society will be tremendously reduced.
|
| 20.5131 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Aug 09 1996 14:56 | 7 |
| A major reduction of teenage pregnancies (and abortions) will result if more
states follow Utah's lead and PROSECUTE the men who make these teenagers
pregnant.
The California term for underaged willing women used to be "San Quentin Quail."
/john
|
| 20.5132 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 14:57 | 16 |
| >there may be some locations in the country where there is a basic
>ignorance of procreation, but I would guess these are so insignificant
>to be irrelevant.
You would be wrong. The is one segment of the population, not in
a geographical location as you said, but in an age group, that
is ignorant about sex, babies, std's, etc., and that is children.
All children start out life with no knowledge of these things, and
depending on when and whether they are taught anything about sex,
they retain more of less of their ignorance on the subject for
many years past the age when they themselves may procreate.
By advocating the preservation of such ignorance by not teaching
sex ed in schools, you are making the problem worse, not better.
|
| 20.5133 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:10 | 21 |
| There are exactly four things children need to be told about sex:
1. If even the tiniest amount of semen gets into or near
the entrance to a vagina by whatever means, there is a
significant possibility of pregnancy, even if birth
control is being used.
2. Diseases may be transmitted in varying amounts by any kind
of sexual contact, from kissing to touching to doing it.
3. Condoms break or slip off in 10-20% of all cases.
4. No one under 18 regardless of how mature they think they
might be is emotionally ready for sexual intercourse.
Those who support more detailed information for children should be well
advised to make sure that EVERY class on any subject about sex begin and
end with a reminder that of all they have learned, the above four are
the most important, and are to be remembered when temptation beckons.
/john
|
| 20.5134 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:26 | 35 |
| Re .5133:
> . . . doing it.
Doing what? If that's all you're going to teach children, how should
they know what "it" is?
> 3. Condoms break or slip off in 10-20% of all cases.
Cases of what?
> 4. No one under 18 regardless of how mature they think they
> might be is emotionally ready for sexual intercourse.
And this is a scientifically established fact, of course. At 18, a
magical transformation happens. And every human being follows exactly
that course of development.
What rubbish. Teenagers will have sexual desires even if they are told
nothing. Ignore it -- tell them only what is listed in .5133 -- and
they will lack the knowledge they need to deal with those desires. Why
give them only a fear of pregnancy as reason to abstain? These days,
that's not as much of a fear as it once was. Any additional knowledge
could help teenagers deal with sexual impulses, whether it is an
athropological study of the role of family or a discussion of the
emotional bonds that sex is a part of.
Those who preach ignorance fear the truth.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5135 | | ALFSS1::CIAROCHI | One Less Dog | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:30 | 2 |
| Wow. This topic is still here! Can we do a word count? I bet it's
the record holder...
|
| 20.5136 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:30 | 11 |
| >A major reduction of teenage pregnancies (and abortions) will result
if more
>states follow Utah's lead and PROSECUTE the men who make these
teenagers
>pregnant.
Yeah, that's the ticket -- more laws, more cops, more prosecutions,
more people in jail, especially children, and more taxes to support
it all. See that? Dems and Repubs are no different when it comes
to taking our money and building more intrusive government with it.
|
| 20.5137 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:37 | 9 |
| >Those who preach ignorance fear the truth.
True. Thumpers everywhere love the ignorant because they
are so much easier to brainwash. And the ignorant love
thumpers because they spare them a lot of intellectual
labor with their facile "truths" and their simple-minded
dogmatic instructions on how to live. You might say it's
a "marriage made in heaven".
|
| 20.5138 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:41 | 9 |
| > > 4. No one under 18 regardless of how mature they think they
> > might be is emotionally ready for sexual intercourse.
>
> And this is a scientifically established fact, of course. At 18, a
> magical transformation happens. And every human being follows exactly
> that course of development.
He didn't say that everyone becomes emotionally ready for sexual intercourse
at 18.
|
| 20.5139 | Yeah, let's continue to ignore it. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 09 1996 15:53 | 25 |
| .5137 et. al.
What a bunch of tripe. Let's see. In those ignorant, dark days when
sex education was a private family matter, what was the rate of teen
pregnancy and abortions? Although the statistics are not very thorough
based on today's methods, I would tend to think that the rates were
significantly lower than they are today.
Over the last 20-30 years there has been an increasing enphasis on sex
education and even the youngest students in school today are exposed to
instruction and can probably explain in detail where babies come from.
It is obvious that education alone is far inadequate to deal with the
problem.
I am not sure that any new laws need to enacted, merely a reduction in
the tolerance for actions that are "generally" considered unacceptable.
I also agree with the prior note that holds the male responsible for
his actions in the process. this is particularly true when the male is
older than the female.
I find it interesting that most people have no problem with condemning
a 35 years old man for having sex with a 14 - 15 year girl, but then
look the other way when an 18 year guy does the same thing.
|
| 20.5140 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 16:25 | 27 |
| >I would tend to think that the rates were significantly lower
>than they are today.
Yes, I'm sure you would think that, since that would confirm
your theories. You should ask why sex education in public
schools was considered necessary in the first place if there
was no problem that needed solving.
>It is obvious that education alone is far inadequate to
>deal with the problem.
It is equally obvious that ignorance and injunction alone are not
adequate to deal with the problem.
But in school districts where they have been giving out condoms and
really focussing students' attention on the problem, talking about
it rather than whispering about it, unwanted pregnancy rates are
down lately. This flies in the face of your claims.
>I am not sure that any new laws need to enacted, merely a
>reduction in the tolerance for actions that are "generally"
>considered unacceptable.
Well that's the problem, you see. You see sex as unacceptable
except under certain well-defined and limited circumstances. But
many people disagree with you. So that won't help.
|
| 20.5141 | Evidence please. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 09 1996 17:45 | 21 |
| .5140
Please provide facts for your assertion that areas with sex ed
claesses, etc have lower rates of sexual activity, teen prtegnancy,
etc. Most of the reports I've read indicate that there is not much
difference across the country. If you have difinitive information to
support your contention, then please post it. Otherwise it's just your
opinion, which is OK, but your opinion nonetheless.
Also, sex ed classes introduced as specific sex ed classes, as health
classes covered the subject previously, as a response to the increased
teen pregnancy rates introduced by the free-love generation of the 60s.
Education does little to stop someone if the message society delivers
is that it is OK. Look at cigarette smoking as an example. Just about
every child and adult knows that smoking is bad for you. It is covered
in health classes as well as science classes, yet smoking among kids
was and is increasing. Now you see people demanding greater
restrictions on cigarettes, etc. Education doesn't always work.
sometimes you need to "help" the education along.
|
| 20.5142 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Fri Aug 09 1996 17:51 | 3 |
| .5130
I agree.
|
| 20.5143 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 18:27 | 51 |
| >Please provide facts for your assertion that areas with sex ed
>claesses, etc have lower rates of sexual activity, teen prtegnancy,
>etc.
First of all, you are still mixing up rates of sexual activity
with rates of pregnancy, std transmission, etc. While I am sure
that reduction of sexual activity is the real goal of those who
are against availability of condoms, sex ed, etc., it is not the
goal of the rest of us, who are interested in preventing unwanted
pregnancy and std transmission, the negative results of sexual
activity. Try to separate them in your mind if you can, then you
can maybe understand what the rest of us are talking about.
NPR and local newspapers like the Boston Globe and the Portland
Press Herald reported a few months ago that a large scale study
of school systems around the Boston area where condom availability
was approved a couple of years ago, showed the following:
1 Condom use was UP
2 Unwanted pregnancy was DOWN
3 Sexual activity was NOT UP or down
1 and 2 being opposite of the predictions of the anti-condom
crusaders, who predicted MORE sexual activity and MORE unwanted
pregnancies.
There was no data available on std transmission, but to whatever
extent condoms can prevent it, it was assumed that that was also
lower.
>classes covered the subject previously, as a response to the
>increased teen pregnancy rates introduced by the free-love
>generation of the 60s.
I'll borrow one of your own lines: Please provide facts for your
assertion that the less uptight attitudes toward sex in the 60s
are in any way responsible for the number of unwanted teen
pregnancies today. In fact please produce proof of exactly how
many teen pregnancies are actually unwanted while you're at it.
As for cigarette smoking among kids, the number of laws that
exist now to regulate the sale, purchase, or possession of ciggies
to or by kids rivals those pertaining to alcohol. Since, as you
say, kids' smoking has also increased, please explain how it is that
prohibitions of behavior that don't work for smoking are going to
work for sexual activity.
>ROCUSH: <anything>
>LEECH: I agree
Redundancy alert? :-)
|
| 20.5144 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 09 1996 18:44 | 24 |
| .5143
What was the time frame for the Boston Globe study? What was the
sampling? Has a follow up been done? It's really easy to point to a
single study in a single location and try to interpolate that to the
population at large.
If, indeed, the programs have been so successful then there should be
no reluctance to eliminate the welfare programs for unwed mothers under
the age of 18 or any age for that matter, since these programs are a
screaming success.
Also, your position on smoking is dimetrically opposed to your position
on teen sex. If laws don't stop smoking then why try to apply laws,
sanctions, etc to sexual activity. Since laws don't stop smoking then
why prohibit it? Why are more people, particularly the liberal
do-gooders leading the charge on more restrictive smoking laws? You
seem to think that just teaching these kids is sufficient, so then just
teach people about smoking and it will ultimately take care of itself
without any legislation.
If you will support a reduction in the smoking legislation, I will be
happy to support increased sex ed classes.
|
| 20.5145 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Aug 09 1996 18:50 | 9 |
| re: .5125
>This is called marketing.
>Remember, Alan Gutmacher is the founder of both the Gutmacher Institute
>*AND* Planned Parenthood, the country's largest abortion provider.
Perhaps it is Market research that developes into providing a product
and filling the wants of the consumer.
|
| 20.5146 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 19:34 | 3 |
| The last thing I want is more laws about anything. No smoking laws, no
drinking age laws, no drug laws, etc. There is nothing inconsistent
about my position on having more laws or more banned things/activities.
|
| 20.5147 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Aug 09 1996 19:36 | 4 |
| Provide sex and smoking education then provide condoms and smoking
rooms in schools with vending machines
Steve
|
| 20.5148 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Ranch send no girl | Fri Aug 09 1996 19:37 | 1 |
| What, no trysting rooms?
|
| 20.5149 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 09 1996 20:15 | 8 |
| .5146
Gee, it's nice to know that if I'm ever seated next to you in a
restaurant and chose to light up after a meal I can count on your
support to keep the anti-smoking fanatics away.
Thanks.
|
| 20.5150 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Aug 09 1996 20:47 | 62 |
| Re: 20.5127,GAAS::BRAUCHER
OK, disagreeing about ones philosophy is fine. We can now discuss it
reasonably, as long as you don't create a scenario and then attribute it to
me, which is what I saw happening in your last few replies.
As I stated, the three no force rules are only the basis of a no-force
philosophy, nothing is actually that simple. They are not the entire
philosophy of what I like to call honest objectivism. It is a combination,
or even hodgepodge if you will, of philosophies that come from the likes of
Parmenides, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas (variance with reason is evil),
Baruch Spinoza, Adam Smith (economist), John Locke, Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff
and Frank Wallace. It is vast and often difficult to discuss because it
requires full context. As Christians rightfully claim, plucking phrases
from the Scriptures is dishonest, because the Bible must be taken in the
context in which it was written. Likewise a persons philosophy or anything
for that matter, must be taken in context. This is what happens when only
plucking out the three force rules to argue against. Though no fault of yours,
it is like plucking a verse from the Bible and hitting a Christian over the
head with it. The Christian understands the full context of what he is saying,
but it is almost impossible to argue against the dishonesty of "plucking"
because the context is so vast.
>(10) And furthermore, your own philosophy collapse by its own logic.
>It is a hypocracy. You say won't impose your views on others in
>rule (1), then you say you will, in rule (2). Using your own
>rules, they are overthrown.
I must answer this particular one because you did it again. You change the
logic by adding a simple word to item 2, that doesn't apply, and then attribute
it to my philosophy. That word is "impose", which has no place in item 2.
Let me try, probably in vain, to explain my philosophy in general. Though
remember, doing this is always somewhat out of context. But here goes.
Honest objectivism is honesty and wide-scope accounting, fully integrated with
objective reality. From this can come a certainty about the most effective
way to live every aspect of conscious life. Each human being has sought
that certainty since mankind became conscious. IMO, honest objectivism is the
natural certainty residing in every conscious being.
But, in this world, a parasitical-elite class has hidden the objective process
of honesty for many centuries by manipulating subjective assertions of truth.
Beginning about 300 BC, the philosopher Plato pulled civilization into a cave.
He obliterated the individual with his force-backed master-servant
collectivism. Plato essentially gave the parasitical elites the tools to
control productive human beings. People were convinced that only the
parasitical elites had the "wisdom" to control, exploit, and drain the
productive class. Plato relegated his now trapped servants to the lowest of
classes.
How did Plato finesse such an outlandish hoax that dominates the Western world
to this day? By using the arbitrariness of truths to turn reality upside-down,
causing a sea of lies, illusions, deceptions, shadows, doubts, and
uncertainties. Such created uncertainties let the parasitical elites rule
through dishonesties backed by armed agents of force. By contrast, Honest
objectivism can eliminate manipulated truths, doubts, uncertainties,
out-of-context facts, deceptions, illusions, and gun-backed parasitical
"leadership". Honest objectivism uprights reality and forbids initiatory force
against individuals and their property, thus, eventually dooming the
parasitical-elite class.
|
| 20.5151 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 09 1996 21:03 | 8 |
| > Gee, it's nice to know that if I'm ever seated next to you in a
> restaurant and chose to light up after a meal I can count on your
> support to keep the anti-smoking fanatics away.
I don't like anti-smoking fanatics either. Better ventilation,
consideration and tolerance make a much better solution than the
current national smoker witch hunt. Or any othe witch hunt for that
matter. For once we agree completely.
|
| 20.5152 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Aug 09 1996 21:06 | 4 |
| .5151
Smokers have no tolerance for non-smokers and then decry intolerance
for themselves... I think this belongs under TTWA.
|
| 20.5153 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Aug 09 1996 21:16 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 20.5151 by RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger" >>>
> Better ventilation,
> consideration and tolerance make a much better solution than the
> current national smoker witch hunt.
There's no reason why non-smokers should have to tolerate
smoke in their breathing space, so hopefully that's not what
you mean by "tolerance".
|
| 20.5154 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 09 1996 21:29 | 10 |
| .5151
Please see .5153 in terms of my prior entries.
So much for tolerance and letting education take the place of coersion
and litigation.
If it is supported for one group, that is all-knowing, then it should
be good for all.
|
| 20.5155 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Sat Aug 10 1996 01:02 | 10 |
| >Smokers have no tolerance for non-smokers and then decry intolerance
>for themselves... I think this belongs under TTWA.
I have no objection at all to non-smokers. I'm one myself.
I just don't like people who are so intolerant of others that
they treat them like trash. I feel this way pretty much equally
about intolerant people who are prejudiced againt others because
of their color, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or
because they smoke.
|
| 20.5156 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Sat Aug 10 1996 01:02 | 31 |
| >There's no reason why non-smokers should have to tolerate
>smoke in their breathing space, so hopefully that's not what
>you mean by "tolerance".
It is exactly what I mean. Your breathing space is the entire
planet, and so is everybody else's. We all have to tolerate
things we don't like, even breathe things we don't like and
that we think are bad for us. Have you ever seen the air over
Boston, LA, or most other major cities? The air in Maine gets
dangerous ozone levels from the power plants in the midwest.
If we could all pass laws against those who create environmental
pollution we don't like then there wouldn't be anyone left, and
there wouldn't be any electric power, automobiles, planes, or
much industry.
I know plenty of tolerant non-smokers. The intolerant ones
are just as bad a bunch of bigots as neo-nazis or white
supremicists, man-hating feminists or homophobes.
It's not just you. When I was growing up anyone who owned
a dog let it have the run of the neighborhood, and some
people might complain, but not too many or too much. It was
a friendly, open place. Now, if a neighbor sees a dog loose,
they call the dog officer right away. I have known two
people who had their dogs shot.
People complain about crime and the general deterioration of
the good things about life in America. But they never think
to look in the mirror and see if their own behavior, their
own intolerance, is helping to make things better or worse.
|
| 20.5157 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Sat Aug 10 1996 01:04 | 14 |
| >Please see .5153 in terms of my prior entries.
>So much for tolerance and letting education take the place of coersion
>and litigation.
>If it is supported for one group, that is all-knowing, then it should
>be good for all.
Maybe it is just getting late, but I can't make any sense out of
that at all. Could you please try to explain what you are trying
to say here?
Thanks.
|
| 20.5158 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Sat Aug 10 1996 03:09 | 3 |
| .5155
Well aren't you just the epitomy of v.d.
|
| 20.5159 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Sat Aug 10 1996 12:18 | 14 |
|
.5156
> I know plenty of tolerant non-smokers. The intolerant ones
> are just as bad a bunch of bigots as neo-nazis or white
> supremicists, man-hating feminists or homophobes.
> It's not just you.
Well, I see that you are assuming I'm a non-smoker, and
that I'm intolerant of smoke. I just love it when people
jump to conclusions. Mr. Rocush has apparently done it
as well (surprisingly enough).
|
| 20.5160 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Sat Aug 10 1996 13:14 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.5158 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
| Well aren't you just the epitomy of v.d.
Hmmmm.... Nancy, he is talking about smoking, not vd. :-)
|
| 20.5161 | | 42333::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | DTN 847 6586 | Mon Aug 12 1996 07:01 | 31 |
| In todays news...
A woman who has had fertility treatment and has 8 embryos in her womb
(in the UK) has sold her story to the papers. Her doctors advise that
unless whe has some aborted, all will die and that she may well, too.
Anti-abortion folk are having a field day, shouting from the rooftops
about all the embryo's having an equal right to live (equal with the
mother too) and thus 'nature should take its course'.
The women is mother to one and step-mother to another two children
already.
To add to her difficulties, a major newspaper has guaranteed to pay
125,000 UKP per live child if and when they are born and survive, so
there is immense pressure upon her to confound medical opinion on all
sides and try to continue the pregnancy (now at 7 weeks, I believe) to
the point of delivery. Given the number of embryos, medical opinion,
seemingly at a concensus, states that she will probably give birth
before 32 weeks. Survival in this day and age of a single 32-week
foetus is less than 50%.
Finally, the foremost media proponent of keeping all the embryos has
freely admitted that nature will almost certainly spontaneously
abort all 8, but claims that this is better than 6 being aborted so
that 2 may live.
Opinion: The proponents of this argument have never heard of triage and
have no inkling as to why it mey be necessary sometimes to make the
hard decisions.
|
| 20.5162 | | 42333::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | DTN 847 6586 | Mon Aug 12 1996 07:05 | 13 |
| In last weeks news, the Chairperson of an anti-abortion group claimed
on air during a serious discussion programme on the BBC ("The Moral
Maze", as you asked) that "no woman has ever had an abortion of her own
free will".
This statement was duly laughed at by all and sundry, reducing the poor
woman to tears and the relevancy of her other arguments to nil.
No argument can be successfully advanced through stating such 'facts'.
If the anti-abortion groups wish to be taken seriously, then I guess
they'll have to find real 'interesting facts' to quote.
/andy
|
| 20.5163 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Aug 12 1996 11:23 | 7 |
| re .5161
You've left one thing out.
This woman WANTS to try to have all eight.
/john
|
| 20.5164 | What you ignore is medical reality recognised by all sides | 42333::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | DTN 847 6586 | Mon Aug 12 1996 11:30 | 10 |
|
Seemingly, this desire arrived when the fees offered became contingent
on her having all 8.
However, cynicism apart, the pressures cannot be helping her make a
sane decision. She nay want to keep all 8, fair enough, but if the
concensus is that if she tries, she'll almost certainly lose them all
then who should she be listening to - the Doctors or the Press?
/A
|
| 20.5165 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 12 1996 12:18 | 4 |
| > Well aren't you just the epitomy of v.d.
Well... I never actually thought of myself as a venereal disease,
but perhaps you're right. Did you have a particular one in mind?
|
| 20.5166 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 12 1996 12:29 | 20 |
| >Well, I see that you are assuming I'm a non-smoker, and
>that I'm intolerant of smoke.
You got me dead to rights on that one, allright. I leaped to a
conclusion or two. Thanks for letting me down so easy -- I might
have broken something otherwise... :-)
So if you are not a non-smoker, then your previous statement would
seem to indicate that you are one of those people who tries to
exhibit consideration for other people. In which case, you have
exactly the sort of attitude the world needs more of.
I watch with trepidation while the world becomes more intolerant,
more polarized, and more angry. Perhaps it is a result of over-
crowding? Whatever the cause, the only way we're all going to
live together is to develop MORE tolerance and consideration for
each other, not less, and the government needs to lead us in the
right direction. Currently our political parties are leading
the country in exactly the opposite direction.
|
| 20.5167 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Mon Aug 12 1996 14:11 | 20 |
| For evidence that comprehensive sex education works, you have no
further to look than the Netherlands, which has a far lower teen
pregnancy rate, lower abortion rate, and the kids wait longer than they
do in the US
Teen pregnancies were higher as a percentage in the '50's in the US.
However, in those days the kids married, so it was invisible. IMO this
set up things for the soaring divorce rate in the 60's and 70's, as
people grew older and apart. FWIW abortions were also done in that
time, but they were taken care of quietly, since they were illegal, or
done by friends or family with varying results.
As for the idjit woman in GB who is trying to carry all 8 fetuses at
grave risk to herself, and the almost certain deaths of all 8, it is
beyond me to believe one would go through all the risks of fertility
drugs and what-have-you to go ahead and commit to the deaths of 8
supposadly wanted fetuses.
meg
|
| 20.5168 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 12 1996 15:23 | 11 |
| .5159
Is there a particular reason you included me in your blast. My note
made no reference to you being either a smoker or a non-smoker. It
did, however, point out that some people think that tolerance applies
only to other people.
I do get a reasonable amount of exercise jumping to conclusions and
have no problem having it brought to my attention. I do object to the
implication when I never made it.
|
| 20.5169 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Mon Aug 12 1996 15:36 | 7 |
| .5164
In this case, she should be listening to her heart. How many times
have we heard stories where a woman has made a decision that was
contrary to what the Dr's recommended and all turned out well?
Doctors are not God... they cannot predict everything.
|
| 20.5170 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Mon Aug 12 1996 15:42 | 3 |
| v.d. = valuing difference
Where's a good swoosh when you need one?
|
| 20.5171 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 12 1996 16:05 | 10 |
| > <<< Note 20.5168 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> Is there a particular reason you included me in your blast.
See .5154. The inference was that I was an example of
someone who was intolerant of smoke (at the very least).
That is the conclusion you appeared to be jumping to. You
wish to deny that?
|
| 20.5172 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 12 1996 16:49 | 7 |
| >v.d. = valuing difference
Whew! I was worried there for a minute... :-)
> Where's a good swoosh when you need one?
Now I'm worried again... what's a "swoosh"?
|
| 20.5173 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Ranch send no girl | Mon Aug 12 1996 16:50 | 1 |
| The Nike symbol is a swoosh.
|
| 20.5175 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 12 1996 18:17 | 4 |
| Everyone who was talking about smoking has left. They're all over in
the smoking note now. They're waiting patiently for you over there.
:-)
|
| 20.5176 | | 42333::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | DTN 847 6586 | Tue Aug 13 1996 07:11 | 19 |
| Further update:
It appears that the woman carrying 8 babies had an abortion last year
for medical reasons (injured by drugs given following a car crash),
then took fertility treatment without the consent or knowlege of her
partner. Her first move on discovering her pregnancy was to seel her
story to a tabloid with follow-on stories and fees already arranged.
This smells more and more fishy - this womans conscience seems directly
related to her wallet.
SO, if we take a step back from this person to the general question as
to whether to abort some foetuses so that others may live is better
than all the foetuses and possibly the mother dying too, can any
anti-choice (sorry, pro-life) folks comment ?
/a
|
| 20.5177 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:08 | 46 |
| Here's an article in today's news demonstrating that the pro-abortion
folks (and in this case the media applied this apt label themselves)
will accept no restrictions at all. They want abortions to be done
in every street corner medical center by any doctor with a scalpel.
/john
Pro-abortion activists sue Mississippi over new law
JACKSON, Miss. - Abortion rights activists sued the state of Mississippi
Monday to block the enforcement of a tough new law that the plaintiffs
claim seeks to make abortion inaccessible.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union,
contends that the law violates a woman's right to an abortion by imposing
dozens of prohibitive regulations that depart from accepted medical
standards.
Under the new measure, physicians who advertise abortion services or
perform more than 10 abortions a month must comply with operating rules
ordinarily reserved for small-scale hospitals.
The regulations also ban construction of new abortion facilities within
1,500 feet of any church, school and kindergarten.
Physicians who fail to comply could face criminal charges and fines and
risk losing their licenses.
"Imposing unnecessary abortion regulations is the latest tactic of
anti-choice organisations and legislators," said Louise Melling of the ACLU
Reproductive Freedom Project. "Unable to outlaw abortion directly, they
seek instead to make the procedure inaccessible by requiring providers to
conform to irrational and prohibitively burdensome regulations."
The plaintiffs in the suit are Pro-Choice Mississippi and two Mississippi
abortion doctors.
Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore asked a federal judge in June to
rule the new state law in conformity with the Constitution.
"We anticipated this lawsuit," Assistant Attorney General Tray Bobinger
said Monday. "We believe (the regulations) are constitutional and are
going to defend them."
The regulations were signed into law by Gov. Kirk Fordice March 29 and
took effect Monday.
|
| 20.5178 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:08 | 8 |
| Andy,
What happened in the case of the frozen embryos that had passed their
sell-by date? There was an article on NPR over here stating that the
embryos were going to be thawed and disposed of. I never heard the outcome
of the case.
Colin
|
| 20.5179 | Type: NOT embryos, fertislised eggs... | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | DTN 847 6586 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:22 | 7 |
| re: .5178
The law was complied with, the embryos were destroyed.
/andy
|
| 20.5180 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:24 | 3 |
| One fertility clinic I'm familiar with makes parents of to-be-frozen embryos
sign a form indicating what should be done with the embryos if they don't
use them. The choices are: donated, destroyed, or used for research.
|
| 20.5181 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | DTN 847 6586 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:25 | 17 |
|
<<< Note 20.5177 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>Here's an article in today's news demonstrating that the pro-abortion
>folks (and in this case the media applied this apt label themselves)
>will accept no restrictions at all. They want abortions to be done
>in every street corner medical center by any doctor with a scalpel.
But, you see, it's still better than any old idiot with a knitting
needle.
BTW: John, No comment AT ALL on the case in the UK of the woman with 8
embryo's? I'm not surprised - it'd require the wisdom of Solomon (no,
not Dave Solomon) to pronounce on that case.
/a
|
| 20.5182 | NOT embryo's | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | DTN 847 6586 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:27 | 14 |
| > <<< Note 20.5180 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>
>One fertility clinic I'm familiar with makes parents of to-be-frozen embryos
>sign a form indicating what should be done with the embryos if they don't
>use them. The choices are: donated, destroyed, or used for research.
The last is illegal in the UK. The first is medically difficult and I
believe can only be done here in very specific cicumstances. What
happened here was that fertilised eggs (NOT embryos per se) were stored
and then the parents given the choice of keeping them or having them
destroyed. Many refused to answer and thus the eggs were destroyed.
/a
|
| 20.5183 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:28 | 4 |
| >They want abortions to be done in every street corner medical center by
>any doctor with a scalpel.
Scalpel huh?? I did not know that.
|
| 20.5184 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:28 | 3 |
| IMHO, whoever supervised that woman's fertility treatments was grossly
negligent. With proper management of her case, she never would have had
so many fetuses.
|
| 20.5185 | scalpel | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:29 | 1 |
| yeah, but the word carries a lot of punch, does it not?
|
| 20.5186 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | DTN 847 6586 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:30 | 12 |
| > <<< Note 20.5184 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>IMHO, whoever supervised that woman's fertility treatments was grossly
>negligent. With proper management of her case, she never would have had
>so many fetuses.
She deliberately chose to be hyperproductive, according to a Guardian
article today, the treatment is largely self-administered.
a
|
| 20.5187 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:31 | 3 |
| >yeah, but the word carries a lot of punch, does it not?
Especially for the king of the non sequitur.
|
| 20.5188 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:31 | 8 |
| > The last is illegal in the UK. The first is medically difficult and I
> believe can only be done here in very specific cicumstances. What
> happened here was that fertilised eggs (NOT embryos per se) were stored
> and then the parents given the choice of keeping them or having them
> destroyed. Many refused to answer and thus the eggs were destroyed.
OK, technically they're "pre-embryos." They're usually frozen when they're
around four cells. Why is it medically difficult for them to be donated?
|
| 20.5189 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 KTS is TOO slow | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:32 | 30 |
| re: .5177
>Here's an article in today's news demonstrating that the pro-abortion
>folks (and in this case the media applied this apt label themselves)
>will accept no restrictions at all. They want abortions to be done in
>every street corner medical center by any doctor with a scalpel.
Nice try John, but your bias is showing again. Since abortion is a
recognized out-patient procedure, I see no reason why the facilities
should be held to higher standards than say, an oral surgeon. And
perhaps you could please explain how a medical procedure is riskier
when performed by an M.D. who advertises his services or performs more
than 'x' procedures a month. Seems to me that the patients who utilize
these M.D.s are taking advantage of the up-to-date skills of a
specialist, rather than someone whose skills may be a bit rusty from
lack of use. I'd call that being an informed consumer of health care
services.
I notice that the law doesn't ban construction of new churches,
schools, and kindergartens within 1,500 feet of any medical facility
that performs abortions. Seems to me that if the government thought
there was some sort of threat to the safety of the populace, they would
have done that.
No, John, this is simply an emotional, illogical attempt to restrict
access to a legal medical procedure. The ACLU is 100% correct on this
one.
Bob
|
| 20.5190 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:34 | 1 |
| They are called zygotes. /hth
|
| 20.5191 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | DTN 847 6586 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:36 | 21 |
| > <<< Note 20.5188 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>> The last is illegal in the UK. The first is medically difficult and I
>> believe can only be done here in very specific cicumstances. What
>> happened here was that fertilised eggs (NOT embryos per se) were stored
>> and then the parents given the choice of keeping them or having them
>> destroyed. Many refused to answer and thus the eggs were destroyed.
>
>OK, technically they're "pre-embryos." They're usually frozen when they're
>around four cells. Why is it medically difficult for them to be donated?
Caveat: I am not a Doctor of Medicine. I *believe* that there are
rejection problems without very close matches of blood and tissue types
etc. just like any other transplant. Then there is the adoption law.
Presumably the children, when born, would have to be adopted by the
'parents'. I really have no idea as to this matter.
At present, my belief is that UK law says that the eggs belong to the
natural parents and are for their own use only.
|
| 20.5192 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:38 | 10 |
| > She deliberately chose to be hyperproductive, according to a Guardian
> article today, the treatment is largely self-administered.
Normal protocol is for the patient to inject herself with Pergonal and/or
Metrodin, and for the doctor to monitor the stimulation of the ovaries
using blood tests (for estradiol levels) and ultrasounds. So it would be
possible for some nut case to deliberately hyperstimulate herself, and I
don't see what the doctor could do about it. I have no idea how access
to fertility drugs works in the U.K. In the U.S., you need a prescription,
and unless your insurance covers it, it's quite expensive.
|
| 20.5193 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:39 | 3 |
| Thanks Andy. Did the Pro-lifefaction in the UK view this as some kind
of government-mandated mass killing, or was it acceptable to them as
being outside the scope of the abortion debate?
|
| 20.5194 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:43 | 10 |
| > Caveat: I am not a Doctor of Medicine. I *believe* that there are
> rejection problems without very close matches of blood and tissue types
> etc. just like any other transplant. Then there is the adoption law.
> Presumably the children, when born, would have to be adopted by the
> 'parents'. I really have no idea as to this matter.
No medical problems (except maybe Rh stuff?). Donor eggs are used all the
time in the U.S. Obviously the law may vary from place to place, but if
the law predates this kind of technology, it has no concept that the mother
who gives birth can be different from the one supplying half the genes.
|
| 20.5195 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie | DTN 847 6586 | Tue Aug 13 1996 13:48 | 8 |
| > <<< Note 20.5193 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>
> Thanks Andy. Did the Pro-lifefaction in the UK view this as some kind
> of government-mandated mass killing, or was it acceptable to them as
> being outside the scope of the abortion debate?
Oh, it was mass murder. Immediately forgotten and on to the next
pre-election abortion row.
|
| 20.5196 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 13 1996 14:45 | 2 |
| So is she going to have 6 more breasts grafted to her chest so she can
feed all of them at once?
|
| 20.5197 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Aug 13 1996 14:48 | 2 |
| I don't know. Is the woman who just successfully delivered a set of
healthy quintuplets expected to do similarly?
|
| 20.5198 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Aug 13 1996 15:00 | 1 |
| Nat, Pat and Tat.
|
| 20.5199 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 13 1996 15:03 | 1 |
| She could date 4 guys at once!
|
| 20.5200 | NOSE IS SURE GOOD TODAY :-) | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Aug 13 1996 15:15 | 1 |
| sniff, sniff ..... SNARF!!!
|
| 20.5201 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 15:19 | 10 |
| ZZ can any anti-choice (sorry, pro-life) folks comment ?
Just a nit. I find nothing offensive about the term anti-choice. What
I don't promote is the freedom to act irresponsibly, or in this case if
it is true, the choice of a woman to act like a debased pig. So yes,
in this case I am very much anti choice and I wear your scorn with
honor.
"Like a gold ring in the snout of a pig is a woman who lacks
discernment."
|
| 20.5202 | <- And here folks, is the root of the problem | SSDEVO::LAMBERT | We ':-)' for the humor impaired | Tue Aug 13 1996 15:53 | 0 |
| 20.5203 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Tue Aug 13 1996 16:04 | 13 |
| How does a reversal of terms fit?
Anti-choice for someone advocating gun control and restricting
my basic rights to choose to defend my life.
Abortion control for someone advocating limits on abortions
Funny how this changes the perspective. I think I will now start using
Anti-Choice for gun control people...
Steve
|
| 20.5204 | Your information. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 13 1996 16:16 | 22 |
| .5189
Your question about the construction of churches, etc is basically
silly. Can youidentify laws which presently exist that restrict the
construction and operation of certain businesses within specific
distances of schools, churches, etc.
At present laws exist which prohibit the establishment of liquor
stores, gun shops, adult entertainment and others within specific
distances of churches, schools, etc. there is no outcry against these
laws, why such a silly position with regard to abortion clinics?
A local pediatrician just won a case to prohibit the establishment of
an abortion clinic in hte same building in which he is located.
As far as the woman with the 8 fetuses is concerned, I believe the
decision on carrying these to term is really a decision that needs to
be made on the basis of the physical health of the mother. If she is
capable of carrying them, then I have no problem with her trying. If
they could result in her death, then a critical health decision needs
to be made. This is quite a bit different than a single baby.
|
| 20.5205 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 KTS is TOO slow | Tue Aug 13 1996 16:27 | 11 |
| re: .5204
>At present laws exist which prohibit the establishment of liquor
>stores, gun shops, adult entertainment and others within specific
>distances of churches, schools, etc. there is no outcry against these
>laws, why such a silly position with regard to abortion clinics?
I also find those existing laws to be silly.
Bob
|
| 20.5206 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 13 1996 16:33 | 16 |
| I was used to seeing signs near schools in New England saying, "Drug
free school zone", but it was a surprise in New Jersey to see not only
those signs but also "Gun free school zone" signs.
Never found any of those fabled free guns or drugs though, so I think
it is all just a scam.
But seriously folks...
There probably ought to be nothing but residences for a mile around
elementary schools. Over that age, it probably doesn't matter much
where things are, the kids'll get to 'em if they want, no matter what.
But I can see not having certain types of businesses where little kids
will walk right by them on their way to school. Maybe we just need to
lay out our communities with a little more forethought?
|
| 20.5207 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 16:40 | 25 |
| Z SSDEVO::LAMBERT "We ':-)' for the humor impaired" 0 lines
Z 13-AUG-1996 11:53
Z -< <- And here folks, is the root of the problem >-
Yes, the usual insensitivity schtick. Sorry but pro choice does not
necessitate the need to be compassionate and understanding. If the
Constitution affords individual rights, including the right to be a
thug or a debased pig, then I acknowledge this right. Now understand,
somebody may loot a store because their kids are starving, or somebody
may loot a store because they are a crook. The pig remark I make here
is directed at a potential person who became pregnant for purposes of
profiteering. I don't afford this honor upon all those who obtain an
abortion.
As far as the woman with the twins...parenthood is an awesome
responsibility. Child rearing is the highest honor bestowed upon a
husband and wife. What we have here is a woman who lacks the integrity
and character to take upon herself such a role. She lacks the ability
to comprehend the enormous role she has been given, the gift of
bringing a life into the world. The very fact that a second child,
which she could adopt out and she'll have to deal with all the goodies
of labor anyway prove her an unfit individual for parenthood in the
first place. I sure as hell am glad I didn't have a mother like that.
-Jack
|
| 20.5208 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Tue Aug 13 1996 16:45 | 3 |
| |I don't afford this honor upon all those who obtain an abortion.
as the world's women heave one giant sigh of relief.
|
| 20.5209 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 16:56 | 2 |
| Well, no...I just don't want to be painted as the prolife cranky old
fart!
|
| 20.5210 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 13 1996 16:57 | 22 |
| >The pig remark I make here is directed at a potential person
>who became pregnant for purposes of profiteering.
So most of our ancestors, who had lots of kids because kids were
an essential economic ingredient of a successful self-sufficient
family farming unit, were pigs, according to your inflamed and
bigotted opinion. Your view of the world is both narrow and myopic.
As far as the woman with the twins...parenthood is an awesome
responsibility.
>Child rearing is the highest honor bestowed upon a husband and wife
Where did you ever find a pedestal that high?
Child rearing is an activity carried out by a great many forms of
life on our planet. It is not magic. It is not mystical. It is
not an "honor". It is not "bestowed". Child rearing doesn't even
happen after child creation with most of the forms of life on earth.
How did you ever get up on such a high horse anyway?
|
| 20.5211 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Tue Aug 13 1996 16:58 | 3 |
| you're not the pro-life cranky old fart.
you're the pro-life cranky fart.
|
| 20.5212 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 16:59 | 2 |
| Oh...that's right. Dick is the only cranky old fart here....I'm sorry!
:-)
|
| 20.5213 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 17:01 | 9 |
| Z Child rearing is an activity carried out by a great many forms of
Z life on our planet.
I believe that children are an inheritance from God. While it is true
the animal kingdom is in the business of procreation, I believe there
is alot more to the human race than emulating the horses and cows in
the stable.
-Jack
|
| 20.5214 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 13 1996 17:06 | 6 |
| > I believe there
> is alot more to the human race than emulating the horses and cows in
> the stable.
yes, there's emulating the jackasses too.
|
| 20.5215 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 13 1996 17:09 | 4 |
| >I believe that children are an inheritance from God.
That would be your personal problem, shared by some but certainly not
by everyone.
|
| 20.5216 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 17:12 | 2 |
| Obviously...which is why abortion is rooted in evolutionist
theories.
|
| 20.5217 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Tue Aug 13 1996 17:16 | 1 |
| jack, sometimes you are downright kafkaesque.
|
| 20.5218 | :-)) | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 13 1996 17:17 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.5219 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Aug 13 1996 17:54 | 6 |
| Re: .5209, Jack
>Well, no...I just don't want to be painted as the prolife cranky
>old fart!
I think that ship's already sailed. :)
|
| 20.5220 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Tue Aug 13 1996 18:34 | 7 |
| Jack,
God(dess) has chosen to abort at least 4 pregnancies of mine that I am
aware of. does this mean God(dess) is a hateful, no good,
proabortionist?
meg
|
| 20.5221 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 18:38 | 7 |
| Meg:
You and Michele share a common experience. No, I see God as the
sovereign here and I believe this choice is reserved for God. However,
I also believe God grants us free will.
-Jack
|
| 20.5222 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Tue Aug 13 1996 18:53 | 4 |
| > God grants us free will.
Free will includes the freedom to have an abortion. Granted, according
to your own words, by your God.
|
| 20.5223 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Aug 13 1996 18:57 | 3 |
| .5222
Hey something we agree on.
|
| 20.5224 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Tue Aug 13 1996 18:57 | 5 |
| God grants us free will, which includes the freedom to behave in any
immoral way imaginable. Which is not to say we will not be held
accountable for our actions. The freedom to do something, like, hack
an ex-wife and her friend to death with a knife, does not imply that to
do so is to behave in a moral way.
|
| 20.5225 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 19:13 | 3 |
| Right. This is my point. Free will does not negate culpability.
-Jack
|
| 20.5226 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Aug 13 1996 19:22 | 3 |
| >Free will does not negate culpability.
or common sense.
|
| 20.5227 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 19:35 | 19 |
| Tom, from where I am sitting, it comes down to three possibilities...
- One believes the foetus is a person and is afforded the right of life.
- One doesn't believe the foetus is a person and therefore the woman is
afforded the right to terminate.
- One believes the foetus is a person but is an underclass and mom's right
to terminate supercedes.
If you are in point 1, common sense prevails.
If you are in point 2, common sense prevails.
If you are in point 3, common sense lacks since you would be condoning
a murderous act. This is why although I believe abortion is a
necessary evil at times, I have little regard for people's blind drive
toward point three...since it is obvious common sense is very much
lacking.
-Jack
|
| 20.5228 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Tue Aug 13 1996 19:37 | 5 |
|
well color me common senseless.
|
| 20.5229 | | BUSY::SLAB | Whaddapairahogans! | Tue Aug 13 1996 19:40 | 6 |
|
RE: .5227
Does "foetus is a person but mother's right to terminate for
medical reasons is acceptable" fit in there anywhere?
|
| 20.5230 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 19:43 | 3 |
| Yes, it fits in as a necessary evil.
|
| 20.5231 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Tue Aug 13 1996 19:48 | 12 |
| Given that God gives us the freedom to have an abortion - right or
wrong - isn't it then contrary to the principles of Christianity to
work for laws that deny that right? Where did God give Christians the
right to shove their beliefs down others' throats in the form of
draconian laws? Jesus said that if a believer tries to share with a
nonbeliever who won't hear, the believer is to let the nonbeliever
alone, not to hammer him into the ground by passing laws against his
actions.
Let people have abortions. God will take care of the souls of the
aborted fetuses, and God will also deal with the souls of those who
offend him.
|
| 20.5232 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 13 1996 19:53 | 4 |
| <-- .5231
Works for me. Besides, only some people's God has anything against
abortion. Other people's Gods don't have a problem with it.
|
| 20.5233 | | BUSY::SLAB | What's that flower you have on? | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:00 | 4 |
|
Binder, how does that differ from being given the right to
murder people at will?
|
| 20.5234 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:06 | 15 |
| .5233
Slab, the Christian God denies the "right" to murder people. See
Exodus, chapter 20.
The question wrt fetuses is, as we all know, are they people. Many
people consider that unborn fetuses are not people. The laws of the
United States, in fact, do not consider unborn fetuses legally persons
except in a few cases where a state law declares them to be.
In fact, it is unConstitutional for the Federal government to enact
laws regarding abortion. If fetuses are people, then abortion is
murder, which comes under the jurisdiction of the states. If they are
not people, then abortion is a religious issue, and the First Amendment
prohibits action in that case.
|
| 20.5235 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:07 | 7 |
|
re .5233
BZZZTT!
Question rejected for including logic.
|
| 20.5236 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:08 | 4 |
| The 14th amendment allows the federal government to outlaw murder as a
violation of civil rights.
/john
|
| 20.5237 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:16 | 37 |
| Z Given that God gives us the freedom to have an abortion - right or
Z wrong - isn't it then contrary to the principles of Christianity to
Z work for laws that deny that right? Where did God give Christians
Z the right to shove their beliefs down others' throats in the form of
Z draconian laws? Jesus said that if a believer tries to share with
Z a nonbeliever who won't hear, the believer is to let the nonbeliever
Z alone, not to hammer him into the ground by passing laws against
Z his actions.
Well, first of all, you are appealing to a religious slant here. I
will comply since it is mostly those of a Christian background who
oppose...although I wanted this to be in the context of a human rights
issue.
There are many things God has given us the freedom to do. Nero of
course being one of my favorite examples, helped multiple individuals
reach eternal life. I'm sure God has taken these people into his
loving arms and has judged Nero accordingly; however, does this excuse
the citizenry of their nationalism and appeal to social and national
responsibility?
You also mentioned draconian laws. Interesting since many laws we
openly cleave to in the US are considered draconian in other cultures.
Therefore, this statement simply shows your bias.
Draconian - Exceedingly harsh; very severe.
It's strictly a matter of the culture and their mores. I don't believe
regulations on abortion are draconian at all...considering the need for
a girl to get permission to have her ears pierced. And another thing,
I believe it might be beneficial for the parents of these young people,
both boy and girl to be involved in the process. I believe the state
is aiding and abetting in delinquency with this secretive crap.
Ohhh...my goodness...the parents would be so distraught. Good, maybe a
boot in the ass is needed for all...fair or unfair as it may sound.
-Jack
|
| 20.5238 | Change RE: .5236 to RE: .5233 | BUSY::SLAB | What's that flower you have on? | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:16 | 17 |
|
RE: .5235
[sniff] That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
RE: .5236
Thank you for the religious training, Binder, but I learned the
10 Commandments in CCD about 20 years ago.
And why are you starting off by defending free will granted by
the Christian God in regards to abortion and then turning to
US laws to determine whether or not a fetus is a human? I'll
claim ignorance on this point since I'm not sure what the Bible
has to say about it.
|
| 20.5239 | | BUSY::SLAB | What's that flower you have on? | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:18 | 8 |
|
RE: Jack
>both boy and girl to be involved in the process. I believe the state
Boy? Why? He wasn't the 1 that got pregnant.
|
| 20.5240 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:21 | 3 |
| I'd read somewhere that the RCC's stand against abortion, defining life as
starting at conception, is only a couple hundred years old. Prior to that,
the definition was that life began at the time of quickening.
|
| 20.5241 | | BUSY::SLAB | What's that flower you have on? | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:25 | 6 |
|
Would you be so kind as to define "quickening" for the smokers
among us who didn't quite get PhD's?
Thanks.
|
| 20.5242 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Ranch send no girl | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:26 | 1 |
| It's when you run faster and faster, sometimes.
|
| 20.5243 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:27 | 6 |
| I was using what I believe to be a rather traditional term. Someone, I'm
sure, will correct me.
Quickening: When the little bugger starts moving around, kicking, sitting
on mom's bladder, and generally making itself known as being capable of
movement.
|
| 20.5244 | Abortion from point of conception was always forbidden | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:40 | 21 |
| >I'd read somewhere that the RCC's stand against abortion, defining life as
>starting at conception, is only a couple hundred years old. Prior to that,
>the definition was that life began at the time of quickening.
Typical lie from feminist literature.
There was a period of speculation, beginning with either Augustine or
Aquinas (I've forgotten for the moment who), that considered there to
be a lesser penalty for the _confessed_sin_ of abortion in the case
of an early term fetus rather than a later term fetus.
This was based on personal opinion, and was never any sort of dogma
considered to be "revealed".
"Quickening" was the point at which the fetus first could be felt to move in
the womb.
Of course, today we know that the fetus is already moving much earlier than
can be felt without instruments. From the point of conception on, in fact.
/john
|
| 20.5245 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:44 | 5 |
| Oh, we have a "lie," as if you was there to know better.
It wasn't feminist literature I read it from, but from your tone, I assume
that if it were, I should believe it less because it has the f-word
attached.
|
| 20.5246 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Aug 13 1996 20:55 | 2683 |
| Where the lies about the Church teaching come from,
and the truth about the historical teaching of the Church.
From: http://hebron.ee.gannon.edu/~frezza/plae/encyc043.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 43.
ABORTION AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
"No Catholic can responsibly take a 'pro-choice' stand when the 'choice'
involves the taking of innocent human life."
-- National Council of Catholic Bishops.[1]
Anti-Life Philosophy.
"A large number of Catholic theologians hold that even direct abortion,
though tragic, can sometimes be a moral choice."
-- 'Catholics' for a Free Choice.[2]
Introduction.
The Two Questions. At this time in our country's history, vastly improved
communications and fetal science are working together to tear the shroud of
mystery and secrecy away from the unborn child -- and from abortion.
Therefore, the abortion battle is becoming intensely feverish as more and
more Americans are being forced to confront the issue.
At the heart of the abortion debate are twin questions. The first of these
is purely scientific: Are the unborn living persons, or are they not?
Science has definitively settled this question, and even pro- abortionists
have been forced to admit that the preborn are living beings, as described
in Chapter 70.
The second question is philosophical and moral: May these living beings be
killed, and, if so, under what circumstances?
The very nature of this second critical question makes it an appropriate
problem for all churches to discuss. And, since churches are made up of
people, these individuals must have the right to act on their consciences,
either singly or in groups.
The Unfulfilled Potential. However, there are many people in this country
who, while loudly proclaiming their right to follow their consciences, are
actively campaigning to deprive those who oppose them of the same right.
Pro-abortionists correctly recognize that the Roman Catholic Church has the
potential to be their most dangerous enemy. However, the Church certainly
has not lived up to its possibilities, in large part because its hierarchy
and its rank-and-file lay people have been intimidated into silence and
inactivity.
Outline of the Chapter. This chapter is divided into two sections. The first
addresses the historical and current teachings of the Catholic Church
regarding abortion, and also discusses the role of conscience, the "double
effect," the issue of ensoulment, and the disposition of the souls of
aborted and miscarried preborn babies.
The second half of the chapter addresses the various tactics used by
pro-abortionists to confuse and deactivate the leadership and laity of the
Catholic Church in America, and describes their inbred hatred of the Church
and everything that it stands for.
On the Historical Opposition of the Catholic Church to Abortion.
"I think it undeniable that some of the liberals' bungling can be dismissed
as the unseemly sputterings and stutterings of a transparently camouflaged
anti-Catholic bias ..."
-- Roger Wertheimer.[3]
Lies to Confuse. The most common pro-abortion lie about Catholic Church
teaching claims that the Church has not always condemned abortion. This
particular lie has been effectively used by unscrupulous pro-abortion
activists all over the world to confuse and neutralize their Catholic
opposition.
Just a few of the various forms this pro-abortion lie assumes are shown in
Figure 43-1. The first quote, by the propaganda front group 'Religious'
Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR), summarizes many of the most common
outright pro-abortion lies about the early history of Church teachings
regarding abortion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 43-1
TYPICAL PRO-ABORTION LIES REGARDING
CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING ON ABORTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I go to church on Sunday but do not subscribe to many of the basic
tenets of the Church. That does not mean I am any less a Catholic."
-- Pamela Maraldo, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
quoted in "More on Maraldo." National STOPP News , January 20, 1993, page
1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Catholic theology, which now regards the early fetus as a person, did
not always do so. The Church first adopted the belief of Aristotle, St.
Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas that ensoulment occurs
several weeks after conception. Pope Innocent III, who ruled at the turn
of the 13th Century, made that belief part of Church doctrine, allowing
abortion until fetal animation. It was not until 1869 that the Church
prohibited abortion at any time and for any reason."
-- 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights. June 1978 propaganda
pamphlet entitled "ABORTION: Why Religious Organizations in the United
States Want to Keep it Legal."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Catholic Church is not consistent in its teaching. From 1211 to
1869, it recognised two types of foetus. It taught that the male foetus
became animated at 40 days, and the female at 80 days. Furthermore, until
1869 the Church allowed abortion until quickening."
-- Diane Munday of the British pro-abortion group "Association for the
Reform of the Abortion Law." Quoted in Colin Francome's Abortion Freedom:
A Worldwide Movement . London: George Allen & Unwin Publishers, 1984,
pages 89 and 90.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[Prior to 1869], the Church had officially accepted the theory of
delayed animation for 500 years ... Abortion before ensoulment was
tolerated by the Catholic Church."
-- Canadian psychiatrist Wendell W. Watters. Compulsory Pregnancy: The
Truth About Abortion . Toronto: McLelland & Steward, 1976. Page 90.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Abortion was only declared illegal and condemned by the Roman
Catholic Church in the 1800's. The Catholic Church condoned abortion until
the fetus "quickened," meaning the time when a pregnant woman first feels
the unborn child moving."
-- Ann Lukits. "The Agony of Abortion." The Kingston, Ontario Whig
Standard , September 24, 1983, page 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Until just over 100 years ago, the Vatican's attitude towards
abortion was relatively tolerant."
-- Penney Kome. "Woman's Place." Homemaker's Magazine , April 1976.
Page 21.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Until the end of the 16th Century with the reign of Pope Sixtus V,
the Church did, indeed, permit the termination of pregnancies within 40
days of conception for a male and 80 days for a female -- the old
Aristotelian concept ... But I believe that a case can be made -- and many
intelligent Catholics have agreed with me -- that the church's attitudes
towards abortion have varied in past history, are not always consistent and
can, like other elements of Catholic dogma, be changed to meet man's
increased enlightenment and changing social conditions."
-- Illegal abortionist Ruth Barnett. They Weep On My Doorstep .
Beaverton, Oregon: Halo Publishers, 1969. Pages 106 and 107.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Although Catholic teaching on abortion has shifted through the
centuries, the current position is clear: abortion is murder. This
position has been fixed since 1869, when Pope Pius IX reinstituted the
doctrine that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception; from
that moment on, the fetus is therefore a person. Furthermore, because the
fetus has a soul, it must be baptized in order to remove original sin.
Catholics therefore believe that not only is abortion murder, but it also
condemns the unborn person to Hell."
-- Michael Carrera. Sex: The Facts, The Acts, and Your Feelings . New
York: Crown Books, 1981. Page 290.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carrera's quote in Figure 43-1 is particularly significant. He calls
himself 'Catholic,' yet makes at least nine major doctrinal errors in his
short one-paragraph quote. In fact, this self-proclaimed "expert" does not
make a single correct statement in this widely-circulated passage.
It is frightening to realize that uninformed people look to trash like this
for clarification of the official teachings of the Catholic Church!
Summary of Rebuttal. The falsehoods shown in Figure 43-1 have been bandied
about by devious pro-abortionists for the last century, and the time has
come to lay them to rest once and for all.
Most importantly, the Catholic Church has never "approved of" or "condoned"
abortion in any part of its history. It has never taught that the time of
'ensoulment' of the unborn child depended on its sex, as stated above; this
was merely the speculation of two theologians (who, by the way, both
condemned abortion at all times).
And the Catholic Church has never accepted the theory of delayed animation.
The only time that the Church has ever addressed this question is when Pope
Innocent XI officially condemned the theory that animation took place at
birth.
The teachings of the Catholic Church have been uniformly against abortion in
any form, and have been stated and restated consistently through the
centuries.
Those who believe otherwise are hereby challenged to produce a statement by
any Pope, cardinal or bishop supporting abortion from any period in history
(declarations by Modernist priests with suspended teaching authority don't
count).
Early Teachings of the Church. Figure 43-2 lists some quotes from the early
history of the Church delineating its true teachings regarding abortion.
This figure depicts passages from only a few of the many early Church
documents that explicitly condemned abortion.
Other early Church theologians examined the methods, motives, morality and
metaphysics of abortion. They all described abortion as a heinous sin, and
their writings are listed in the second half of Figure 43-2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 43-2
EARLY PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AGAINST ABORTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant."
-- The Didache ("The Lord's Instruction to the Gentiles through the
Twelve Apostles"). II, 2, translated by J.A. Kleist, S.J., Ancient
Christian Writers , Volume 6. Westminster, 1948, page 16.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not
slay the child by abortion."
-- Barnabas (c. 70-138), Epistle , Volume II, page 19.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For us [Christians], murder is once and for all forbidden; so even
the child in the womb, while yet the mother's blood is still being drawn on
to form the human being, it is not lawful for us to destroy. To forbid
birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one takes
away the life once born or destroys it as it comes to birth. He is a man,
who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed."
-- Tertullian, 197, Apologeticus , page 9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those women who use drugs to bring about an abortion commit murder
and will have to give an account to God for their abortion."
-- Athenagoras of Athens, letter to Marcus Aurelius in 177, Legatio pro
Christianis ("Supplication for the Christians"), page 35.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is among you that I see newly-begotten sons at times exposed to
wild beasts and birds, or dispatched by the violent death of strangulation;
and there are women who, by the use of medicinal potions, destroy the
unborn life in their wombs, and murder the child before they bring it
forth. These practices undoubtedly are derived from a custom established
by your gods; Saturn, though he did not expose his sons, certainly devoured
them."
-- Minucius Felix, theologian (c. 200-225), Octavius , p. 30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"... if we would not kill off the human race born and developing
according to God's plan, then our whole lives would be lived according to
nature. Women who make use of some sort of deadly abortion drug kill not
only the embryo but, together with it, all human kindness."
-- Clement of Alexandria, priest and the "Father of Theologians" (c. 150-
220), Christ the Educator , Volume II, page 10. Also see Octavius ,
c.30, nn. 2-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek
to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in
the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to
destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the
womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to
such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have
carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for
impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to
say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the
other simply the paramour of his wife."
-- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), De Nuptius et Concupiscus
("On Marriage and Concupiscence"), 1.17.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some virgins [unmarried women], when they learn they are with child
through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die
themselves and are brought before the ruler of the lower world guilty of
three crimes; suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn
child."
-- St. Jerome, Bible Scholar and translator (c. 340-420), Letter to
Eustochium , 22.13.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no
difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the
penalty for homicide."
-- St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), First Canonical Letter ,
from the work Three Canonical Letters . Loeb Classical Library, Volume
III, pages 20 to 23.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Accordingly, among surgeon's tools, there is a certain instrument,
which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the
uterus first of all, and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an
annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected
with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or
covered hood, wherewith the entire foetus is extracted by a violent
delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual
death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: they give it, from its
infanticide function, the name of enbruosphaktes, the slayer of the infant,
which was of course alive ... life begins with conception, because we
contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its
commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does."
-- Tertullian, theologian (150-225), Treatise on the Soul , pages 25 and
27.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive
poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the penalty for murder."
-- Trullian (Quinisext) Council (692), Canons , 91.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
EARLY CHURCH TEACHINGS AGAINST ABORTION
The Apocalypse of Peter.
Hippolytus, Bishop of Pontius and theologian (died 236), Refutation of All
Heresies , 9.7.
Origen, theologian of Alexandria (185-254), Against Heresies , page 9.
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258), Letters , page 48.
Methodius, Bishop of Olympus (died 311).
Council of Elvira in Granada, Spain (305), Canons , 63 and 68.
Council of Ancyra in Galatia, Asia Minor (314), Canon , 21.
Ephraem the Syrian, theologian (306-373), De Timore Dei , page 10.
Ephipanius, Bishop of Salamis (c. 315-403).
St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), Letters , 188.2, 8.
St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 339-397), Hexameron , 5.18.58.
Apostolic Constitutions (late Fourth Century)
St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), Enchiridion , page 86.
St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407), Homily 24
("On The Book of Romans")
St. Jerome (died in 420)
Council of Chalcedon (451)
Caesarius, Bishop of Arles (470-543), Sermons , 1.12.
Council of Lerida (524).
Second Council of Braga (527), Canons , 77.
St. Martin of Braga (580)
Consillium Quinisextum (692).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Recent Teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church has always taught
that abortion is murder. However, some confusion exists because the
penalties for the murder of a preborn child have been changed several times
in the history of the Church.
In 1588, Pope Sixtus V tried to discourage abortion by reserving absolution
to the Holy See alone. Because of the numbers of abortions taking place, it
soon became evident that such an arrangement was impractical, and so in
1591, just three years later, Pope Gregory XIV returned absolution for
abortion to the local ordinary (the local bishop).[4]
Paolo Zacchia, Physician-General of the Vatican, published a book in 1620
entitled Quaestiones Medico-Legales in which he argued that ensoulment takes
place at conception and that development is a continuum.[5]
In 1679, Pope Innocent XI condemned the writings and teachings of two
theologians, Thomas Sanchez and Joannis Marcus, who believed that abortion
was lawful if the fetus was not yet animated or ensouled and the purpose of
the abortion was to prevent shame to the woman.[6] This act showed
decisively that the Church did not tolerate abortion, and was willing to
prosecute those who spread error regarding child-killing.
The French Jesuit Theophile Raynaud (1582-1663) believed that indirect
abortion of a viable baby to save the mother's life was allowable. This was
notable because he was the first theologian to hold this view and his
teachings were unique in the Church until about 1850. This is an early
statement of the "double effect," described later in this chapter.
In 1869, Pope Pius IX took the action that 'Catholic' pro-abortionists
deliberately misrepresent in order to buttress their heretical views. The
abortophiles allege that, in this year, the Pope condemned abortion for the
very first time.
In reality, the Pope officially removed the distinction between the animated
and unanimated fetus from the Code of Canon Law.[7] This action dealt not
with theology, but with discipline, and merely made the punishment for
abortion at any stage uniform. The Pope removed the distinction in order to
support the Church's stance that life and ensoulment both begin at
conception.
Recent Teachings of the Catholic Church
Regarding Abortion.
"Nor can he [the politician] take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of
such a[n abortion] law, or vote for it."
-- Vatican's Declaration on Abortion , November 18, 1974.
Declarations of Recent Popes. The dissident 'theologians' quoted in this
chapter are obviously in direct disobedience to the teachings of Rome. Every
Catholic is bound to follow the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the
Catholic Church, which originates in Rome. The opinions of renegade
Catholics and publicity-seeking 'theologians' are utterly meaningless and
carry no weight whatever. In case there is any doubt about the enduring
position of the Catholic Church on abortion, consider Figure 43-3, which
shows some quotes by Popes of this century on the topic of intrauterine
child lynching.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 43-3
STATEMENTS OF RECENT POPES CONDEMNING ABORTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But another very grave crime is to be noted, venerable brethren,
which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the
mother's womb ... As to the "medical and therapeutic indication" to which,
using their own words, we have made reference, venerable brethren, however
much we may pity the mother whose health and even life are gravely
imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature,
nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way
the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing
with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is
against the precept of God and the law of nature: "You shall not kill."
The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the
public authority, to destroy it ...
"The direct procuring of abortion is never justified by any
"indication" nor by any human law; nor is it shown to be licit by appealing
to the argument of self-defense or of extreme necessity ... Those who hold
the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public
authority, by appropriate laws, to defend the lives of the innocent, and
this all the more since those whose lives are endangered and assailed
cannot defend themselves. Among whom We must mention, in the first place,
infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not
only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to
death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is
the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to heaven."
-- Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii #67, December 31, 1930.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life
directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human
authority. Therefore, there is no man, no society, no human authority, no
science, no "indication" at all -- whether it be medical, eugenic, social,
economic, or moral -- that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a
direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life, that is, a disposal
that aims at its destruction, whether as an end in itself or as a means to
achieve the end, perhaps in no way at all illicit. The direct destruction
of so-called "useless lives," already born or still in the womb, practiced
extensively a few years ago [by Nazi Germany], can in no wise be justified
... The life of an innocent person is sacrosanct, and any direct attempt or
aggression against it is a violation of one of the fundamental laws without
which secure human society is impossible ... [N]ever forget this: There
rises above every human law and above every "indication" the faultless law
of God [emphasis in original]."
-- Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives , October 29, 1951.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No matter what the distinction between those different moments in the
development of life, already born or still to be born, for profane and
ecclesiastical law and for certain civil and penal consequences --
according to the moral law, in all these cases it is a matter of a grave
and illicit attempt on inviolable human life.
"This principle holds good both for the mother as well as the child.
Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must
be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to place the question
with this alternative: Either the life of the child or that of the mother.
No; neither the life of the mother nor of the child may be submitted to an
act of suppression. Both for the one and the other the demand cannot be
but this: To use every means to save the life of both the mother and the
child."
-- Pope Pius XII, Address to the Family Front Congress, November 27, 1951.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision
of marriage, We must once again declare that the direct interruption of the
generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and
procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely
excluded as licit means of regulating birth.
"Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has
frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or
temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every
action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its
accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences,
purposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation
impossible."
-- Pope Paul VI, Encyclical Humanae Vitae , July 25, 1968, Paragraph 14.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Disregard for the sacred character of life in the womb weakens the
very fabric of civilization; it prepares a mentality, and even a public
attitude, that can lead to the acceptance of other practices that are
against the fundamental rights of the individual. This mentality can, for
example, completely undermine concern for those in want, manifesting itself
in insensitivity to social needs; it can produce contempt for the elderly,
to the point of advocating euthanasia; it can prepare the way for those
forms of genetic engineering that go against life, the dangers of which are
not yet fully known to the general public."
-- Pope Paul VI, September 11, 1968.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of
conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."
-- Second Vatican Council, Encyclical Gaudium et Spes , IV, 51.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It must in any case be clearly understood that a Christian can never
conform to a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law
which would admit in principle the licitness of abortion. Nor can a
Christian take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or
vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application"
[emphasis added].
-- Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Declaration on
Procured Abortion." November 18, 1974, Paragraph 22.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Barbarity and cruelty are the right names [for abortion]: The
mothers conceive a child, then accuse it of being their unjust aggressor
and suppress it."
-- Pope John Paul I (as Cardinal Luciani), 1977.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not hesitate to proclaim before you and before the world that
all human life -- from the moment of conception and through all subsequent
stages -- is sacred, because human life is created in the image and
likeness of God. Nothing surpasses the greatness or dignity of a human
person. Human life is not just an idea or an abstraction; human life is
the concrete reality of a being that lives, that acts, that grown and
develops; human life is the concrete reality of a being that is capable of
love, and of service to humanity.
"If a person's right to life is violated at the moment in which he is
first conceived in his mother's womb, an indirect blow is struck also at
the whole of the moral order ... Human life is precious because it is the
gift of God, a God whose love is infinite; and when God gives life, it is
forever."
-- From Pope John Paul II's homily at the Capitol Mall in Washington,
D.C., on October 7, 1979. quoted in "Human Life is the Gift of God." The
Wanderer , October 18, 1979, pages 1 and 9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The unborn human being's right to live is one of the inalienable
human rights. God, the Lord of Life, has given man the exalted task of
preserving life, and this must be carried out in a way which is worthy of
mankind. From the conception, therefore, life must be protected with the
greatest care. Abortion is the taking of a child's life and is a repulsive
crime."
-- Pope John Paul II, September 9, 1985, Knight's Hall, Vaduz,
Liechtenstein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you want equal justice for all, and true freedom and lasting
peace, then, America, defend life! All the great causes that are yours
today will have meaning only to the extent that you guarantee the right to
life and protect the human person.
"Every human person -- no matter how vulnerable or helpless, no matter
how young or how old, no matter how healthy, handicapped, or sick, no
matter how useful or productive for society -- is a being of inestimable
worth created in the image and likeness of God. This is the dignity of
America, the reason she exists, the condition for her survival -- yes, the
ultimate test of her greatness: To respect every human person, especially
the weakest and defenseless ones, those as yet unborn."
-- Pope John Paul II, September 19, 1987, Detroit, Michigan. Quoted by
Gary Potter. "Pope's Farewell Message ... "America, Defend Life!"" The
Wanderer , October 1, 1987, page 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Popes have condemned abortion clearly and unmistakably. No honest or
open-minded person could possibly believe that there is a 'diversity of
opinion' on the subject of abortion within the Catholic Church.
As strongly as the Church has spoken on abortion, perhaps nobody has
described the very heart of the matter as well as Mother Teresa of Calcutta,
who even condemned it during her Nobel Prize acceptance lecture. On
September 17, 1988, in Ottawa, Canada, Mother Teresa eloquently reiterated
this belief; "Every abortion kills two -- the child and the conscience of
the mother. The latter will never forget she, herself, has killed her own
child. If you don't want that child, I want it, give it to me!"
On the Infallibility of Humanae Vitae. Some so-called 'Catholics' claim that
the only teachings of the Church that its members are bound to follow are
those that have solemnly been declared to be infallible.
Conversely, they say, any teaching of the Church that has not specifically
been declared infallible is open for individual interpretation. This
category of teaching would, of course, include those that have addressed
such sexual conduct as fornication, adultery, abortion, divorce, and the use
of artificial contraception.
The question of conscience vs. authority must be answered on two levels, the
most basic being from the standpoint of "natural law." As defined in Romans
2:12-16 and Jeremiah 31:33, God imprints the natural law on the heart and
soul of man, and this leads him to know whether or not an act is moral or
evil. In other words, "natural law" is man's instinctual knowledge of what
is right and what is wrong -- his "conscience."
St. Thomas, who is quoted in The Catechism of the Catholic Church , says
that "Natural law is simply the light of intelligence placed within us by
God; by it we know what we should do and what we should avoid. God bestowed
this light, or this law, with the creation."
The practical effect of pronouncements made under natural law is that they
can never be changed -- not even by the Pope and all of his assembled
Cardinals and Bishops. And certainly not by disgruntled lay people and
dissident priests!
But 'Catholics' for a Free Choice is always telling us that we can choose
abortion if we do so with a clear conscience. In other words, just as
homosexuals are "born that way," some people are born with a conscience that
is vestigial in that it does not restrict their activities in the slightest.
Occasionally these pro-abortion 'Catholics' will quote a Vatican II document
entitled Declaration on Religious Freedom in support of their contention
that we should be able to do anything our 'conscience' does not object to.
However, Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., principal author of the
Declaration , anticipated this kind of dishonesty. He stated in a footnote
to the Abbott-Gallagher edition of the council texts that "The Declaration
does not base the right to the free exercise of religion on 'freedom of
conscience.' Nowhere does this phrase occur. And the Declaration nowhere
lends its authority to the theory for which the phrase frequently stands,
namely, that I have the right to do what my conscience tells me to do,
simply because my conscience tells me to do it. This is a perilous theory.
Its particular peril is subjectivism -- the notion that, in the end, it is
my conscience, and not the objective truth, which determines what is right
and wrong, true or false."[8]
After settling the question of "natural law," we must turn our attention to
the related issue of ex cathedra ('from the chair') pronouncements of the
Pope.
There are two methods by which Catholics may know that a teaching of the
Church is infallible and therefore must be obeyed by all Catholics in order
to remain Catholic .
The first of these, of course, is an ex cathedra pronouncement. Popes use
this mechanism very infrequently, and then only to address the very
fundamentals of Catholic faith. Only once since 1870 has the Pope spoken ex
cathedra ; on November 1, 1950, when Pope Pius XII declared the doctrine of
the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Many pro-life theologians have debated the wisdom of having the Church's
teachings on birth control and abortion be formally declared infallible, and
have decided that this would not be wise in the larger scheme of things. The
reason is that such a pronouncement in an area of morals (as opposed to
fundamental beliefs) would give the impression that all other moral
teachings of the Church were optional. This might lead to a situation where
disbelief would run rampant in the areas not specifically addressed ex
cathedra , and would lead to more and more demands for such pronouncements
in almost every area of Church teaching.
The second means by which Catholics may know that a Church teaching is
infallible is by examining the ordinary magisterium. This is the usual, day
to day expression of the Church's infallibility.
The Canon of St. Vincent of Lorenz declares that any doctrine that has been
taught semper ubique obomnibus -- always, everywhere, and by everyone --
makes it part of the ordinary and universal Magisterial teaching.[9]
As shown by the quotes of ancient and modern Catholic theologians in Figures
43-2 and 43-3, the prohibition against abortion has indeed been taught
semper ubique obomnibus . Therefore, Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae
Vitae does not declare or create some new doctrine or dogma. It simply
reiterates the infallible doctrine that human life is sacred from conception
to natural birth.
From this, we may state without fear of contradiction (from anyone who
counts, that is) that the Catholic Church's ban on abortion is, indeed,
derived from an infallible doctrine.
Before wrapping up this discussion on infallibility, we must consider this
question: Do we really think that 'Catholic' abortophiles would suddenly
stop their child killing if the Pope suddenly issued an ex cathedra decree
that abortion was a mortal sin?
Obviously, they would not. Just as with the question of ensoulment, the
pro-aborts couldn't really care less about the degree of solemnity of
Catholic condemnation of abortion. This is another red herring they use to
distract attention from the real issue.
An Expanded Definition of 'Abortion.' The Catholic Church has recently
expanded its definition of abortion to include new drugs and surgical
procedures. This expansion has not been necessary until recently because
such drugs and procedures simply have not existed until this time, and their
invention had created a new 'grey area' that needed to be clarified.
The Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of
Canon Law, on November 24, 1988, stated that abortion is not only "the
expulsion of the immature fetus," but is also "the killing of the same fetus
in any way and at any time from the moment of conception."[10]
This definition of abortion includes the use of any of the following;
* all birth control pills, because every birth control pill manufactured
today causes early abortions part of the time! For a description of the
modes of action of birth control pills manufactured today, see Chapter 31.
* mini-pills, morning-after pills, true abortion pills such as RU-486,
abortifacients such as Depo-Provera, and injectable abortifacients such as
NORPLANT (described in Chapters 33 and 34);
* so-called "menstrual extraction" techniques, a Neofeminist favorite; and
* the use of all intrauterine devices (IUDs), which are all abortifacient
and act by preventing the implantation of the already- fertilized zygote (in
order for the sanctions [including excommunication] against abortion to be
applied, the woman must know that the IUD's action is abortifacient). The
modes of action of the IUDs are described in Chapter 32.
The Church Penalty for Assisting or
Obtaining Abortions: Excommunication!
"If you carefully examine your conscience and then decide that an abortion
is the most moral act you can do at this time, you're not committing a sin.
Therefore, you're not excommunicated. Nor need you tell it in confession
since, in your case, abortion is not a sin."
-- 'Catholics' for a Free Choice brochure entitled "You Are Not Alone."
On 'Playing the Game.' If a person refuses to play by the rules of a game,
he is almost always barred from playing that game. If a basketball player
insists on travelling, he will eventually be ejected. If a card player
insists on cheating, he will be identified as a cheater and nobody will play
with him. If a soldier refuses to salute, wear a uniform, or carry a rifle,
he will be court-martialled and jailed or thrown out of the service.
The same holds true of the 'games' of life and religion. If a person
constantly preys on others, he is not playing by the rules that society has
set down, and, if he persists in his predatory activities, he will
eventually be separated from society or even 'ejected' from life if his
crimes are serious enough.
Perhaps every faithful Catholic has heard ignorant bigots sneer "if da Pope
no play-a da game, he no make-a da rules," with regards to abortion and
contraception. These people are missing the point. The Pope is not a player
in the game; for Catholics, he is the coach and referee . And if so-called
'members' of the team (members of the Catholic Church) do not play by the
rules, then they should be 'cut' from the team by excommunication. We might
take the "play the game" remark and turn it around to use against the
so-called 'Catholic' abortophiles: "If you no play-a by de rules, you no
play-a de game."
After all, what's fair is fair -- for everyone!
The Media and Excommunication. The pro-abortion media, of course, might be
expected to maintain a double standard on anything impinging upon abortion.
Excommunication is no exception.
Members of the media simper that the excommunication of bad 'Catholics' is
an unacceptable interference in public life, but they see no inconsistency
when they attempt to meddle in Church affairs.
Of course, the media propagandists don't really care about excommunication;
they only care about abortion. The New York Times proved this point with its
greatly divergent reactions to the excommunication of two leaders from
separate spheres of social activism.
When San Diego's Bishop Leo Maher excommunicated pro-abort state
assemblywoman Lucy Killea in 1990, the Times sniveled "By imposing a test of
religious loyalty, Bishop Maher threatens the truce of tolerance by which
Americans maintain civility and enlarge religious liberty."
When John Cardinal O'Connor of New York threatened excommunication for
pro-abortion 'Catholic' politicians, the Times squawked that he was "...
tearing at the truce of tolerance that permits America's pluralistic society
to work."
However, when Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans in 1962 excommunicated
Leander Perez, a white supremacist and Louisiana political boss who had
opposed desegregation of the schools, the Times didn't seem to mind at all;
"Men of all faiths must admire the unwavering courage of the Most Reverend
Joseph Rummel, Archbishop of New Orleans ... We salute the Catholic
Archbishop. He has set an example founded on religious principle and is
responsive to the social conscience of our time."
Of course, Catholic clergymen aren't the only people who excommunicate the
dissenters within their ranks, but they are the only ones who get negative
media attention.
Openly sodomite Congressman Barney Frank (D.-olt) was formally
excommunicated according to Jewish law ( Halacha ) by Beth Din Zedek (the
High Rabbinical Ecclesiastical Court) on June 27, 1990. The presiding Rabbi,
Joseph Friedman, stated that the excommunication was for "Desecrating the
name of God and the Jewish people, for bringing dishonor and disgrace upon
the high office of Congressman, and for promoting and encouraging the moral
corruption of society. A prominent Jewish public official, to our deep
embarrassment, Frank has been a blatant promoter of moral depravity."[11]
Although this eminently justifiable writ of excommunication was
extraordinarily stronger in tone and content than anything that Cardinal
O'Connor or anyone else in the Catholic Church had issued, and although it
was directed at a far more famous person than a lowly abortion clinic
operator, the secular press played it down or ignored it altogether.
Obtaining An Abortion. The position of the Catholic Church on abortion could
not be clearer. Only a person who is willfully blinding himself or herself
to the facts could make the ridiculous claim that there is 'room for a
diversity of opinion' within the Catholic Church on abortion.
The church not only does not want to change its teaching on abortion -- it
absolutely cannot change its teaching, because this critical issue deals
with fundamental questions of faith, morals, and ethics.
Those 'Catholic' abortophiles who are waiting for a change will be waiting
for a very long time indeed.
Canon 2350, promulgated in 1917, states that all who procure abortion shall
be automatically excommunicated.
Canon Law Number 1398 states, quite simply, in Latin and English;
Qui abortum procurat, effectu secuto, in excommunicationem, latae
sententiae, incurrat .
"Those who successfully abort a living human fetus bring on themselves
instant excommunication."
Abortum procurat means anyone who works to kill a human fetus in any manner
at all. This may be the boyfriend or husband who drives the mother to the
abortion mill, pays for the abortion in full or in part, or even advises
that abortion may be an option in her case.
Latae sententiae means that the person brings instant excommunication upon
himself with his act. No solemn pronouncement need be made by the Church or
a Bishop or priest, and no one else need even know about the abortion. For
automatic excommunication to take place, the woman must know that she is
pregnant and must freely choose abortion. At the moment the woman's child
dies, she is cut off from all the Sacraments completely, and cannot return
unless she sincerely repents and makes a good confession. This sanction also
applies to the abortionist, attending nurse or counselor, and anyone else
who assists in the abortion. This is why Mary Ann Sorrentino, a "Catholic"
who administered a Planned Parenthood abortuary in Rhode Island, was
publicly excommunicated. Keep in mind that Rome or the Bishop did not
excommunicate her, nor did any priest; she excommunicated herself .
It is important to note here that the woman must be fully knowledgeable of
her act. She may using the birth control pill, intra- uterine device (IUD),
NORPLANT, or some other abortifacient. Since many women are completely
unaware of the abortifacient effects of these devices and drugs, they would
not generally be liable to excommunication.
Effectu secuto means that the excommunication takes place only if the
abortion is completed.
Assisting in Procurement. Canon Law 1398 (quoted above) and Section 2 of
Canon Law 1329 outline quite clearly the penalty for assisting in an
abortion. The latter Canon Law states that "Accomplices, even though not
mentioned in the law or precept, incur the same penalty [ latae sententiae
excommunication] if, without their assistance, the crime would not have been
committed, and if the penalty is of such a nature as to be able to affect
them; otherwise, they can be punished with ferendae sententiae [inflicted by
clergy] penalties."
In fact, the United States Catholic Bishops have stated quite clearly that
one cannot be Catholic and even support the general concept of abortion; "No
Catholic can responsibly take a 'pro-choice' stand when the 'choice'
involves the taking of innocent human life."[1]
In other words, the term "pro-choice Catholic" is the ultimate oxymoron.
Abortion to Save the Life of the Mother
-- The 'Double Effect.'
Source of Confusion. The very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and
immediate threat to the mother's life -- including uterine cancer and
ectopic pregnancies -- are a source of great confusion, especially among
Catholics.
It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the
life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the
mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly
attack the unborn baby's life.
The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of
her unborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine
cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina
may indicate surgical intervention.
In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending
physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the
child . If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy,
the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube
(and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential
for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this would not
be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate
murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.
The principle of the "double effect" also applies to sexual sterilization.
If a woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous
uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act.
However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health,
but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always
a mortal sin.[12]
Statement of Intent and Principle. Pope Pius XII summarized the intent of
the double effect when he addressed the Family Front Congress on November
27, 1951; "Both for the one and the other, the demand cannot be but this: To
use every means to save the life of both the mother and the child."[13]
Pius also stated the general principle of the "double effect" on October 29,
1951, at his address to the Italian Union of Midwives. This speech is
codified in the Pope's Acta Apostilicae Sedis , 43(1951), page 855.
Article 14 of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's
Declaration on Procured Abortion (November 18, 1974) reiterates it.
The pertinent passage of this document reads; "Deliberately we have always
used the expression 'direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,'
'direct killing.' Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the
future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently
require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an
accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the
death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt
on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful,
like other similar medical interventions -- granted always that a good of
high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to
postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have
recourse to other efficacious remedies."
Yet More Silliness. As described in Chapter 10 of Volume I, "Infiltration
and Subversion," one of the most effective general strategies employed by
pro-abortionists and other anti-lifers involves the assertion that "this is
not a black and white question." In other words, the pro- aborts would have
us believe that there is some enormous (and necessarily undefined) grey area
within which many ethical questions fall.
Of course, this concept is the ultimate red herring: According to
'Catholics' for a Free Choice and other phony 'Christians,' any abortion
that any woman wants inevitably falls into this "gray area."
As with every other ethical and moral question posed to pro- abortionists,
"wanna-be" theologians stretch the "double effect" to cover all abortions,
and the effects are frequently comical. For example, John Swomley, a
propagandist for the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights, claims that
"The Roman church argues that although the death of the fetus is foreseen,
it is not intended because the intention is to preserve the health and life
of the woman. Isn't it just as reasonable to assert that the intention of
most women is the separation of the fetus from the woman, not the killing of
the fetus, though its death may be foreseen?"[14]
Swomley obviously isn't thinking here: He "forgets" that Canon law requires
that the desired effect (in his example, "separation of the fetus from the
woman") must be accomplished in such a way as to best assure the survival of
both mother and child. Thus, the approved method to achieve "separation"
would be the natural termination of pregnancy known as "birth," occurring at
about nine months' gestation.
Additionally, if the intention of most women is the "separation of the fetus
from the woman," why do 1.6 million women reject adoption each year? And why
do abortionists deliberately use methods designed to kill preborn babies in
late abortions? It is plain that the purpose of abortion is indeed to
produce a dead baby .
The Question of Ensoulment.
Saints Thomas and Jerome. Some pro-abortion propagandists with no particular
regard for the truth point to the fact that Saint Thomas and Saint Jerome
speculated as to when the soul was infused by God, and say that this
uncertainty constitutes a definite approval of abortion. Others, like Dr.
Robert E. Hall, simply make flatly untrue statements such as "One can admire
St. Augustine for conceding that no one will ever know when fetal life
begins."[15]
Other misleading statements by bogus "Catholics" used to prop up their
unjustifiable support of prenatal child killing are even more bizarre. For
example, "Catholic" Marjorie Reilly Maguire, a board member of the National
Abortion Rights Action League, claims with a straight face that the
Annunciation "proves" that ensoulment does not take place until the mother
consents to "the pregnancy that is within her."[16]
Keep in mind that, according to the Gospels, the Virgin Mary consented prior
to the moment of conception.
These statements are illogical and, of course, dead wrong. Both Saints
Thomas and Jerome recognized that ensoulment and abortion were two distinct
and separate issues. They both condemned abortion in the strongest possible
terms (see Figure 43-2 for one of St. Jerome's statements against abortion).
In any case, the matter of when the body is 'ensouled' has historically made
no difference to the Catholic Church; see the quotes in Figure 43-2 by
Saints Basil and Jerome, for proof. It is quite obvious from the language he
uses that St. Basil had extensive experience in dealing with Fourth Century
pro-abortion doublespeak.
In summary, Saints Thomas and Jerome were postulating a theory based upon
the best medical knowledge of their time, which had been set forth by
Aristotle centuries before. Aristotle taught that the unborn did not become
human until forty days after conception. This notion was only discarded in
1621, based upon the work of Paulo Zacchia in his Quaestiones Medico-Legales
, question 9.1.
Consistency at Any Ridiculous Cost? It is quite evident that the
'ensoulment' argument is nothing more than a red herring. It is an attempt
to 'prove' that the Catholic Church is 'inconsistent' in its teachings on
abortion.
In reality, of course, pro-aborts couldn't care less when the soul is
infused. They know that such a concept cannot be scientifically proven one
way or the other, so they are 'safe.' They can continue to kill with an
uncluttered conscience.
If someone suddenly developed a new and advanced technology that could
definitively detect the presence of a soul in the preborn child, does any
thinking pro-lifer believe that the pro-aborts would suddenly give up their
precious 'right' to kill as a result?
If there are people that naive out there, we know of a slightly-used bridge
for sale at a very attractive price ...
Pro-abortion groups will go to laughable extremes in their attempts to prove
'inconsistency' in Church teachings. For example, they actually say with a
straight face that the Catholic Church is not consistent because it does not
insist on a funeral Mass for each miscarried baby.
Can you believe it? This idiotic statement glaringly highlights the
pervasive pro-abortion double standard. On the one hand, the pro-aborts
insist that any mother who wants to kill her child should be able to define
it out of existence with a mere thought, i.e., "This baby is unwanted, and
therefore does not exist." She doesn't need the validation of Church or
State or any other authority. All she needs, curiously enough, is an
abortuary to eliminate this supposedly 'nonexistent' baby.
On the other hand, a grieving pro-life mother who has miscarried has to jump
all kinds of hurdles before the existence of her baby can be 'validated.'
The pro-abortionists say that she must have a funeral Mass and the
participation of the Catholic Church, a Catholic priest, and numerous other
people before her opinions and feelings are legitimized.
What blatant inconsistency!
Also, whatever happened to the 'right to privacy' cherished by the
pro-aborts? Apparently, it is only for them. After all, they're special
cases. Just ask them.
This is typical of the pro-abortion mentality. The mother's wishes or
biological fact do not make the baby a human being; the funeral does!
The National Abortion Rights Action League even insisted in its June 1978 A
Speakers and Debaters Notebook that every Catholic woman must have a formal
funeral Mass and burial each time she menstruates, since the 'products of
menstruation' just might include an unnoticed very early miscarriage!
Population controller Garrett Hardin, always at the forefront of the
abortion debate with a wide variety of silly statements, weighed in with the
slightly differing (but still profoundly absurd) opinion that "Whenever a
woman is late with her period, the menstrual products will have to be
collected and given a proper burial."[17]
These and other pro-abortionists know that the Catholic Church is
potentially their most dangerous enemy, and thus they are constantly trying
to saddle it with obviously impossible missions in the name of
'consistency.' NARAL would just love to see Catholic priests spend 90
percent of their time saying funeral Masses for used Stayfree mini-pads!
Ah, the 'logic' of the abortophile mentality! As Ralph Waldo Emerson once
said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Conclusion. Most pro-abortionists don't believe in God (at least not a
Christian God), and therefore don't believe that human beings have souls.
Why, then, are they quibbling about a concept that they don't believe in to
begin with? Why, to divert attention away from the central issue -- the
immoral and unethical slaughter of real live unborn babies.
Curiously, those very few pro-aborts who do believe in 'ensoulment' are
nevertheless willing and eager to kill what they believe does have a soul --
the unborn baby.
Baptism for Preborn Babies.
Is Their Baptism Possible? Many Catholics believe that the greatest tragedy
of abortion is not the actual deaths of preborn babies, but their loss of
Heaven due to the fact that they were not baptized.
However, it is rather presumptuous to state as fact that all unbaptized
people go straight to Hell (or even to some Limbo-like state), because this
includes a broad assumption that God is restrained by certain laws as
understood by man. God's power obviously cannot be limited by the desires or
opinions of men; His power is infinite, and He can do anything He wants,
including welcoming to Heaven unbaptized preborn babies. Some theologians
believe that, after their deaths, God gives aborted and miscarried babies
full knowledge and does so that they may make their own decision about
eternity, just as they would have done on earth.
It is a repugnant concept that God would condemn to Hell a person who,
through no fault of his own, has never heard of Christ. Therefore, the
Catholic Church teaches that even persons who have never heard of Christ may
be worthy of Heaven if they live a benign lifestyle that generally adheres
to the precepts of Christianity. Since unborn babies are guilty of no sin
other than original sin, they certainly fit this category.[18]
As proof of this, the Catholic Church has formally canonized as Saints a
group of unbaptized persons -- the Holy Innocents, who died directly because
of others who hated Jesus, just as all of the aborted babies are dying for
hate of Him today.
The Baptism of Desire. Catholic pro-life groups, including Catholics United
for Life and the Shield of Roses, commonly pray the Rosary for the dying and
the dead outside abortuaries. The purpose of these Rosaries, in part, is to
request the baptism of desire for the unborn babies being slaughtered there
that day. Even if the aborting mothers are atheists and couldn't care less
about their babies' souls, Catholics believe that it is possible to request
baptism for them. This is essentially the same understanding used by mothers
who conditionally baptize their miscarried babies.[18]
The Baptism of Blood. Many religions share the belief that those who die for
God are martyrs who gain Heaven. Catholicism is no exception. Many believe
that the little preborn babies who die of abortion are sacrificed for
convenience (or necessity, in rare cases), and are therefore true martyrs,
as were the Holy Innocents, the babies who died at Herod's hands in place of
Jesus.
The Catholic Church canonized the Holy Innocents due because their deaths
were to odium fidei , or hatred of the Faith. Father Benedict Groeschel says
that it is reasonable to expect that unborn babies may also be killed due to
odium fidei (or odium Dei ), and therefore assume the status of latter-day
Holy Innocents.[19]
On Extreme Unction for Infants. Many pro-abortionists practically go into a
frenzy looking for perceived 'inconsistencies' in the teachings of the
Catholic Church, and will bellow triumphantly when they 'find' it -- even if
their conclusions are mistaken because they have failed to do proper
research.
One typical example of mistakenly-perceived 'inconsistency' deals with the
administration of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction ("The Last Rites") to
infants. As illegal abortionist Ruth Barnett asserted, "However, somewhat
contraditory [sic] I would think, it the fact that Catholic priests do not,
ordinarily, give a fetus the usual extreme unction or burial services
afforded a still-birth. It seems to me that this kind of differentiation, in
practice, is in variation with their beliefs. If they do consider the fetus
to be alive, why do they deny it the extreme unction given the child born
dead? I have never heard this question answered."[20]
It is quite obvious that Barnett never bothered to ask a competent Catholic
priest her question on Extreme Unction, or she would have heard it properly
answered. To begin with, Barnett flaunts her ignorance of the Catholic faith
by asserting that stillborn babies receive Extreme Unction. This is
impossible, since this Sacrament can only be given to living people.
Stillborn babies are dead. If there is some question as to whether or not
the baby is living, this Sacrament may be administered conditionally.
As for her 'unanswered' question, Extreme Unction is not usually given to
any children under the age of reason (about seven years). This is because
intent is a necessary part of any sin and children under seven are deemed
incapable of having the intent necessary commit serious sin. Therefore,
priests generally do not administer Extreme Unction to very young children
because they have no intentional sins to remit.
For Those Who Think the Pope
is Just the Bishop of Rome.
Almost all anti-life 'Catholics' know the truth about abortion. They simply
want to rationalize their 'trendy' beliefs, both to themselves and to others
(this is a very common phenomenon, and is well-known to psychiatrists). And
they try to do so with absurd and dangerous assumptions that even they know,
deep down inside, are false. Somehow they think, that on the Judgement Day,
they will be able to excuse themselves by saying that they were sincere. But
our eternal Judge knows better, because He knows us much better than even we
know ourselves. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "The greatest power of the
mind is its capacity to deceive itself."
One of the more common assertions made by anti-life 'Catholics' in this
country is that the Pope is just another Bishop of a small and not
particularly important Archdiocese in some far-flung Mediterranean country.
As such, why should we listen to him? The reason for this subterfuge is
obvious. The pro-abortion propagandists loathe the unyielding pro-life
position of the current Pope, and so disregard his edicts in favor of a
local 'authority' that better suits their viewpoint.
To these 'Catholic' pro-abortionists, we say: Listen to your own United
States Bishops, who have repeatedly condemned abortion for any reason. The
dates of just a few of their major declarations, statements, and letters
against abortion are listed below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF RECENT
STATEMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES
CATHOLIC BISHOPS AGAINST ABORTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The sweeping judgement of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Texas and
Georgia abortion cases [the Roe and Doe cases] is a flagrant rejection of
the unborn child's right to life ... Although as a result of the Court
decision abortion may be legally permissible, it is still morally wrong,
and no Court opinion can change the law of God prohibiting the taking of
innocent human life."
-- National Conference of Catholic Bishops, January 24, 1973.
* Statements against abortion by the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops (NCCB), January 24, 1973; April 7, 1970; February 13, 1973;
September 18, 1973; November 13, 1973; and November 20, 1975.
* Bishops of Connecticut, September 1974
* Bishops of Illinois, March 20, 1969
* Bishops of Illinois, February 3, 1971
* Bishops of Indiana, December 1972
* Bishops of Maryland, January 27, 1971
* Bishops of Massachusetts, March 1971
* Bishops of Massachusetts, February 1972
* Bishops of Missouri, December 1970
* Bishops of New Jersey, March 1970
* Bishops of New York, February 12, 1967
* Bishops of New York, February 13, 1970
* Bishops of New York, March 19, 1970
* Bishops of New York, December 2, 1970
* Bishops of New York, April 7, 1972
* Bishops of Pennsylvania, September 1970
* Bishops of Texas, April 1971
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference. All of the above Bishop's declarations, statements, and
pastoral letters are reproduced in their entirety in the Daughters of St.
Paul's book Yes to Life . Order from Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul's
Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02130. 328 pages, 1976, $12.95.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, even after seeing all of this evidence, an anti-life person continues to
insist that there is some ill-defined 'plurality of opinion' regarding
abortion within the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, simply ask
him or her for a statement by any Pope or Bishop supporting abortion for any
reason. If the person is to any faint degree open-minded, this should
finally close the argument. You may wish to conclude by showing them the
next few paragraphs dealing with excommunication.
What "Diversity of Opinion?"
"I know that if either of my girls came to me and said, "Mom, I'm pregnant,
and I'm not gonna have that baby," I would say "Here's the money. Please go
see a doctor.""
-- Geraldine Ferraro, Ms. Magazine, July 1984.
Introduction. Pro-abortion propagandists very commonly claim that the
Catholic Church has, at one undefined time or another, tolerated abortion.
Even if the Catholic Church had approved of abortion at one time (AND IT
NEVER HAS), its position now is what is relevant. And that position is
unyieldingly against abortion.
The treasured "diversity of opinion" has, on the one side, the Pope, the
Cardinals, the Bishops, all reputable theologians, and the Magisterium of
the eternal Roman Catholic Church. On the other side is a ragtag,
disreputable gaggle of defrocked priests, dissidents, and those with an
unending itch to destroy that which stands for good. These people include;
* disgraced priests and ex-priests, including Father Charles Curran and
Daniel Maguire, all of whom have been disavowed and reprimanded by Rome;
* renegade nuns, like Barbara Ferraro and Patricia Hussey, who have been
censured by Rome, and who have quit their orders; and
* famous pro-abortion 'Catholic' lay people who actually profit from their
unethical stance, including Ted Kennedy, Pamela Moraldo, Frances Kissling,
William Brennan, Mario Cuomo, Geraldine Ferraro, and Mary Ann Sorrentino.
Just a few examples of the dissidents' bizarre antics and ridiculous
statements are shown below. The phrase, "by their fruits you shall know
them" rings true in the cases of these pro-abortion propagandists.
Warped 'Tradition.' Father Richard O'Brien, former Chairman of the Theology
department at the University of Notre Dame, says that "Catholic tradition"
forbids efforts to change current American law on abortion. Father Charles
Curran agrees. Naturally, in their view, "Catholic tradition" allows
changing the American law to permit abortion!
Father Raymond G. Decker, Assistant Dean of Loyola University School of Law,
said that Roe v. Wade "... is more in accord with fundamental Christian
principles ... than the positions reflected in the rather strident
criticisms it has received from certain Catholic sources."
Washington's Archbishop James A. Hickey stated that pro-abortion Catholic
politicians and judges, no matter how ruthlessly they push abortion, are
"practicing Catholics in good standing." The examples he gave: Fanatical
pro-abortion U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, who killed Mary Jo Kopechne at
Chappaquiddick, and William Brennan, the 'brains' behind the Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court decision that condemned literally tens of millions of preborn
children to death.
Archbishop Hickey's claim was in direct contradiction to the November 18,
1974 Vatican Declaration on Abortion , which clearly stated that "Nor can he
[the politician] take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a[n
abortion] law, or vote for it."
That Blasted Vaccine Again ... Certain pro-abortion priests and ex- preists
(including Daniel Maguire, Richard McCormick, James Halstead, Louis
Janssens, Abel Jeanniere, and Pierre Simon) say that Pope Leo XII declared
in 1829 that smallpox was a judgment from God and that "the smallpox
vaccination is a challenge towards Heaven."
In a failed attempt at parallelism, these dissidents use this purported
quote by Pope Leo XII to 'show' that the Catholic Church does indeed change
its moral teachings with regard to biological matters like birth control,
sterilization, and abortion.
However, after intensive research, experienced investigator Father Donald
Keefe concluded that no such papal statement or Bull existed in any records
anywhere, and the above-mentioned dissident priests could not provide
substantiation of the statement. In other words, some abortophile simply
made the statement up and every one of these 'theologians' was so eager to
attack the Catholic Church that they seized upon the fabrication without
bothering to check it for authenticity.[21]
More 'Nunsense.' The pro-abortion National Coalition of American Nuns
(NCAN), in its "Statement on Its Opposition to the Hatch Act," made perhaps
the smoothest "personally opposed, but ..." excuse ever when it said that
"While we continue to oppose abortion, in principle and in practice, we are
likewise convinced that the responsibility for decisions in this regard
resides primarily with those who are directly and personally involved."
Like rape and sexual abuse, eh, 'sisters?'
The 'Know-Nothings' Are Back. Historians remember the hysterical
anti-Catholic propaganda vomited by the Know-Nothing Party and the Ku Klux
Klan in the 1800s and early 1900s. Embittered former 'Catholics' have
resurrected this garbage and are freely spewing it today; "The financial
demands made on Catholics are atrocious. Churches are extremely wealthy
institutions. I see what Churches have because I work in a bank. I work hard
for what I have, and I need what I have for myself. I can't afford to
support a priest. Let the priest support me once in a while. The Pope sits
over there and makes all the rules and shakes his head, "Yes, no, yes, no.'
He's got all those jewels. Who does he think he is? Did he ever sit down and
talk to a woman who got into a jam? I'd like to say to him, "If I had this
child, would you take care of it? Pull a few of those rocks off that habit
and take care of it for me? Give up your jewels ...'"
This trash is not produced by white-robed KKK bigots but by bitter former
'Catholic' Neofeminists who claim to 'love their Church.' The above quote is
from a 'Catholics' for a Free Choice booklet entitled "My Conscience Speaks:
Catholic Women Discuss Their Abortions." It is one CFFC's "Abortion in Good
Faith" series of anti-Catholic tracts that bear titles like "I Support You
But I Can't Sign My Name," "We Are the Mainstream," and, amusingly,
"Morality Reborn."[22]
Using Contraception As a Wedge -- Again. One particularly clever tactic the
Neoliberals use to undermine Church teaching on abortion is to claim that
most Catholic men and women ignore Church teaching on contraception.
Therefore, of course, since this is America where the majority rules, the
Church must be 'wrong' on contraception. It naturally follows that the
Church might also be 'wrong' on abortion.
Unfortunately, the Neoliberals are entirely correct when they claim that the
majority of Catholic men and women ignore Church teachings on artificial
contraception.
The 1988 National Survey of Family Growth , conducted by the National center
for Health Statistics showed that;
* 72 percent of all married Catholic couples of childbearing age in the
United States use some form of artificial contraception or sterilization to
limit childbearing. 55 percent of these said they relied on the pill, 22
percent on tubal ligation, 12 percent on vasectomy, and 11 percent on other
artificial methods.
* 3 percent of all Catholic couples use some form of natural family planning
(NFP), the only Church-approved method of limiting family size.
* the remaining 25 percent of all married Catholic couples use no form of
fertility control, because they are either naturally infertile or are
attempting to get pregnant.[23]
The flaw in the Neoliberal line of reasoning is quite plain. The Catholic
Church is not anti -American; but it is un -American in that it is not a
democracy. God did not set up a pluralistic system. He made the rules; the
Church interprets the rules; and it is up to us to follow the rules.
If only one Catholic man or woman in the country adhered to Church teachings
on abortion or contraception while everyone else ignored them, that one
person would be in the right. Everyone else would be wrong.
It is as simple as that. But a Neoliberal mind simply cannot grasp the
concept that some people might want to give up some of their "freedom of
choice" in order to save their souls. Faithful Catholics 'trade' a portion
of their personal autonomy in exchange for an infinitely great reward. Since
Neoliberals do not believe in the existence of the 'reward,' they simply
cannot understand such a transaction.
Analysis of The New York Times Statement.
"As a Catholic, Jesuit, and priest, I'm against it [abortion], except for
women!"
-- Pro-abortion Catholic 'priest' Robert Drinan.[24]
Introduction. There have been many full-fledged media campaigns conducted by
pro-abortionists for the purpose of undermining Catholic Church teaching on
abortion, but the 1984 New York Times statement is undoubtedly the most
notorious example of this genre. It is also entirely typical of this type of
subversive attack.
The New York Times advertisement by the pseudo-religious splinter group
'Catholics' for a Free Choice (which is excerpted at the beginning of this
chapter) is an absolutely classic use of the propaganda strategy commonly
referred to by professionals as "infiltration and subversion."
Simply stated, this pro-abortion group seeks to render ineffective or less
effective a dangerous opponent to abortion 'rights' (in this case, the
Catholic Church) by confusing its rank-and-file members and marginal priests
as to authentic Catholic teaching.
This tactic has been effective in wars of all kinds since the beginning of
time. The CFFC statement, which claims diversity and inconsistency within
the Catholic Church is, quite simply, a barefaced lie.
For more information on the Neoliberal strategy of infiltration and
subversion, see Chapter 10 of Volume I.
Dissidents in 'Action.' Nearly a hundred persons signed the (in)famous New
York Times statement challenging the position of the Catholic Church
regarding abortion. Of these, all but four eventually retracted their
statements after inquiries by Rome, betraying their total lack of courage
and commitment to their cause. Of the four who refused to retract their
statements, two were defrocked priests with an axe to grind (and nothing to
lose) and two were marginal nuns who finally left their order after causing
grave scandal.
People who have been excommunicated, and those without the courage of their
convictions, frequently purport to speak for the Catholic Church. However,
they obviously have no standing whatsoever.
Their Real Objectives. Notice how the signers of the CFFC statement call
abortion "tragic." These are pure crocodile tears, shed in an attempt to
give their position a transparent veneer of humanity.
In reality, the people who bought this $35,000 ad and signed it couldn't
care less about the preborn. Renegade pro-abortion "Catholic" groups want
abortion for everyone , for any reason, and demand that the public pay for
it -- whether members of that same public believe that abortion is murder or
not.
Many organizations that represent themselves as 'Catholic' are busily
burrowing away at Church moral teaching from within, in attempts to water it
down to the point where it is indistinguishable from Humanistic public
morality.
Those subversive pro-abortion groups that falsely refer to themselves as
'Catholic' include;[25]
* 'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC);
* 'Catholic' Women for Reproductive Rights (CWRR);
* Conference for 'Catholic' Lesbians (CCL);
* National Coalition of American 'Nuns' (NCAN);
* Women's Ordination Conference (WOC);
* Sisters Against Sexism (SAS);
* Women-Church; and
* Dignity, a 'Catholic' sodomite group.
CFFC: A Small, Vocal Minority. Through media tools like expensive ads in
virulently pro-abortion newspapers, CFFC and other dissidents allege that
the Pope is a renegade and that the Catholic Church is unpopular, backward,
and "out of touch with the mainstream." By implication, of course,
pro-aborts can then assert that the positions of the Church on social issues
are also 'out of touch.'
Marjorie Reilly Maguire and Daniel C. Maguire of 'Catholics' for a Free
Choice, the best anti-Catholic propagandists the pro-aborts can field, slyly
'compliment' the Church while asserting that pro-life priests and laity are
not part of the "real" Church; "Thus, the Catholic Church, when considered
in its rich diversity, teaches that some abortions can be moral and that
conscience is the final arbiter of any abortion decision. Unfortunately, the
Catholicism that is taught in many Catholic parishes does not reflect the
richness of the Catholic faith."[26]
Obviously, Maguire believes that parishes that are liberal on abortion are
"mature," "diverse," "open," and "rich." Those that uphold authentic
Catholic teaching on abortion are "narrow," "punitive," and "impoverished."
Polls commissioned by the secular media prove that CFFC is wrong -- and, not
surprisingly, that CFFC and its contemptible ilk are merely (as they like to
say about pro-lifers) "a small and vocal minority." These polls show that,
if one considers the people to be the church, the real Catholic Church is,
indeed, pro-life.
On the occasion of the Pope's 1987 visit to the United States, the New York
Times and CBS News commissioned a nationwide poll of American Catholics
during the period August 16 to 22 .
The poll found that 59 percent of all Catholics had a favorable opinion of
Pope John Paul II. A tiny minority of dissidents and renegades (only 5
percent) had an unfavorable impression of the current Pope.
More than half of all Catholics (56 percent) agreed that Pope John Paul II
is "... a moral and humanitarian spokesman for all people, no matter what
their religion."[27]
On parallel issues, only 29 percent of American Catholics said that abortion
should be as widely available as it is now; this is compared to 40 percent
of non-Catholics. 61 percent of all Catholics said that abortion was the
equivalent of murdering a child, compared to 47 percent for non-
Catholics.[27]
Pro-Abortion Bigots.
"I've always known that Catholicism is a completely sexist, repressed, sin-
and punishment-based religion."
-- Trash star Madonna.[28]
Have Their Pie and Eat it, Too ... As usual, the pro-abortionists want it
both ways. On one hand, they claim that there is a 'diversity of opinion'
within the Catholic Church on abortion, and boast that there are wide cracks
in the moral positions of the 'monolithic, hierarchical church.' They say
that many or most Catholics would not 'impose their morality' on others. And
then the pro-aborts produce phony public opinion polls 'showing' that
Catholic women get abortions more than any other class of women.
However, when it is convenient for them, the same people play the victim and
pretend to cower before the 'onslaught against abortion rights' by the
'rigid and dogmatic' Catholic Church. They snivel loudly about how viciously
they are being persecuted, while they themselves see no violence in tearing
apart thousands of unborn children every day.
The same people who would blow a major blood vessel if anyone criticized
them for being intolerant or judgmental see no problem at all with launching
vitriolic tirades against Catholics that are bigoted and judgmental by any
yardstick. For example, a writer in the Communist propaganda sheet Women and
Revolution recently raved that "According to chief druid Karol Wojtyla,
procreation is the only legitimate function of sex. The Church staunchly
defends the family because it is a fundamental pillar of class society ...
Church and state out of the bedrooms! For the full separation of church and
state! The revolutionary democrat Garibaldi correctly stated that "the
Vatican is the cancer of Italy ... Down with the Concordat! Church out of
the schools! Expropriate the Vatican and all its assets! Abolish
"conscientious objection [for doctors who do not want to do abortions]!"
Those who would practice medicine cannot also declare themselves
"objectors!""[29]
This is all part of a larger, more important two-step strategy. First, the
pro-abortionists would like to irretrievably link abortion with the Catholic
Church in the public mind. Then, they would like to thoroughly discredit
Catholic teaching on abortion by 'proving' it to be inconsistent,
unscientific, and politically motivated.
The end result would be obvious: Any opposition to abortion, whether it be
by Catholics, fundamentalists, or atheists, would be discounted as religious
fanaticism, or -- even worse -- Catholic religious fanaticism.
The pro-aborts are bigots to the core. They use America's residual
anti-Catholicism to try to preserve their precious and bloody 'right,' and
they use it effectively. Try to imagine the tactics described in the
following paragraphs being tolerated when used against Jews or Blacks, and
remember that these are just the most overt examples of such bigotry.
Litigation Chicanery. The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case Harris v.
McRae (which ruled the Hyde Amendment constitutional) tried to convince the
Court that such an Amendment was a violation of the First Amendment
Establishment Clause because it "incorporate[s] into law the doctrines of
the Roman Catholic Church concerning the sinfulness of abortion and the time
at which life commences."[30] Naturally, the plaintiffs did not point out
the opposite side of the same coin: That declaring the unborn to be only
'potential life' is also a religious view held by several denominations.
Defining the 'Enemy.' Anti-Catholic bigotry is a long and dishonorable
tradition of the pro-death forces, beginning with Margaret Sanger. David M.
Kennedy writes that "Remembering also the radical maxim that a visible enemy
was an indispensable source of inspiration for a social movement, she
[Sanger] used the Catholic church -- as she had previously used the
'plutocrats' and Anthony Comstock -- as a goad to energize her supporters
and as a foil to dramatize her cause ... As she grew older, her childhood
obsession with supposed Catholic deviousness became more and more
exaggerated."[31]
A generation later, hate of Catholics had not abated a whit in the cold
hearts of the social engineers. Dr. Bernard Nathanson describes a 1969
conversation he had (while still an abortionist) with fellow abortophile
Larry Lader, in his book Aborting America ; "Historically, every revolution
has to have its villain ... Now, in our case, it makes little sense to lead
a campaign only against unjust laws, even though that's what we really are
doing. We have to narrow the focus, identify those unjust laws with a person
or a group of people ... There's always been one group of people in this
country associated with reactionary politics, behind-the-scenes
manipulations, socially backward ideas. You know who I mean, Bernie ... the
Catholic hierarchy. That's a small enough group to come down on, and
anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned ..."
Lader also tried to set church against church when he asserted in his
originally-named book Abortion that "Unless Protestantism wants to continue
its unstated but inherent subservience to Catholic doctrine, it is high time
the Protestant leadership announces: A piece of tissue cannot be sanctified
as human life." He also cast Catholics as anti-American and established a
well-known pro-abortion slogan in the same book; "As long as the Catholic
Church, or any faith, continues to block legislation allowing individual
conscience and free choice in abortion, the core of our democratic system is
crippled. The right to abortion is the foundation of Society's long struggle
to guarantee that every child comes into this world wanted, loved, and cared
for. The right to abortion, along with all birth- control measures, must
establish the Century of the Wanted Child."[32]
It did not take the pro-abortionists long to pick up on Lader's virulent
brand of bigotry. The Catholic Church's stand on abortion was first directly
attacked on April 19, 1970, when the Michigan chapter of the National
Organization for Women's (NOW) so-called Ecumenical Task Farce on Women and
Religion burned a Catholic missal and sent the ashes to the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops.[33]
It did not take long for Lader's bigotry to explode into written and spoken
tirades heavy-laden with hate and guilt, as demonstrated by Anne Gaylor (a
Zero Population Growth fanatic who hypocritically has four children) in her
bizarre book Abortion is a Blessing ; "There is no point in our pretending
that official Catholic views are enlightened and humane, or that Catholics
are not different from anyone else. Catholics are different from others --
they are quite willing to associate themselves with an organization that has
done and continues to do an immense amount of damage to women, to families,
to countries, and to the world. If the Catholic doctrines on sex could
prevail, all the world would be miserable instead of just some of it. All
the world would be hungry. The world would end."[34] Gaylor also waxed
ineloquent on the Edelin abortion/infanticide trial; "That gentle Dr. Edelin
ever should have found himself a defendant against a charge of manslaughter
beggars belief ... That card-carrying, dues-paying Catholics ever should
have been allowed to serve on a jury deciding a charge of abortion-related
manslaughter is a travesty of justice."[34]
It did not seem to occur to Gaylor that her statement was equivalent to
asserting that no Jew should ever sit on a jury judging an American Nazi
accused of committing hate crimes.
NARAL itself, of course, certainly did not stop at burning Catholic books.
The minutes of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws
Executive Committee meeting of Friday, May 12, 1972, show an obvious and
extreme anti-Catholic bigotry as a parade of NARAL leaders proclaimed their
hatred of Catholics and their Church in general.
Figure 43-4 consists of extracts from these minutes showing how the NARAL
bosses alleged that the Pope runs America; that direct violence must be used
against the Catholic Church; that the Catholic Church is "anti- life" and
hates women; and that other illegal and unethical tactics must be used
against the Church in the fight for abortion 'rights.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 43-4
ANTI-CATHOLIC QUOTES BY LEADERS OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE REPEAL OF ABORTION LAWS
AT THE 1972 NARAL NATIONAL STRATEGY MEETING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: These summaries are exact quotes transcribed by a secretary for the
minutes of the May 12, 1972 meeting of the executive board of the National
Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, later the National Abortion
Rights Action League (NARAL). All quotes below are copied verbatim from
the Minutes.
"Lawrence Lader, Chairman, NARAL Executive Committee
(1) Stated Billy Graham and the Pope running our country.
(4) Catholics trying to overthrow the most humanitarian legislation of
our time.
(7) [Catholic] Priests went into assembly and terrorized [Texas]
legislators.
(10) Stressed that he [Lader] uses every opportunity - Television
appearances, radio interviews, newspapers to criticize the way the Catholic
Church uses its tax free monies, etc.
Hon. Lorraine Beebe, former State Senator, Michigan
(1) Stressed financial strength of the Catholic Church.
(2) We have been nice, pleasant too long. We can be restrained no
longer - Right to Lifers have a total lack of respect for human life. "We
can no longer move restrainedly, sit on our apathy and hope Rome will
burn."
(3) Catholics waged a smear campaign against me when they learned I had
had a therapeutic abortion. They made threatening calls, threw eggs at my
house. Had signs - 'A vote for Beebe is a vote against the Pope.'
(4) The catholics will stop at no ends to reach their goals.
Lawrence Lader - I share Mrs. Beebe's attitude, "I don't care if we have a
Belfast and Dublin here in the U.S. we must have a direct conflict with
the Catholic Church."
Reverend Robert T. Cobb - Associate Executive Director, N.Y. Council of
Churches.
Rev. Cobb made a very dramatic entrance - ripping off his collar and
asking "who are you afraid of" -when you thought I was a Catholic Priest
you looked stunned. You should not be afraid of a church that condemns but
does not forgive.
"Protestants have been bought by the Roman Catholic Church.
He proceeded to knock ecumenism and state[d] that if the Churches go
to Rome he will go walking on his hands.
(5) A good Roman Catholic Liberal can be valuable.
William Baird, Director, Parent's Aid Society
(1) Single Greatest Threat to Women - Roman Catholic Church
(3) In attacking Catholic Church - concentrate on separation of church
and state.
Summary -
(3) Their [NARAL] attack will be concentrated - even to court cases -
against the Catholic Church and trying to make people believe that Pope is
trying to run the country, and that the Catholic Church is trying to take
over Protestant Churches."
[Secretary's final comment]: "At this point we had to leave - It was
after 5 ... I was getting a bit nervous - the anti-catholic, anti-Right to
Life feeling in that room was close to violent."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This virulent anti-Catholic bigotry was shared by virtually every
rank-and-file member of NARAL. The same hate still smolders, but it has been
muted in order to avoid public condemnation.
References:
Catholic Church Position on Abortion.
[1] National Council of Catholic Bishops, Fall 1989 conference resolution of
November 8, 1989.
[2] October 7, 1984 New York Times statement entitled "A Catholic Statement
on Pluralism and Abortion," signed by 97 members of 'Catholics' for a Free
Choice.
[3] Roger Wertheimer. "Understanding the Abortion Argument." The Rights and
Wrongs of Abortion . Edited by Cohen, Nagel and Scanlon. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974. Page 29, footnote 6.
[4] Lucius Farraris, Bibliotheca Iuridica Moralis Theologica . Roma: 1885,
I, pages 36 to 38.
[5] Paolo Zacchia, Physician-General of the Vatican State. Quaestiones
Medico-Legales . Lyons: 1701. Library 6, Title 1, Questions 7 and 16.
[6] Denzinger-Schoenmetzer. Enchiridion Symbolorum . Rome: Herder, 1965.
Pages 2,134 to 2,135.
[7] Codicus Iuris Canonici Fontes . 9 Volumes. Rome, 1923 to 1939,
specification number 552.
[8] Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., principle author of Vatican II's
Declaration on Religious Freedom , quoted in Russell Shaw. "Answers."
National Catholic Register , September 13, 1992, page 4.
[9] Monsignor William Smith, " Humanae Vitae , Dissent, and Infallibility."
Presentation at Human Life International's "Conference on Love, Life, and
the Family," held in Santa Barbara, California in March of 1991. This superb
talk answers all of the difficult questions that may be posed by pro-aborts
on Catholic teaching regarding abortion and artificial contraception. The
tape of Msgr. Smith's talk would be very useful as a part of catechism
classes and natural family planning presentations, and can be ordered for
$19.95 from Human Life International, 7845-E Airpark Road, Gaithersburg,
Maryland 20879.
[10] "Church Elaborates Definition of Abortion." National Catholic Register
, December 11, 1988, page 3.
[11] "Jewish Ecclesiastical Court Excommunicates Cong. Barney Frank." The
Wanderer , July 19, 1990. Page 1.
[12] Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae , #14, July 25, 1968, and Pope Pius XII,
"Allocution to Midwives," #27, October 29, 1951.
[13] Pope Pius XII, address to the Family Front Congress on November 27,
1951.
[14] John M. Swomley. "Six Ethical Questions." Propaganda pamphlet by the
'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights, June 1987, page 3.
[15] Robert E. Hall, M.D. "Time Limitation in Induced Abortion." Sarah Lewit
(Editor). Abortion Techniques and Services: Proceedings of the Conference,
New York, N.Y., June 3-5, 1971 . Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1972.
[16] National Abortion Rights Action League board member Marjorie Reilly
Maguire, quoted in D.J. Dooley, "The Cuomo Syndrome." Fidelity Magazine,
December 1987, pages 8 to 11.
[17] "Interview: Garrett Hardin." Omni Magazine, June 1992, pages 56 to 63.
[18] The Homiletic & Pastoral Review has printed several excellent
discussions on the concept of Baptism of Desire. Specifically, see Father
Francis C. O'Hara's article entitled "Limbo -- in Terms of Abortion" in the
January 1985 issue and the rebuttal letters by Father Thomas Cleary, Father
David Altman and Richard A. Ruth in the June 1985 issue. Back issues of this
monthly magazine, produced primarily to aid priests in the preparation of
sermons, are commonly saved by priests in larger parishes and by offices of
various Archdioceses.
[19] Christopher Bell. "Where Do the Unborn Go?" National Catholic Register
, June 23, 1991, page 4.
[20] Illegal abortionist Ruth Barnett. They Weep On My Doorstep . Beaverton,
Oregon: Halo Press. 1954, page 107.
[21] Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter of September 1986, quoted in
the February 26, 1989 National Catholic Register .
[22] William McGurn. "Catholics & 'Free Choice.'" National Catholic Register
, February 14, 1982, pages 2 and 6.
[23] Catholic News Service. "Most Catholic Women Ignore Church-Accepted Form
of Birth Control." The Portland, Oregon Catholic Sentinel , January 24,
1992, page 7.
[24] Pro-abortion Congressman and priest Robert Drinan (D.-Ma.), quoted in
"Drinan ... One Exception." National Right to Life News , August 1979, page
5.
[25] See E. Michael Jones. "The Pope and the Condom Worshippers." Fidelity
Magazine, December 1987, pages 31 to 44, and Catholic Twin Circle , May 14,
1989, page 7.
[26] Marjorie Reilly Maguire and Daniel C. Maguire. "Abortion: A Guide to
Making Ethical Decisions." 'Catholics' for a Free Choice," September 1983.
[27] Joseph Berger, New York Times News Service. "Survey Shows Catholics
Regard Pope Favorably Despite Disagreements." The Oregonian , September 10,
1987.
[28] Madonna, quoted in US Magazine, June 13, 1991, and in "Madonna Blasts
Catholics." American Family Association Journal , September 1991, page 3.
[29] "Vatican Leads Onslaught Against Abortion Rights." Women and Revolution
, Summer/Autumn 1992, pages 19 to 21.
[30] Slip opinion at 14, citing Maher v. Roe , 432 U.S. at 473-474.
[31] David M. Kennedy. Birth Control in America . New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1971. Pages 97 and 267.
[32] Lawrence Lader. Abortion . New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.,
1966. Page 165.
[33] Judith Hole and Ellen Levine. Rebirth of Feminism . Quadrangle Books:
New York, 1971. Page 295.
[34] Anne Nicol Gaylor. Abortion is a Blessing . New York, New York:
Psychological Dimensions, Inc. 1975, 124 pages. Pages 57, 81, and 84.
Further Reading and Resources:
Catholic Church Position on Abortion.
Apropos , Volume 5. A.S. Fraser, Editor, Burnbrae, Staffin Road, Portree,
Isle of Skye, Scotland, IV51 9HP, United Kingdom. Subscription price is
$12.50 by regular mail, $25.00 by airmail. This is a magazine devoted to
developments in the European Catholic Church. Lately, the European Church
has become deeply embroiled in the continuing controversy over fertility
science, including various forms of in-vitro fertilization (IVF).
Benedict M. Ashley, O.P. Theologies of the Body: Humanist and Christian .
The Pope John XXIII Medical-Moral Research and Education Center, 186 Forbes
Road, Braintree, Massachusetts 02184. 1985, 727 pages. A very in-depth
examination of the history and implications of the attitudes towards the
human body by Christians and humanists.
Roy Howard Beck. On Thin Ice . $9.35. Order from Bristol Books, Box 150,
Wilmore, Kentucky 40390, telephone 1-800-451-READ. This book uncovers the
means and tactics that the liberals have used to undermine and paralyze the
mainline churches -- and, even worse, perverted them so completely that some
of them embrace the entire left-wing agenda. Particular attention is
lavished upon the National Council of Churches (NCC).
Claudia Carlen, IHM. The Papal Encyclicals . McGrath Publishing Company.
Five volumes, 2,260 pages. The complete text of every encyclical issued by
each pope from Benedict XIV in 1740 to Pius ix in 1878 (in Volume I, 460
pages); Leo XIII, 1878 to 1903 (Volume II, 520 pages); Pius X in 1903 to
Pius XI in 1939 (Volume III, 570 pages); Pius XII, 1939 to 1958 (Volume IV,
380 pages); John XXIII in 1958 to John Paul II in 1981 (Volume V, 330
pages).
Claudia Carlen, IHM. Papal Pronouncements: A Guide, 1740-1978 . The Pieran
Press, Box 1808, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1990. 2 volumes, 957 pages. Volume I:
Benedict XIV to Paul VI (entries 1:1 to 16:930). Volume II: Paul VI to John
Paul I (entries 16:931 to 17:30).
Catholic Eye . This periodical consists of incisive commentary on various
political and life-issue events. $12 per year. Write to The National
Committee of Catholic Laymen, Inc., James McFadden, Jr., Editor, Room 840,
150 East 35th Street, New York, New York, 10157-0137.
The Catholic Family News . 414 East Lawrence Street, Post Office Box 2435,
Mount Vernon, Washington 98273. Telephone: (206) 336-5150. A monthly 16-page
newspaper that includes general articles on items of information that will
be of interest to traditional Catholic families. Subscription price is $16
per year.
Catholic Mailbox . A free computer bulletin board that includes text files
of the Pope's speeches, encyclicals, and an "Ask Father" question and answer
box. 2400 baud, (313) 631-6870.
Catholic Twin Circle . This weekly newspaper provides excellent, easy-to-
read, conservative coverage of the most important ethical and moral issues
of our day. Catholic Twin Circle may be subscribed to by writing to 12700
Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200, Studio City, California 91604, telephone:
1-800-421-3230.
Catholic World Report. Post Office Box 6718, Syracuse, New York 13217. The
main office for this publication is in Rome, and thus publisher Robert
Moynihan has an advantage in reporting what is really going on in the
Catholic Church. Subscription price is $35 for a journal that covers all of
the hot issues in the Catholic Church today: Abortion, altar girls,
persecution of Catholics in China, the politics of sainthood, the Tridentine
Mass movement, devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary (by Muslims)!, the Irish
and abortion, apparitions, clandestine Catholic communities, and many
others.
Catholics United for Life . CUL issues this untitled 4-page aperiodic
newsletter about once every six weeks. It deals primarily with the methods
and spirituality surrounding sidewalk counseling. Write to Catholics United
for Life, New Hope, Kentucky 40052.
Ronda Chervin. Feminine, Free, and Faithful . 143 pages, $7.95. Order from
Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528. Chervin shows
that freedom and femininity are not mutually exclusive terms, but necessary
elements for a woman to achieve her full potential as a Christian.
Mary Lewis Coakley. Long Liberated Ladies . 260 pages, $9.95. Order from:
Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528, telephone:
1-800-528-0559. A favorite Neofeminist myth is that the Catholic Church
institutionally and systematically oppresses women as a class. This book
outlines the lives of women who accomplished spectacular spiritual and
material feats instead of whining about how terribly they were "oppressed."
Stories include the lives of Saint Catherine of Siena, Joan of Arc, Amelia
Earhart, Isabella of Castille, and Florence Nightingale.
Father John Connery, S.J. Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic
Perspective . Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1977. Hardcover, $12.95.
Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174,
telephone: (703) 586-4898. This study traces the entire history of the Roman
Catholic doctrine regarding abortion from the beginning of the Christian era
to modern times. Particular attention is given to the controversy and
confusion within the Church regarding abortion to save the life of the
mother.
Robert P. Craig, Carl L. Middleton, and Laurence J. O'Connell. Ethics
Committees: A Practical Approach . The Catholic Health Association of the
United States, 4455 Woodson Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63134-0889. 1986, 95
pages. Topics covered include the functions of Catholic institutional
(hospital) ethics committees, their structure, membership, formation,
religious perspectives on them, their history and role, and the roles of the
five key players: The administrator, the medical staff, nursing staff,
theologian/ethicist, and the bishop.
Michael W. Cuneo. Catholics Against the Church: Anti-Abortion Protest in
Toronto, 1969-1985 . University of Toronto Press, 1989, 221 pages. The
author traces the history and sociology of the Canadian pro-life movement as
it battles the most liberal Church hierarchy in the world. The author is not
writing from the pro-life viewpoint, but his insights will be valuable for
American pro-life strategists. A detailed recounting of the battle over the
illegal but government-protected Morgentaler clinics is also provided.
Daughters of St. Paul. Pro-Life Catechism . Order from Daughters of St.
Paul, 50 St. Paul's Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02130. 98 pages, 1986,
$3.95. Catholic teaching on life issues, in a useful question-and-answer
format. The answers to the questions are drawn directly from Church
documents. This book contains useful and pertinent information for all
Christian pro-life activists.
Daughters of St. Paul. Yes to Life . Order from Daughters of St. Paul, 50
St. Paul's Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02130. 328 pages, 1976, $12.95.
May also be ordered from Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia
24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. This is an outstanding sourcebook that
summarizes the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding abortion from the
first century to 1975. The book quotes the writings of the early church
fathers in the first through fifth centuries and the teachings of five
recent Popes, in addition to the documents issued by the Sacred Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Bishops of nineteen countries speak out
eloquently and forcefully against abortion in this book. This book will be
the ultimate debate weapon for any pro-life activist confronting any member
of 'Catholics' for a Free Choice or any other pro-abort who believes that
there is 'room for disagreement' within the Catholic Church about abortion.
Donald DeMarco, Ph.D. In My Mother's Womb: The Church's Defense of Natural
Life . Hardcover $14.95, paperback $8.95. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf,
Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586- 4898. An eloquent
defense of the Catholic Church's defense of human life. An examination of
abortion's terminology and perspectives, the unborn, contraception and
bio-engineering. Also covered is the Church's perspective on new
technologies, including in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, fetal
experimentation, and genetic engineering. See especially Chapter 1,
"Abortion and Church Teaching," pages 7 to 25, "Abortion and
Bio-Engineering," pages 82 to 88, and " In Vitro Fertilization," pages 143
to 159.
Raymond Dennehy (editor). Christian Married Love . Five excellent and
incisive essays on the meaning of Humanae Vitae for Christian families, by
Malcolm Muggeridge, Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar, Louis Bouyer, Jean
Guitton, and Father Joseph Lestapis.
Christopher Derrick. Sex and Sanctity: A Catholic Homage to Venus . Ignatius
Press, Post Office Box 18990, San Francisco, California 94118. 1982, 219
pages, $7.95. Reviewed by Donna Steichen in the Fall 1983 issue of the
International Review of Natural Family Planning , pages 269 to 272. Why
Christians and pagans have more in common with each other than with people
who live in this 'desacrilized' world.
Jay P. Dolan. The American Catholic Experience: A History From Colonial
Times to the Present . Doubleday, 454 pages. 1985, $19.95. Reviewed by David
Rooney on pages 50 and 51 of the April 11, 1986 issue of National Review .
Ethics & Medics . Subtitled A Catholic Perspective on Moral Issues in the
Health and Life Sciences , this venerable monthly comments on all of the
important developments in the life issues, to include animal rights and
euthanasia. Subscribe for $15 per year by writing to The Pope John Center,
186 Forbes Road, Braintree, Massachusetts 02184, telephone: (617) 848- 6965.
Fidelity . This monthly publication is billed as "a magazine on the family
that is as Catholic as the Pope," and is a scholarly journal which takes an
in-depth look at a wide range of topics of interest to Christians. It
dissects in detail various issues affecting the Christian Church in the
United States today, and is fairly heavy reading. It is also lengthy at
about forty pages. The bulk of each issue is devoted to a very detailed
examination of some current pro-life or religious issue. Examples are a
27-page report on the Pensacola abortion mill bomber trial written by
someone who shadowed the lawyers for the defendants for the duration of the
trial, and a 30-page essay on the effects of witchcraft and feminism on
Western thought and beliefs. Other recent topics include Modernism and the
effect of Eastern religions on the Christian Church in the United States.
Included in each issue is a lengthy (5 to 7 page) letters section which is
very informative in itself. Although this magazine identifies itself as
strongly Catholic, all articles should be of interest to any pro-life
activist. Fidelity is a monthly magazine with a subscription price of $19.95
annually. Write to: Ultramontane Associates, Inc., 206 Marquette Avenue,
South Bend, Indiana, 46617.
Father John Ford, Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William E.
May. The Teaching of Humanae Vitae: A Defense . 224 pages, $12.95. Order
from: Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528,
telephone: 1-800-528-0559. Five of the most respected theologians in the
world explain why Humanae Vitae is the inevitable product of Catholic moral
principles. The encyclical is shown to be valid and universal to all
Christians, and is also shown to fulfill the requirements of infallibility
under Vatican II's Lumen Gentium .
Anne Marie Gardiner, SSND (editor). Women and Catholic Priesthood: An
Expanded Vision . Proceedings of the Detroit Ordination Conference. New
York: Paulist Press. 1976, 250 pages. Two hundred pages of sniveling from
the usual (dissenting) suspects. All of the old shopworn arguments are put
forth for women's ordination, and it all just seems so unconvincing.
Interesting appendices include the conference roster of attendees, a list of
the public sponsors of the conference, and "women in Catholic priesthood
now."
Michael J. Gorman. Abortion & the Early Church: Christian, Jewish & Pagan
Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove,
Illinois, 60515. 1982, 124 pages. This book emphasizes the positions of
early religions towards abortion and infanticide and covers the relevance of
such teachings today. A good resource for those who want to refute the claim
that the Catholic Church has not always opposed abortion.
Monsignor Orville N. Griese. Catholic Identity in Health Care: Principles
and Practice . The Pope John Center, 186 Forbes Road, Braintree,
Massachusetts 02184. 538 pages, 1987. The author examines in detail every
one of the incredible range of ethical and moral questions that more and
more Catholic hospitals are going to be forced to address by our more and
more pro-abortion government. Topics covered include sterilization;
emergency infant baptisms; natural family planning; the use of the birth
control pill; the various types of artificial insemination; surrogate
motherhood; abortion; passive and active euthanasia; informed consent;
gender identity problems and transsexualism; the "double effect;" fetal
experimentation and organ transplantation; and the right of a spouse to be
informed of his or her partner's AIDS infection. This book is the only known
source that collects in one place all of the most important Catholic
teaching on all of the above ethical and moral issues.
Weldon M. Hardenbrook. Missing in Action: Vanishing Manhood in America .
Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987. 192 pages, $14.95. Reviewed by
James Bruen in the December 1987 Fidelity Magazine. Any Neofeminist who
reads this book will die of apoplexy. The book surveys the feminization of
American culture and the extreme confusion and the resulting lack of
direction in our society. It is now men, not women, who are alienated from
many aspects of the Catholic Church and the mainline Protestant Churches
that have allowed themselves to be deceived and seduced by the Neofeminists.
The author presents an array of solutions to the phenomenon of women's
leadership by default: Avoid government programs that are biased towards
women; adjust social programs to reflect the differences between boys and
girls; and get men to accept their responsibilities as spiritual and moral
heads of their families.
Father Robert J. Henle, S.J. "A Historical View of the Right to Life." The
Catholic League Newsletter , July 1981. This four-page reprint rebuts the
lie-packed 1981 National Organization for Women publication entitled "An
Abbreviated Chronology of Reproductive Rights, 2600 B.C. to the Present." In
addition to correcting all of NOW's deliberate falsehoods and anti-Catholic
slander, Father Henle shows that those ancient societies that practiced
cannibalism, slavery, oppression of women, perpetual warfare, and had a
great number of superstitions generally had very permissive abortion and
infanticide laws. Those societies that had what anthropologists call the
"high religions" and a high degree of civilization had a general consensus
against abortion. For example, the ancient Vedic writings of India condemned
abortion from 1500 to 500 B.C. Buddhism as far back as 600 B.C. totally
condemned abortion. And, since 622 A.D., Islam has condemned abortion.
Homiletic & Pastoral Review . This venerable monthly journal packs many
articles and letters of interest into its approximately 80 pages. Although
it is primarily designed to inform Catholic priests (half of whom receive
it), it is of interest to all Christians who want to keep up on traditional
theological theory. Write to Catholic Polls, 86 Riverside Drive, New York,
New York 10024, or call (212) 799-2600. Subscription rates are $20 for one
year and $36 for two years.
Human Life International Reports . These monthly reports give details on the
progress of the international pro-life movement in many countries and the
status of pro-homosexual and pro-abortion infiltration of domestic and
foreign Catholic churches. Less detailed coverage of a broader range of
topics is given in HLI's monthly Special Reports. To subscribe, write to
Human Life International, 7845-E Airpark Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879,
or call (301) 670-7884. HLI's FAX number is (301) 869-7363.
The Human Life Review . This is a superbly presented scholarly journal
modeled after the most distinguished psychobiology periodicals, and is
published by the Human Life Foundation. It is mailed quarterly, and contains
about 150 pages of essays by the best-known pro-life authors in the world,
primarily on the legal and sociological aspects of abortion and its
loathsome offspring, infanticide and euthanasia. One of the favorite topics
of the authors is the continued lack of decisive action by the Catholic
Church and other institutions. This excellent chronicle of the American
Holocaust and its many effects is must reading for the serious pro-life
activist. The nation's top conservative writers examine the anti- life
philosophy in clinical and brilliant detail with their scholarly and
insightful articles. Most back issues are available. Subscriptions are $15
annually, and back issues, both bound and unbound, are available from:
Editorial Office, 150 East 35th Street, Room 840, New York, New York 10016.
Telephone: (212) 685-5210, FAX: (212) 696-0309.
J.A. Johnston, M.D., and D.B. Robert. Catholic Women and Abortion: A
Profile, Sample and Case Study . Sydney, Australia: Catholic Family Life
Programme, 1978. 136 pages. Reviewed by Donald DeMarco, Ph.D., in the Spring
1980 issue of the International Review of Natural Family Planning , pages 74
to 81. This bizarre and muddled book shows that pro-abortionists use the
same subtle anti-Catholic bias all over the world, even 'down under.' These
authors present a purportedly comprehensive study whose numbers are
impossible to follow because they change constantly and do not even add up!
The pro-abortion bias and utter ignorance of the authors shows when they
identify the Catholic Church as a "Right-to-Life Movement," and when they
insist that a woman who aborts her child and sterilizes herself after using
contraception during her entire period of childbearing years to cover up
numerous acts of adultery is a "devout Catholic" because she occasionally
attends Mass! This book, a combination of inept number- crunching and
outright bigoted propaganda, is apparently what Aussie pro- aborts consider
"leading-edge research."
George A. Kelly (editor). Human Sexuality in Our Time: What the Church
Teaches . 1978: Paperback, $4.95. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun
Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. Proceedings of the
Spring 1978 conference by St. John's University's Institute for Advanced
Studies in Catholic Doctrine. Topics include Catholics and the Pill; the
Bible and human sexuality; the morality and sanctity of sex; and what the
Church teaches on sex.
John F. Kippley. "Birth Control and Christian Discipleship." 1985,
paperback, 36 pages, $2.00 from the Couple to Couple League, Post Office Box
111184, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211-1184, or from Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun
Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. This superb
booklet outlines the history of artificial contraception, its effects upon
the body, the family and society in general, and the history of traditional
Scriptural and Christian opposition to it (both Protestant and Catholic),
until the collapse of the Church's resistance in the period 1930 to 1970.
John F. Kippley. Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality .
Couple to Couple League, Post Office Box 111184, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211. 355
pages, 1991. A very detailed workbook-like approach to human sexuality and
its relationship to marriage. The author shows how intercourse outside of
marriage and the use of artificial contraception can never be licit and
refutes many of the arguments set forth by the "revisionists" who would like
to dilute Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.
Anthony Kosnik, William Carroll, Agnes Cunningham, Ronald Modras, and James
Schulte, members of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Human
Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought . Paulist Press,
1977. 322 pages, $8.50. Reviewed by Frances Day in an article entitled
"Septenary Sex" in the Winter 1977 issue of the International Review of
Natural Family Planning , pages 368 to 379. The title of this book is
correct in that the authors generally follow current 'Catholic' American
thinking on contraception and other evils. This type of thinking was the
very first step taken by the Anglicans in 1930, and inevitably leads to
abortion and euthanasia.
Carl Landwehr. "Involving Your Church in the Right to Life Issue." $1.95.
How to involve your congregation -- and, even more importantly, your pastor
-- in pro-life activism. One of a set of nine booklets that outline an
effective, unified strategy for stopping abortion on a local level. Order
separately or as a group from: National Right to Life Educational Trust
Fund, 419 7th Street, NW, Suite 402, Washington, D.C. 20044, or from: Life
Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-
4898.
Father Ronald Lawler, Joseph Boyle, Jr., and William E. May. Catholic Sexual
Ethics: A Summary, Explanation, and Defense . 1985, 274 pages. Paperback,
$7.95. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174,
telephone: (703) 586-4898. Reviewed by Father Robert Barry, Ph.D. on pages
346 to 348 of the Winter 1985 issue of the International Review of Natural
Family Planning . A very clearly written summary of Catholic Church teaching
on sexual morality. Topics include the Bible and sex; formation of
conscience; chastity, virginity, and Christian marriage; and Church teaching
on sex.
Linacre Quarterly . This quarterly magazine is "A journal of the philosophy
and ethics of medical practice," and is the official journal of the National
Federation of Catholic Physicians' Guilds. It can be obtained from 850 Elm
Grove Road, Elm Grove, Wisconsin 53122, telephone: (414) 784- 3435.
Subscription price is $20.00.
Father Ermenegildo Lio, OFM. Humanae Vitae e Infallibilita: Il Concilio,
Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II (" Humanae Vitae and Infallibility: The
Council, Paul VI, and John Paul II"). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice
Vaticana, 1986. The detailed review (six full pages) of this book by Father
Brian W. Harrison in the November 1987 Fidelity Magazine covers the author's
essential points and will be very useful to the reader who does not want to
plow through the nearly 1,000 pages of the book. The general view among
competent Catholic theologians is that Humanae Vitae is non-infallible,
although belonging to the "authentic" ordinary magisterium of the Catholic
Church. The book lays out in detail the reasoning behind the view that the
encyclical is, indeed, infallible, and therefore a necessary article of
faith for salvation.
Joyce Lively. A Pro-Life Primer: The ABC's of Working in the Parish . The
Regina Coeli Institute, 145 Crestmont Terrace, Collingswood, New Jersey
08108. 1991, 71 pages. This book describes a compendium of 'low-key'
activities that parishes can get involved in. Since these activities are
relatively non-controversial, pastors have less of an excuse not to get
involved. Topic include supporting crisis pregnancy centers, Masses for
expectant families, phone trees, letters, fair booths, identifying support
in the parish, and spiritual adoption of the unborn. Sample flyers are
included.
Kevin C. Long. Anti-Catholicism in the 1980s . Milwaukee: Catholic League
for Religious and Civil Rights, 1990. $3.95.
Father Vincent P. Miceli. Women Priests and Other Fantasies . $19.95. Order
from Keep the Faith, 810 Belmont Avenue, Post Office Box 8261, North
Haledon, New Jersey 07508, telephone: (201) 423-5395. The author examines
the pandemonium that results in the Christian Church (particularly the
Catholic Church) when the senses of the sacred and supernatural are lost.
The instant that Holy Scripture is judged by secular standards, the message
of Christianity is hopelessly compromised and lost.
Stephen D. Mumford. American Democracy & The Vatican: Population Growth and
National Security . The Humanist Press, 7 Harwood Drive, Post Office Box
146, Amherst, New York 14226. 1984, 265 pages, $7.95. This book is praised
by Larry Lader and Paul Ehrlich, which clues us in to its contents. Sure
enough, it is a rather unrestrained screed, filled with great quotes
demonstrating the bigotry and the totalitarian and intolerant nature of the
Humanists and population controllers. Mumford's thesis is that the Vatican
and the Catholic Church are attempting to destroy democracy and even the
world by encouraging uncontrolled breeding. All of the old tired slogans are
trotted out: The Vatican runs the United States, dissident priests are
quoted as authoritative sources, and Catholics are portrayed as mindless
drooling androids.
National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic
Conference. Pastoral Letters of the United States Catholic Bishops . Five
volumes, 2,630 pages. Volume I: 1792-1940 . Publication Number 880, 480
pages. Covers the Age of John Carroll (1792-1828), the Provincial Councils
(1829-1849), the Plenary Councils (1852-1884), and between the World Wars
(1919-1940). Pastoral Letters include the 1932 Resolution on Indecent
Literature and the 1939 Statement on Peace and War. Volume II: 1941-1961 .
Publication Number 885, 270 pages. Includes statements on a good peace, war
and peace, secularism, compulsory military service, the Christian family,
the child, persecution behind the Iron Curtain, censorship, the secular
press, and bigotry. Volume III: 1962-1974 . Publication Number 870, 500
pages. Includes statements on the government and birth control, clerical
celibacy, abortion, human life, birth control laws, population and the
American future, and the Human Life Amendment. Volume IV: 1975-1983 .
Publication Number 875, 605 pages. Statements include the Pastoral Plan for
Pro-Life Activities and resolutions on abortion and human sexuality. Volume
V: 1983-1988 . Publication Number 200-4, 775 pages. Statements include the
Updated Pastoral Plan for Pro- Life Activities and resolutions on abortion
and school-based clinics. All volumes may be ordered from the Office of
Publishing Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1312 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Father William Oddie. What Will Happen to God?: Feminism and the
Reconstruction of Christian Belief . 180 pages, $9.95. Order from: Ignatius
Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528, telephone: 1-
800-528-0559. The Neofeminists are striving to eliminate from all church
documents and prayers what they consider to be "sexist" language. Father
Oddie exposes the fallacies of this goal, and shows what will happen if we
allow radical feminism to continue to dictate to the Church. The elimination
of so-called "sexist" language is only the beginning!
Pope John XXIII. Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher), 1961. This and
other encyclicals that are landmarks in Catholic social teaching are
available from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul Avenue, Boston,
Massachusetts 02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911, and the United States
Catholic Conference Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20017-1194, telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Pope John XXIII. Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth), 1963, contained in
Contemporary Catholic Social Teaching , number 342-6, $3.95. This and other
encyclicals that are landmarks in Catholic social teaching are available
from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts
02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911, and the United States Catholic Conference
Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194,
telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Pope John Paul II. Centesimus Annus (On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum
Novarum ), 1991, contained in Contemporary Catholic Social Teaching , number
436-8, $4.95. This and other encyclicals that are landmarks in Catholic
social teaching are available from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul
Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911, and the
United States Catholic Conference Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street,
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194, telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Pope John Paul II. Laborem Exercens (On Human Work), 1981, contained in
Contemporary Catholic Social Teaching , number 825-8, $3.95. This and other
encyclicals that are landmarks in Catholic social teaching are available
from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts
02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911, and the United States Catholic Conference
Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194,
telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Pope John Paul II. Redemptor Hominis (Redeemer of Man), 1979, contained in
Contemporary Catholic Social Teaching , number 003-6, $3.95. This and other
encyclicals that are landmarks in Catholic social teaching are available
from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts
02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911, and the United States Catholic Conference
Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194,
telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Pope John Paul II. Theology of the Body . A series of four books designed to
explain in detail the total Catholic Church position towards the sanctity of
sex, marriage, and procreation. Order individually or as a set from Keep the
Faith, 810 Belmont Avenue, Post Office Box 8261, North Haledon, New Jersey
07508, telephone: (201) 423-5395. (1) Original Unity of Man and Woman . A
catechesis on the Book of Genesis and the foundations of the indissolubility
of marriage. Paperback, $4.00. (2) Blessed Are the Pure of Heart . A
catechesis on the Sermon on the Mount and the writings of St. Paul. A
discussion on the sins relating to adultery. Paperback, $6.00. (3) The
Theology of Marriage and Celibacy . A catechesis on marriage and celibacy in
light of the resurrection of the body. Based on Matthew 22:24-33, which
describes the 'renunciation' of marriage for the Kingdom of Heaven.
Paperback, $9.00. (4) Reflections on Humanae Vitae . The basis of the
encyclical in light of the redemption of the body and the sacredness of
marriage in the Catholic tradition. Paperback, $3.75.
Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Workers), 1891, contained
in Contemporary Catholic Social Teaching , number 401-5, $4.95. This and
other encyclicals that are landmarks in Catholic social teaching are
available from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul Avenue, Boston,
Massachusetts 02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911, and the United States
Catholic Conference Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20017-1194, telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Pope Paul VI. Humanae Vitae ("Human Life: On the Regulation of Birth"). Pope
Paul's historic Encyclical Letter dated July 25, 1968. This letter may be
obtained in booklet form from the United States Catholic Conference
Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194,
telephone: 1-800-541-3090, or from any Archdiocesan office. Also available
for $0.25 from Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174,
telephone: (703) 586-4898. This and other encyclicals that are landmarks in
Catholic social teaching are available from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50
St. Paul Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911.
Pope Paul VI. Gravissimum Educationis ("Declaration on Christian
Education"). October 28, 1965, Available in a compact 4-1/2" X 7" , 21 page
booklet for 15 cents from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul's Avenue,
Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts 02130.
Pope Paul VI. Octogesima Adveniens ("A Call to Action on the Eightieth
Anniversary of Rerum Novarum "), 1971. This and other encyclicals that are
landmarks in Catholic social teaching are available from the Daughters of
St. Paul, 50 St. Paul Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130, telephone: (617)
522-8911, and the United States Catholic Conference Publishing Service, 3211
Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194, telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Pope Paul VI. Populorum Progressio ("On Promoting the Development of
Peoples"), 1967, contained in Contemporary Catholic Social Teaching, number
260-8, $2.25. This and other encyclicals that are landmarks in Catholic
social teaching are available from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul
Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911, and the
United States Catholic Conference Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street,
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194, telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Pope Paul VI and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
Vatican City. "Declaration on Procured Abortion." Available as a compact, 4"
X 6", 27 page booklet for 15 cents from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St.
Paul's Avenue, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts, 02130. This is the most
succinct and authoritative expression of the Catholic Church's position on
abortion, and is written to be easily understandable. Published by the
Vatican on June 28, 1974.
Pope Pius XI. Quadragesimo Anno (On Reconstructing the Social Order on the
Fortieth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum ), 1931, contained in Contemporary
Catholic Social Teaching , number 401-5, $4.95. This and other encyclicals
that are landmarks in Catholic social teaching are available from the
Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130,
telephone: (617) 522-8911, and the United States Catholic Conference
Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194,
telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Roman Catholic Church, Bishops of Ireland. Love is for Life . 122 pages,
sewn softcover, $3.95. Order from Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue,
Harrison, New York 10528. A very readable and interesting summary of the
Church's teachings on love and sexuality. Very useful as a reference work or
backup for Catholic sex education programs.
Roman Catholic Church, Vatican City. Annuario Pontificio . Vatican City,
Libreria Editrice Vaticana, published annually. 2,100 pages, $55.00. Anyone
who wants to know anything about the people in the Vatican should look at
this reference. There is information on every Archdiocese in the world,
followed by the composition of every important Vatican office, including the
Secretary of State, tribunals, secretariats, commissions, offices, vicars,
representatives, and religious and cultural institutes. This reference is
somewhat arcane in nature, but can be found at all archdiocesan and diocesan
offices.
Roman Catholic Church, Second Vatican Council. Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), 1965, contained in
Contemporary Catholic Social Teaching , number 015-X, $3.95. This and other
encyclicals that are landmarks in Catholic social teaching are available
from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts
02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911, and the United States Catholic Conference
Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194,
telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Roman Catholic Church, Synod of Bishops, Second General Assembly. Justitia
in Mundo (Justice in the World), 1971. This and other encyclicals that are
landmarks in Catholic social teaching are available from the Daughters of
St. Paul, 50 St. Paul Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130, telephone: (617)
522-8911, and the United States Catholic Conference Publishing Service, 3211
Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194, telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
J.N. Santamaria, M.D. and John J. Billings, M.D. Human Love and Human Life:
Papers on Humanae Vitae and the Ovulation Method of Natural Family Planning
from the International Conference, University of Melbourne, 1978 .
Melbourne, Australia: Polding Press, 1979. 274 pages; paper $8.95, hardback
$14.95. Reviewed by Carman Fallace in the Fall 1980 issue of the
International Review of Natural Family Planning , pages 271 to 274.
Proceedings of the largest-ever conference on natural family planning, which
covered nine full days.
Father H. Vernon Sattler. Sex Education in the Catholic Family . Paperback,
$1.25. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174,
telephone: (703) 586-4898. This short book shows that it is impossible to
teach about sexuality unless we first properly define it. It is not
exclusively recreation, procreation, or romance. Helps define "love" and
introduces parents to the basic principles of Catholic sex education.
Janet Smith. Humanae Vitae -- A Generation Later . Catholic University of
America Press, Washington, D.C. 1992, $24.95. Reviewed by Father Charles
Mangan on page 5 of the August 2, 1992 National Catholic Register . The
author provides detailed background information on the concept and
promulgation of the encyclical, the dissent, the current Pope's views, and
the players on both sides in the Papal Commission for the Study of Problems
of the Family, Population and Birth Rate. She also addresses the several
primary Natural Law arguments on the immorality of contraception.
Donna Steichen. Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism .
Ignatius Press, San Francisco. 1991, 413 pages. A very detailed and
absorbing account of how the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has
been infiltrated and subverted by Neoliberals and Neofeminists for the
express purpose of blunting its effectiveness in its reaction to evils such
as divorce, abortion, and euthanasia.
Father Rosario Thomas. The Philosophy of Life: The Pope and the Right to
Life . Pro Fratribus Press, Post Office Box 223, Warren, New Hampshire
03279. 1989, 278 pages, $3.00. Despite the title, this neat little book will
be of great interest to all Christians. There are topics covered in this
primer that are found in few other similar works: The media and abortion,
the basic philosophy and theology of life, women and motherhood, natural
family planning (NFP), euthanasia, and abortion and peace. All of these are
logically covered and well-presented, but the reading can get a little
'thick' sometimes. Definitely a book that even an experienced activist will
find challenging.
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger, Walter Kasper, et.al. The Church
and Women: A Compendium . 280 pages, $14.95. Order from: Ignatius Press, 15
Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528, telephone: 1- 800-528-0559. A
collection of articles by leading Church scholars on the role of women in
the Catholic Church today and contemporary issues regarding feminism,
including the ordination of women and the role and importance of the family.
The role of women is developed in a context faithful to Scripture,
tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church.
Dietrich von Hildebrand. The Devastated Vineyard . $12.50. Order from Keep
the Faith, 810 Belmont Avenue, Post Office Box 8261, North Haledon, New
Jersey 07508, telephone: (201) 423-5395. The author describes in harrowing
detail the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church in America and in
Europe, and the methods of infiltration and subversion now being used to
confuse and paralyze all conservative Christian churches in our country
today.
Dietrich von Hildebrand. Humanae Vitae: A Sign of Contradiction . An
orthodox essay on birth control and the development of the Catholic
conscience. Paperback, 89 pages, $1.50. Order from: Catholic Treasures, 626
Montana Street, Monrovia, California 91016, telephone: (818) 359-4893.
The Wanderer . This superb weekly newspaper covers all of the life issues in
detail from a Catholic viewpoint. In publication for more than a century, it
will be of definite interest to any pro-life activist, because it covers in
detail not only all of the most important abortion-related stories
(including a heavy emphasis on rescuing), but all of the important stories
on related life issues such as homosexuality, contraception, abortifacients,
capital punishment, New Age, and the 'Seamless Garment." Write to 201 Ohio
Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55107. Telephone: (612) 224-5733, FAX: (612)
224-5735.
The following documents are considered landmarks in Catholic social
teaching. They are all available from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul
Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911, and from the
United States Catholic Conference Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street,
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194, telephone: 1-800-541-3090.
Rerum Novarum ("On the Condition of Workers"), Pope Leo XIII, 1891,
contained in Contemporary Catholic Social Teaching , No. 401-5, $4.95.
Quadragesimo Anno ("On Reconstructing the Social Order"), Pope Pius XI,
1931, contained in Contemporary Catholic Social Teaching , No. 401-5, $4.95.
Mater et Magistra ("On Christianity and Social Progress"), Pope John XXIII,
1961.
Pacem in Terris ("Peace on Earth"), Pope John XXIII, 1963 (No. 342- 6,
$3.95).
Gaudium et Spes ("Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World"),
Second Vatican Council, 1965 (No. 015-X, $3.95).
Populorum Progressio ("On Promoting the Development of Peoples"), Pope Paul
VI, 1967 (No. 260-8, $2.25).
Humanae Vitae ("On Human Life"), Pope Paul VI, 1968.
Octogesima Adveniens ("A Call to Action"), Pope Paul VI, 1971. Justitia in
Mundo ("Justice in the World"), Synod of Bishops, Second General Assembly,
1971.
Redemptor Hominis ("Redeemer of Man"), Pope John Paul II, 1979 (No. 003-6,
$3.95).
Declaration on Euthanasia , Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, 1980 (No. 704-9, $1.75).
Laborem Exercens ("On Human Work"), Pope John Paul II, 1981 (No. 825-8,
$3.95).
Centesimus Annus ("On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum "), Pope
John Paul II, 1991 (No. 436-8, $4.95).
Familiaris Consortio ("The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern
World").
Sisters of Life ( Soror Vitae )
Archdiocese of New York
1011 1st Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: (202) 371-1000
This is the only order of Catholic nuns in the world whose apostolate is
pro-life activism. The order was founded in 1990 and is one of the
fastest-growing orders of sisters in the United States.
|
| 20.5247 | RE:. 4936 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 21:21 | 7 |
| genral::ralston writes:
>It is her body, her pregnancy, her life, her choice.
Biologically, the mother is little more than an incubator. How does it
follow that she "owns" the fetus?
Michael
|
| 20.5248 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Aug 13 1996 21:23 | 5 |
| >How does it follow that she "owns" the fetus?
Because the moral relativist has made him/herself God, and owns the universe.
/john
|
| 20.5249 | "Anti Life" now. I "love" it. | SSDEVO::LAMBERT | We ':-)' for the humor impaired | Tue Aug 13 1996 21:28 | 0 |
| 20.5250 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Tue Aug 13 1996 21:30 | 16 |
| Because that very fetus can take the life out of a woman.
For those who haven't been paying attention the maternal death rate in
this country is now assumed to have been underestimated by 1/2 of what
it really is. (CDC guidelines, one has to wonder why heartfailure
during a pregnancy or delivery were not added into mortality factors.)
Because a pregnancy regardless of whether or not it is carried to term
is a life and body changing event.
Becuase pregnancy in some women is inimicable to their own lives.
Because god(dess)'s abortuary isn't always efficient in weeding out
some of the more damaged fetuses.
meg
|
| 20.5251 | re: .5216 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 21:41 | 9 |
| >Obviously...which is why abortion is rooted in evolutionist
>theories.
What theories would those be? I've studied E.O. Wilson, Donald Symons,
and Helen Hrdy (just to drop a few names) and about the only mention I
recall of abortion is as a form of infanticide forced by males on
females as a mechanism to selectively birth male children.
Michael
|
| 20.5252 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 13 1996 21:53 | 19 |
| >(CDC guidelines, one has to wonder why heartfailure during a
>pregnancy or delivery were not added into mortality factors.)
Probably attributed to smoking. :-)
>Because god(dess)'s abortuary isn't always efficient in weeding out
>some of the more damaged fetuses.
Excellent point, and the basis of my earlier comment that a
woman ought to have the choice even for a little while after
birth.
"Lifers" would rather keep some pitiful thing without a brain or a
chance of living a real life, on life support at catastrophic expense
and personal pain for Mom, Pop, and whatever-it-is, than let it be
aborted or killed after birth. There is no way they can justify this
attitude as being "moral". If they claim their God wants it that way,
then either their God is not a very nice God, or they are mistaken in
their belief that this is what s/he wants.
|
| 20.5253 | RE: 4965 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 21:59 | 22 |
| csc32::m_evans wrote:
>...twins double the risk to a woman for toxemia,embolism, cardio-vascular
>collapse, diabetes, kidney failure not related to toxemia, surgical delivery,
>hemorrage, back damage, hypertension not related to toxemia, liver failure not
>related to toxemia, uterine rupture, uterine atonia, uterine prolapse, and
>death. the risk doubles for each addition of another fetus.
So what? Statistically, a woman is safer while pregnant from *both* medical
complications (including the ones you cite) and accidental injury while
pregnant. The sources come from the CDC (dealing with infectious disease),
Insurance actuarial tables, and the NIH databases. To get the exact citations,
you can consult the "Book Of Risks" available at most bookstores.
You make the point, however, that having twins incurs twice the risk and later
state that the increase in risk is linear with respect to each additional fetus.
Actually, from what I recall the risk is non-linear and gets exponentially worse
for pregnancies involving 4 or more children. Up to triplets I understand the
risk to be marginally increased over that of twins or single. If you have a
conflicting source I would sincerely appreciate examining it.
Michael
|
| 20.5254 | re: .4975 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:17 | 23 |
| smurf::walters writes:
>And in the UK they don't murder doctors for performing abortions. Nor do
"they" in the U.S.
>And in the UK there is free contraception (and still high abortion
>rates persist).
One conclusion that might be drawn from this observation is that abortion
is being used as birth control. To the extent that other forms are (1)
uncomfortable (e.g., the various side-effects of birthcontrol pills) or (2)
Sexually deadening (e.g., condoms), this makes sense.
>My point is it makes NO difference WHAT the law says
I don't agree. Laws are valuable not only because they constrain behavior, but
they also act as consensual statements of a society's values. In a free
society, having been derived by vigorous and open debate, a law prohibiting
some action constitutes a strong precatory statement as to society's tolerance
toward such activities.
Michael
|
| 20.5255 | re: .4974 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:20 | 8 |
| smurf::binder writes:
>There is no pro-abortion lobby. There is a pro-chjoice lobby. The two
>terms are not synonymous
Yes they are. In fact, "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" are
operationally identical.
Michael
|
| 20.5256 | re: 4981 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:22 | 8 |
| rusure::goodwin writes:
>And more of the truth is that many so-called pro-lifers are not pro-life at
>all, otherwise they would also be against the death penalty.
True. However, I am pro-life and am strongly against the death penalty
for any reason whatsoever.
Michael
|
| 20.5257 | | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Every neck shall break\ | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:26 | 5 |
| Allright, "Mike", now you've gone too far. We've been reading your
self-righteous propoganda patiently for several notes now, but this
time you've stepped over the line. Against the death penalty?!? What
kind of a stance is that?!? Who ever heard of a bleeding-heart bible
thumper?!?
|
| 20.5258 | re: 4996 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:28 | 13 |
| asic::randolph writes:
>Pro-freedom. It's an idea who's time came over 200 years ago. Hasn't been
>seen in this country for around 130 years.
No freedom is absolute. The debate over abortion is a debate that,
in its essence, is about defining to what extent a mother has
a right to kill an unborn child. The debate is a reasonable and
necessary one. At the end of the day, however, I am of the opinion
that the principal described above (i.e., no freedom is absolute) will
prevail and the unfettered freedom to abort will be necessarily
constrained.
Michael
|
| 20.5259 | | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Every neck shall break\ | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:35 | 6 |
| The issue of abortion will soon no longer be a debate about
freedom, but rather one about population control. The same goes for the
death penalty, which in the near future will be necessary to control
the populations in prisons. We are headed for brutal times, and no one
is willing to face the facts.
|
| 20.5260 | re: .5000 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:36 | 19 |
| lando::oliver_b writes:
>men going on and on and on about abortion SNARF!!!!
So, what does this mean? Especially in light of the following
two observations:
o Abortion has historically been a mechanism used by men [in some third
world countries] to limit the production of female babies.
o Under U.S. case law, abortion has been found by the courts to be a
legitimate means by which a male can avoid child support. In such
cases, the courts have upheld the view that since a female has an
unfettered right to choose whether to bear a child, and since the
male has no say in this decision, the mother has little legal grounds
on which to pursue him for child support. It was, after all, her
decision to take the pregnancy to term in the face of the father's
protests.
Michael
|
| 20.5261 | | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:40 | 8 |
| >...[the consititution is] silent on that particular half of the population
>able to have one.
But the Bill-of-Rights, upon which the foundation of this debate rests,
is anything but silent, no matter how one divides the population. The
14th, for example, speaks directly to this issue.
Michael
|
| 20.5262 | re: .5007 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:48 | 19 |
| apache::keith writes:
>If my life is in danger due to another individual or group acting in an
>unlawful manner, don't I have the right to life an my personal choice
>as to how to live it and end it?
This is precisely why we *must* grant protection to a fetus. The
fetus can not appeal, nor does it have any standing from which to
plead for its life.
Imagine, if you will, that your statement above were spoken by a fetus
trying to persuade the courts not to grant an unfettered right to
abort it.
>...If I was a woman, and wanted an
>abortion to save my life, you would be all for it.
True. If necessary to save your life, by all means.
Michael
|
| 20.5263 | | EVMS::MORONEY | YOU! Out of the gene pool! | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:53 | 6 |
| > o Abortion has historically been a mechanism used by men [in some third
> world countries] to limit the production of female babies.
Ummm, care to explain this? How did they know the sex of the fetus before
aborting it so they'd know whether to abort it or not? I assume by
"historically" you mean some time in the past, or at least pre-ultrasound.
|
| 20.5264 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | R.I.P.-30AUG96 | Tue Aug 13 1996 22:58 | 1 |
| Actually, this custom is still practiced in many places.
|
| 20.5265 | re: .5240 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 23:03 | 11 |
| bulean::banks writes:
>I'd read somewhere that the RCC's stand against abortion, defining life as
>starting at conception, is only a couple hundred years old. Prior to that,
>the definition was that life began at the time of quickening.
Strictly speaking life, does NOT begin at conception because both sperm and egg
are already living organisms. A biologically correct to view of a newly
fertilized egg is as an individual organism which, if left to nature, will
become an adult human being.
Michael
|
| 20.5266 | re: .5263 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 23:05 | 9 |
| evms::moroney writes:
>Ummm, care to explain this? How did they know the sex of the fetus before
>aborting it so they'd know whether to abort it or not? I assume by
>"historically" you mean some time in the past, or at least pre-ultrasound
Post ultrasound. India, Pakistan, Communist China, the US. In
India, 95% of all aborted fetuses are female.
Michael
|
| 20.5267 | | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Aug 13 1996 23:07 | 10 |
| mfgfin::e_walker writes:
>Allright, "Mike", now you've gone too far. We've been reading your
>self-righteous propoganda patiently for several notes now, but this
>time you've stepped over the line. Against the death penalty?!? What
>kind of a stance is that?!? Who ever heard of a bleeding-heart bible
>thumper?!
I am an atheist.
Michael
|
| 20.5268 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Aug 13 1996 23:09 | 5 |
| >Imagine, if you will, that your statement above were spoken by a fetus
>trying to persuade the courts not to grant an unfettered right
>to abort it.
Ahhh yes, reality. :-)
|
| 20.5269 | | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Every neck shall break\ | Wed Aug 14 1996 00:48 | 4 |
| re.5267
An atheist?!? Then why are you pro-life? What kind of a scam are
you running here?
|
| 20.5270 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, random QAR generator | Wed Aug 14 1996 08:27 | 14 |
| > <<< Note 20.5254 by DECWET::MPETERSON "Max Overhead" >>>
> -< re: .4975 >-
>smurf::walters writes:
>>And in the UK there is free contraception (and still high abortion
>>rates persist).
Please note that a large number of abortions in the UK are for non-UK
citizens, like the Irish, where both abortion AND contraception are
forwned upon (abortion isn't legal there, contraception is a no-no
according to the Chrurch, along with divorce).
/andy
|
| 20.5271 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, random QAR generator | Wed Aug 14 1996 08:51 | 2 |
| Oh Mr Covert, you insist on being insulting about pro-choice folk.
Where are your brickbats for the 8-foetus woman?
|
| 20.5272 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 14 1996 11:04 | 19 |
| >Given that God gives us the freedom to have an abortion - right or
>wrong - isn't it then contrary to the principles of Christianity to
>work for laws that deny that right?
This is pretty much where I'm coming from. I think there are way too
many abortions, but rather than outlaw them, I'd prefer people to be
convinced not to have them and educated into avoiding the need for
them. It has to be an option, because in some circumstances it's the
best of a series of lousy choices. I do, however, support outlawing
third trimester abortions except for compelling medical reasons, such
as the presence of profound congenital defects and instances where the
life of the mother is jeopardized (though I prefer early delivery if
the fetus is viable in the latter case.)
>Let people have abortions. God will take care of the souls of the
>aborted fetuses, and God will also deal with the souls of those who
>offend him.
Ayup.
|
| 20.5273 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 14 1996 12:40 | 41 |
| .5270
I think that actually reinforces the point made by the original
statement (when it was in context). Legislation, limits and
restrictions are largely irrelevant. The UK has had a conservative
(right wing) government for around 14 years under which the present
legal limits to abortion coexist with what _some_ pro-lifers would
consider to be state mandated abortion - the laws that govern storage
of fertilized embryos. I stress the word _some_.
I believe that what has happened in the UK is pretty much the kind of
consensus politics that should happen in any democracy, reflecting the
views of the population at large. The legal and political processes
pretty much found it 20 years ago. No, you can't completely ban
abortion. Yes, you can restrict abortion to comply with the norms and
values of society at large, as reflected in the political process.
Having actually reached such a consensus, the only people trying to
change the status quo ARE the extremists on either side.
Given that abortion is cheap and accessible in the UK,
it's evident that the abortion transaction is also self-governing.
Even if abortion is virtually free on demand, not all unwanted
pregnancies automatically result in abortion. Shock horror, a large
proportion of unwanted pregnancies *do* result in babies. There is no
irresistable force - no gravity automatically pulling unwanted or
unplanned pregnancies into abortion clinics. People are making free
decisions and choices.
And the debate should continue, with the potential for revising the
limits and restrictions according to the general view of society, but
not the vested interest of one particular group. If the pro-life
extremists gain ground I believe that their next target would be
contraception. We already have a very blurred line here. The "Morning
After Pill" is nothing more than a large dose of the same hormones
commonly found in current birth control pills. Philosophically, you
could argue that it is a self-administered abortion.
So, I'm not 100% for or even 10% against abortion. I'm 100% in favour
of the continued debate.
|
| 20.5275 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, random QAR generator | Wed Aug 14 1996 12:52 | 12 |
|
re: .5274
You hit the nail on the head. Not the one you meant to, but...
I agree that society defines the limitations on acceptable acts and, in
every independent poll, a sizeable majority of those questioned in the
UK state their preference for abortion to be available just the way it
is, here.
I doubt the US would differ.
|
| 20.5276 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 14 1996 12:55 | 25 |
| > Oh Mr Covert, you insist on being insulting about pro-choice folk.
> Where are your brickbats for the 8-foetus woman?
This woman appears to have engaged in reckless endangerment.
The first order of business, however, is for the best medical authorities
to try to save as many of the nine lives as possible. If some of these
lives die _indirectly_ as a result of the best efforts to save all of them,
so be it. Competent doctors who begin treatment now may well be able to
save almost all of them. If we can now do in-utero surgery, certainly
we can make it very likely that even those infants who have to be delivered
very early will survive. Get her the best diet and exercise right now, and
if it is true that she violated some law, then her penalty should probably
be (for now) to be put under forced medical care to improve the chances of
a healthy delivery.
After the children's health is no longer a factor, the law should take a
look at exactly what she did.
I do have a question for British society, though: What is the justification
for giving fertility drugs to any unmarried person? Don't children deserve
the state's best efforts to provide them with two parents: a mother and a
father?
/john
|
| 20.5277 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 14 1996 12:59 | 10 |
| > I do have a question for British society, though: What is the
> justification for giving fertility drugs to any unmarried person?
> Don't children deserve the state's best efforts to provide them with
> two parents: a mother and a father?
We're weird like that. We figure it's none of our business.
Apparently we worked this out without a bit of paper to tell us what
our rights were. It's a strange world.
|
| 20.5278 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:01 | 9 |
| .5231
I disagree that God gives us any such right. In fact, the OT (sorry, I
forget where, but I would imagine it is in Leviticus somewhere) has
outlines of punishment for those who cause a woman to lose the child
she is carrying.
-steve
|
| 20.5279 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Future Chevy Blazer owner | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:02 | 5 |
|
Andy, I read an article about 3-4 months ago on Ireland regarding
that the women there do go over to the UK for divorces. I had also
thought that ireland was starting to slowly, slowly ease up on not
granting divorces. Am I nuts?
|
| 20.5280 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, random QAR generator | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:03 | 40 |
| > <<< Note 20.5276 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
>> Oh Mr Covert, you insist on being insulting about pro-choice folk.
>> Where are your brickbats for the 8-foetus woman?
>
>This woman appears to have engaged in reckless endangerment.
Agreed. For money, yet.
>The first order of business, however, is for the best medical authorities
>to try to save as many of the nine lives as possible. If some of these
>lives die _indirectly_ as a result of the best efforts to save all of them,
>so be it. Competent doctors who begin treatment now may well be able to
>save almost all of them. If we can now do in-utero surgery, certainly
>we can make it very likely that even those infants who have to be delivered
>very early will survive. Get her the best diet and exercise right now, and
>if it is true that she violated some law, then her penalty should probably
>be (for now) to be put under forced medical care to improve the chances of
>a healthy delivery.
Her Doctor has said she should have at least 4 aborted to save the
lives of the remainder. She has violated no law, just common decency.
>I do have a question for British society, though: What is the justification
>for giving fertility drugs to any unmarried person? Don't children deserve
>the state's best efforts to provide them with two parents: a mother and a
>father?
Are you saying that fertility treatments should be dependent upon
marital status? So society should now say who can be a parent and who
cannot?
Words fail me. Here is the news, John, in the UK at least 30% of
children are born out of wedlock. It is not the responsibility of the
State to mandate marriage in such circumstances.
/a
|
| 20.5281 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, random QAR generator | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:05 | 14 |
| > <<< Note 20.5279 by ACISS1::BATTIS "Future Chevy Blazer owner" >>>
> Andy, I read an article about 3-4 months ago on Ireland regarding
> that the women there do go over to the UK for divorces. I had also
> thought that ireland was starting to slowly, slowly ease up on not
> granting divorces. Am I nuts?
No, merely wrong. A referendum was held and the Church campaigned
against divorce being legalised and indeed it wasn't. Annullment still
occurs of course. However, the poor sods can still come to the UK and
get a divorce. Then go home where it'll be recognised. As someone said,
"go figure that one"...
/a
|
| 20.5282 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:08 | 3 |
| > the poor sods
They come to the UK for that too?
|
| 20.5283 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:15 | 8 |
| .5247
|Biologically, the mother is little more than an incubator.
|How does it follow that she "owns" the fetus?
Biologically, the father is little more than a sperm gun.
How does it follow that he should have a say in the outcome
of the pregnancy?
|
| 20.5284 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Future Chevy Blazer owner | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:25 | 4 |
|
.5283
what a pickup line in a bar. "Hey baby, want to see my sperm gun?"
|
| 20.5285 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:39 | 2 |
| Careful. You might catch moby dick.
|
| 20.5286 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:46 | 3 |
|
just don't make ahab it of it.
|
| 20.5287 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Ranch send no girl | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:52 | 1 |
| With a line like that, you'll have the women milton.
|
| 20.5288 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:52 | 4 |
| Hey baby, call me fishmeal.
(sorry di, I had to.)
|
| 20.5289 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Aug 14 1996 13:53 | 1 |
| I would call that paradise found.
|
| 20.5290 | re: 5283 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:13 | 26 |
| I wrote:
mtp>Biologically, the mother is little more than an incubator.
mtp>How does it follow that she "owns" the fetus?
lando::oliver_b wrote:
>Biologically, the father is little more than a sperm gun.
>How does it follow that he should have a say in the outcome
>of the pregnancy?
First, he's the father and one of the points to be
understood in my incubator analogy, is that the father
ought to be granted the same rights as the mother since
the biological relationships are similar (the only difference
being the observation that the female serves an incubator function
prior to birth).
Second, I never asserted that the father has a right to cause an
abortion that stem from a biological relationship. Rather,
you and other pro-abortion advocates regularly assert
that a mother's right to abort her fetus derives from some
vague notion that because she's the incubator the decision to
abort is hers and hers alone. I have never understood this point
nor have I ever read or heard an adequate explaination of its
rationale.
Michael
|
| 20.5291 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:14 | 3 |
|
Is there some sort of abortion debate tag team?
|
| 20.5292 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:16 | 9 |
| > Biologically, the father is little more than a sperm gun.
Oh, so we get to keep things on a strict biological basis now?
> How does it follow that he should have a say in the outcome
> of the pregnancy?
Well, do you get to saddle him with the responsibility for financially
supporting any offspring or not?
|
| 20.5293 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Future Chevy Blazer owner | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:18 | 5 |
|
.5290
I can see it now. "I'd like to introduce you to Lisa, my little
incubator"
|
| 20.5294 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:23 | 4 |
| my, my. such a strong reaction when we call papa
a sperm gun, but gee, it's okay to call mama an
incubator. you couldn't dehumanize the woman's
role more if you tried, petergun.
|
| 20.5295 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:24 | 11 |
| >...nothing but an incubator...
At least he's honest enough to admit that he does not think of women as
human beings with rights equal to his own, so he can feel free to try
to control what happens inside their bodies. I expect most pro-lifers
feel the same way, but hide it.
>tag team...
Yeah, it does have that feel to it. Or maybe a rousing game of,
"Let's you and him fight", ala Eric Berne ("Games People Play").
|
| 20.5296 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:24 | 3 |
| >petergun
petergone
|
| 20.5297 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:26 | 1 |
| peer gynt
|
| 20.5298 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:27 | 9 |
|
>> I can see it now. "I'd like to introduce you to Lisa, my little
>> incubator"
Maybe it should be more along the lines of "I'd like to introduce you
to Lisa, my little incubator and tax exemption generator."
Brian <waiting for the flying with impunity b.s. to start>
|
| 20.5299 | wait, that is | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:28 | 3 |
| <waiting for the flying with impunity b.s. to start>
It's not likely to be a long one.
|
| 20.5300 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Future Chevy Blazer owner | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:30 | 3 |
|
Gawd Brian, how could I have forgotten the tax exemption bit. thanks
for helping me out there. I owe you.
|
| 20.5301 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:39 | 2 |
| .5299 if that's directed at me, you'll be
sadly disappointed.
|
| 20.5302 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:45 | 1 |
| it wasn't. sorry to disappoint.
|
| 20.5304 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Aug 14 1996 14:48 | 1 |
| Irish Hammer? Wouldn't that be Tom O'Hawk Chop?
|
| 20.5305 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Aug 14 1996 15:02 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 20.5258 by DECWET::MPETERSON "Max Overhead" >>>
> No freedom is absolute.
Yah, that's the response almost every time I enter a note in here. Well, no
kidding. Your freedom to swing ends at my nose. However - and this is the
part that we're all missing today - your swinging is otherwise none of my
business. Today, some hyperactive Congressman would get outraged at all that
dangerous swinging going on, and write up a bill to ban it. And people would
vote for him next time.
|
| 20.5306 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:23 | 22 |
| Re .5234:
> The question wrt fetuses is, as we all know, are they people.
No, it is not. That is _a_ question, not _the_ question. As I have
stated many, many times in this conference, there are people who
predicate the ethics of abortion on the right of the mother to control
her own body REGARDLESS of whether the fetus is or is not human, a
person, sentient, or whatever. Many people believe it is ethical to
kill in self-defense. In New Hampshire, you can legally kill in
defense of your home.
EVEN IF the fetus is a person, if the mother does not consent to its
effects on her body, then the fetus is committing (even if unwittingly)
an assault that the mother has a perfect right to defend against.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5307 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:32 | 3 |
|
<thud>
|
| 20.5308 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:32 | 14 |
| .5255
> In fact, "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" are
> operationally identical.
You should crawl back under your rock.
"Pro-abortion" means "favoring abortion." I do NOT favor abortion, yet
I am pro-choice. I would prefer than no abortions ever occurred except
for justifiable medical reasons, but I am not so self-righteous as to
think I have the legal right to force my opposition to abortion, which
is based on my religious beliefs, on anyone else - most especially on
someone who does not share my religious beliefs regarding the nature of
human life.
|
| 20.5309 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:34 | 4 |
| Dick:
What about us folk who see this as a human rights issue and not driven
by religion?
|
| 20.5310 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:34 | 9 |
| .5261
> But the Bill-of-Rights... The
> 14th, for example...
I hate to stomp on your pretty little Constitutional butterfly, but
I'll do it anyway. You are full of lies and misunderstandings. The
14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. Only Amendments 1
through 10 are comprised by that document.
|
| 20.5311 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:37 | 6 |
| >EVEN IF the fetus is a person, if the mother does not consent to its
>effects on her body, then the fetus is committing (even if unwittingly)
>an assault that the mother has a perfect right to defend against.
An "assault" which was predicated on, and could not have occurred
without, her own voluntary actions...
|
| 20.5312 | | BUSY::SLAB | You and me against the world | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:42 | 5 |
|
Doc, please include the list of exceptions, obvious to most
of us but not all of us, or I'm quite certain that edp will
use them in his counterattack.
|
| 20.5313 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:44 | 14 |
| Re .5311:
> An "assault" which was predicated on, and could not have occurred
> without, her own voluntary actions...
See .4767 and successive notes. Voluntary actions DO NOT constitute
consent or culpability.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5314 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:52 | 1 |
| They do, however, constitute responsibility. /hthbibid
|
| 20.5315 | Principle of proportionate response | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:53 | 9 |
| > In New Hampshire, you can legally kill in defense of your home.
Certainly to _kill_ to defend your home the threat has to be more than
a little baby sleeping in the front parlor for seven or eight months.
If the effects on the mother's body are not expected to be life threatening,
then the mother's defense need not be to kill.
/john
|
| 20.5316 | typo: conct -> concept | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:53 | 25 |
| .5309
Jack, you should be careful when you use the word "human." What is it
that makes you human? Would you be human if you were ancephalic? You
most assuredly wouldn't know it - or anything else, either.
Setting aside the issue of souls (the religious slant), the question
becomes the definition of humanity, and there are a large number of
people who base their definition on what we blithely refer to as
"quality of life." We often refer to brutal, atavistic criminals as
"subhuman" - this suggests that they are less human than others of
species H. sap. sap. (or even, possibly, not human at all), even though
they share the same genetic heritage. So what makes us human? Our
genes? Or our life and how we live it?
If a gorilla can communicate with me at the level of, say, a child of
early elementary school age, and if that gorilla understands the conct
of a spiritual higher power, what's to say that the gorilla is not
human? Its genes? Or its life and how it lives that life?
Things get very squishy when you start a discourse of this nature, but
the philosophical concept of what it is that makes us human is *very*
much at issue. Hence, "Human rights" may not apply to an unborn
individual of species H. sap. sap., while they might possibly apply to
a developed individual of species G. gorilla.
|
| 20.5317 | re: 5310 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:54 | 8 |
| >I hate to stomp on your pretty little Constitutional butterfly, but
>I'll do it anyway. You are full of lies and misunderstandings. The
>14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. Only Amendments 1
>through 10 are comprised by that document.
You're absolutely correct. I was imprecise.
Michael
|
| 20.5318 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:56 | 5 |
| .5317
> I was imprecise.
Imprecise thinking leads to manifold errors.
|
| 20.5319 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Aug 14 1996 17:56 | 1 |
| Intake or exhaust?
|
| 20.5320 | re: .5295 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:07 | 16 |
| >...so he can feel free to try
>to control what happens inside their bodies.
No part of the fetus resides inside the mother's body. Nor does
any tissue from the mother reside inside the fetus's body. Both
are completely separate and distinct. The only substantive
physiological difference between a child after birth and the same
child before birth is that the pulmonary functionality is fully
operational.
Since the fetus is genetically unique and spatially separate from
its mother (just like a newborn) I fail to see the validity of any
reasoning that stems from the incorrect and biologically naive
assumption that a fetus is "part" of the mother, or "inside" the mother.
Michael
|
| 20.5321 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:12 | 8 |
|
>No part of the fetus resides inside the mother's body.
Where is it, then?
I think I get your point, but then again, where is it if it's not
inside the woman's body? In her dresser?
|
| 20.5322 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Future Chevy Blazer owner | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:14 | 2 |
|
Michael, is not the womb part of a woman's body?
|
| 20.5323 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:19 | 5 |
|
I think this is similar to the "fact" that, technically, no part of the
contents of the digestive tract is actuallly "inside the body". Technicalities
aside, it seems a bit of a stretch to IMPLY that that the interior if the
intestines, and the interior of the womb, is outside the body.
|
| 20.5324 | | BUSY::SLAB | You're a train ride to no importance | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:24 | 7 |
|
Well, that would certainly make it difficult to get a rape
charge to stick, wouldn't it?
"Your honor, at no point was any part of my body inside the
alleged victim's body."
|
| 20.5325 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:24 | 22 |
| Micahel,
How many kids have you given birth two.
My three were most assuradly within my body, had significant impacts on
my health, wellbeing and the shape my body is now in. The birth of a
child impacts what can and can't be used for BC in the future, what I
ate and drank and any pharmaceuticals I happen to consume most
definitely does impact a fetus, any serious or not so serious to an
adult illness that the mother contracts certainly impacts the health,
wellbeing, and viability of a fetus. (See Fifths Disease, Rubella,
and Herpes Zoster for just a few) In the case of serious illness for
the "incubator" some treatments have to be held off, or the fetus
terminated to avoid the inevitable damage to same. Methotrexate is
only one of several chemotherapy drugs which will cause an abortion.
Who remembers Thalidomide? Go check with Brazil, where it is used to
treat leprosy and see what kinds of infants are being born.
Not inside, and a woman is only an incubator? Guess again.
meg
|
| 20.5326 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:28 | 4 |
| > An "assault" which was predicated on, and could not have occurred
> without, her own voluntary actions...
Kinda like a lone young woman jogging through Central Park at night?
|
| 20.5327 | re: .5305 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:33 | 29 |
| I wrote:
>No freedom is absolute.
To which asic::randolp replied:
>Yah, that's the response almost every time I enter a note in here.
Hmmmmm. I'm thinking of the hand-on-the-hot-stove parable.
Like the pain of touching a hot burner, perhaps someone may be
trying to tell you something?
asic::randolph continues with:
>Your freedom to swing ends at my nose. However - and this is the
>part that we're all missing today - your swinging is otherwise none of my
>business.
My freedom to swing ends at your nose because statute and case law
express and enforce this limit. Without the protection provided
by such laws I can do what I will and suffer no consequence.
More generally, rationale societies establish laws that
seek a balance between the freedom to swing one's arms and the
responsibility to protect the noses of its citizens.
Under this model, I seek to constrain a mother's desire to abort her
fetus because I believe the fetus has the same rights as
the fetus after birth. Both are, after all, the same individual.
Michael
|
| 20.5328 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:35 | 3 |
| >Kinda like a lone young woman jogging through Central Park at night?
No. But you knew that.
|
| 20.5329 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:38 | 1 |
| Michael must be a topologist.
|
| 20.5330 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:39 | 1 |
| Yeah, that was my impression as well.
|
| 20.5331 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:44 | 5 |
| So if it's never actually inside a woman's body, and the woman has
something removed from inside her body, then it must not be the fetus,
so there is no more problem.
I think that "logic" needs a little work...
|
| 20.5332 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:46 | 6 |
| > No part of the fetus resides inside the mother's body. Nor does
> any tissue from the mother reside inside the fetus's body. Both
> are completely separate and distinct.
Then clearly you have no grounds to object to the mother ingesting a
substance such as RU486 to induce a miscarriage.
|
| 20.5333 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Wed Aug 14 1996 18:55 | 7 |
| Given that it only stops the endometiral tissue from remaining in the
proper format to continue a life-support system, I think maybe ru486
might just be something that Michael can and should support.
methotrexate works much the same way, in that it only destroys fast
growing tissue.
meg
|
| 20.5334 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 14 1996 19:15 | 12 |
| .5313
Hogwash.
In terms of pregnancy and abortion, the action which preceded the
pregnancy is voluntary. This excludes rape, incest, etc. These are
generally excluded by all but the most extreme pro-life people.
The remainder have voluntarily engaged in an activity that resulted in
a known outcome. this makes it voluntary and the participant culpable
and consenting.
|
| 20.5335 | .5321 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 19:43 | 17 |
| powdml::hanggeli asks:
>Where is [the fetus located], then?
The fetus lies on the external surface of its mother's uterus.
Nutrients are absorbed via osmosis across the placental membranes
(which, by the way, are fetal tissue, not the mother's).
The correct way to think of the topological relationship between the
fetus and its mother is to imagine the fetus to be analogous to a
quarter and its mother analogous to your hand. When your palm is flat
with the quarter lying on your palm, we say that the quarter is outside
your body. Make a fist enclosing the quarter. The quarter is now
inside your fist, but still resides outside your body.
Michael
|
| 20.5336 | | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 19:44 | 6 |
| aciss1::battis asks:
>Michael, is not the womb part of a woman's body?
Yes, it is.
Michael
|
| 20.5337 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Future Chevy Blazer owner | Wed Aug 14 1996 19:49 | 8 |
|
Meg,
60 Minutes did a segment on Thalidrome (sp) about a month or so ago.
While that derug does seem to help leprosy, it has most hideous effects
on pregnant women. Major deformed babies was the common result. You
aren't kidding, i can see why that drug isn't used in the US anymore.
Devastating effects.
|
| 20.5338 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Aug 14 1996 19:49 | 1 |
| Thalidomide.
|
| 20.5339 | | BUSY::SLAB | Your mother has an outie!! | Wed Aug 14 1996 19:49 | 9 |
|
RE: .5335
However, if someone were to pry your hand apart and take the
quarter from you and dispose of it, not many people would think
that to be a big deal.
[And now I'm wondering which side I just defended.]
|
| 20.5340 | re: .5323 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 19:49 | 15 |
| decwet::lowe writes:
>...it seems a bit of a stretch to IMPLY that that the interior if the
>intestines, and the interior of the womb, is outside the body.
I disagree. First, I am not implying, I am strongly claiming that
this is the correct way to view the topological relationship between
a mother and her fetus. This relationship has substantial medical,
physiological, and ethical implications. Insofar as the latter is
concerned, much of the pro-abortion justification seems
to depend upon the incorrect assumptions that the fetus is part of
the mother's body and/or is contained within the mother's body.
This view is simply incorrect.
Michael
|
| 20.5341 | | BUSY::SLAB | Your mother has an outie!! | Wed Aug 14 1996 19:52 | 8 |
|
Michael, it really is an interesting slant on the subject,
but I still have to wonder why you've apparently forgotten
to take your daily dose of amphetamines.
Perhaps you're a stickler for details and have misplaced the
log book to the check-out room?
|
| 20.5342 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Wed Aug 14 1996 19:57 | 12 |
| and what body handles both the feeding and the waste products of said
fetus? Free Clue 400+ calories/day to support a fetus within a woman's
body.
some believe that the buildup of waste products is one cause of kidney
failure in pregnanct women.
Diabetes in pregnancy is much higher than for women of childbearing as
a whole. 40% of those diagnosed with gestational diabetes go on to
have type II diabetes forever more.
meg
|
| 20.5343 | re: .5324 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:00 | 18 |
| busy::slab writes:
>Well, that would certainly make it difficult to get a rape
>charge to stick, wouldn't it?
>"Your honor, at no point was any part of my body inside the
>alleged victim's body."
Not at all. First of all, penetration is not required to
convict. A person can be convicted of rape by binding the
victim and masturbating over him/her.
Second, where forcible intercourse occurs in the course of a rape, the
legal definition of intercourse only requires that penetration of the
vagina (or anus) to have occurred. Such cases are self-evident,
i.e., rest upon physical evidence, and are independent of what you and I
think the definition of "inside" to be.
Michael
|
| 20.5344 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:01 | 12 |
|
First of all, the upc "IMPLY" was not for your benefit.
Second, you seem to contend that:
Let me be precise - if a rapist (i.e., a male human, who has, or intends to
commit "rape"), forcibly and without permission, violates a woman (i.e.,
genital-to-genital rape), then you would argue that he has "put nothing
inside her body".
You might be technically correct, but no one but a lawyer (need I be precise
about exactly what a lawyer is?) would agree with you. I don't think I
would want to be in that company.
|
| 20.5345 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:02 | 7 |
|
.5335
So in other words there is no such thing as "inside a body".
Good to know.
|
| 20.5346 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:05 | 1 |
| Sure is good to know. Makes going on a diet a useless exercise, then.
|
| 20.5347 | re: .5325 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:37 | 45 |
| How many kids have you given birth [to?]:
None. But what is your point? If you are objecting to my
participation in this dialog because I am not capable of
giving birth, then the debate is over.
However, if you're under the impression that I am insensitive to
the needs of a pregnant woman, I assure you I am not.
- My mother died in childbirth.
- My wife's mother died during childbirth.
- I TA'd (Teaching Assistant) obstetrical immunology at the
University of Washington Medical School for a year as a
doctoral candidate.
- I am the father of two daughters, each one was born
without complications.
>My three were most assuradly within my body...
No they were not. Each one was implanted on the interior
surface of your uterus.
>had significant impacts on my health, wellbeing and the shape my
>body is now in
I would be surprised if this were otherwise.
>The birth of a child impacts what can and can't be used for BC in the future,
^
|
What's this mean?
>...[any disease] the mother contracts certainly impacts the health, wellbeing,
>and viability of a fetus.
Certainly. Just as routine and regularly scheduled maintenance helps
to keep a mechanical incubator running at peak efficiency. However,
when a mechanical incubator runs at less than peak efficiency, or
breaks down altogether, the baby may be severely compromised.
I don't understand your point. You seem to be taking issue with the
incubator analogy, but I do not understand where exactly you see the
analogy to be flawed.
Michael
|
| 20.5348 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:38 | 8 |
|
>No they were not. Each one was implanted on the interior
>surface of your uterus.
And where was her uterus?
(Excuse me, Meg, for throwing your uterus into this discussion.)
|
| 20.5349 | we respect your right ... | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:38 | 5 |
| > None. But what is your point? If you are objecting to my
> participation in this dialog because I am not capable of
> giving birth, then the debate is over.
They setttled this issue in _Life of Brian_.
|
| 20.5350 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:43 | 5 |
| > None. But what is your point? If you are objecting to my
> participation in this dialog because I am not capable of
> giving birth, then the debate is over.
Whew! That's a relief!
|
| 20.5351 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Ranch send no girl | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:43 | 1 |
| It can't gestate in a box then?
|
| 20.5352 | re: .5331 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:44 | 17 |
| rusure::goodwin writes:
>So if it's never actually inside a woman's body, and the woman has
>something removed from inside her body, then it must not be the fetus,
>so there is no more problem.
That it must not be the fetus is completely correct. However, problems
may exist. Especially if the component that was removed was a heart,
a lung or two, some neural tissue, etc. If the component were an
appendix, a tonsil, or an axillary lymphnode then, apart from some
possible discomfort with the pain and scarring of surgery, few problems
would arise.
>I think that "logic" needs a little work...
How so? What have I missed?
Michael
|
| 20.5353 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:45 | 3 |
| >(Excuse me, Meg, for throwing your uterus into this discussion.)
{splat}
|
| 20.5354 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:46 | 1 |
| Hey, I just ate.
|
| 20.5355 | re: .5332 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:49 | 15 |
| wahoo::levesque writes:
>Then clearly you have no grounds to object to the mother ingesting a substance
>such as RU486 to induce a miscarriage.
This is a complex one. First of all, I do not agree with the idea
that a pre-implantation embryo deserves society's protection. It has
yet to enjoy the sanctity of its mother's womb and receive nourishment
and life support. Once implanted, however, the fetus takes its
place among those individuals deserving of society's good graces.
Therefore, I can support birth control methods such as uids and
the use of morning-after drugs that explicitly *prevent* implantation
(I believe that's how RU486 works).
Michael
|
| 20.5356 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:50 | 4 |
|
...uids?
|
| 20.5357 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:52 | 5 |
|
<---
DCE on the brain.
iud's, of course.
|
| 20.5358 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 14 1996 20:56 | 14 |
| > How so? What have I missed?
You have missed making any sort of convincing argument with
your "fetus is not inside a woman's body" claim.
> "sanctity" of it's mother's womb
What does that mean?
>I can support ... methods ... that ... *prevent* implantation
So then if a fetus is found to be severely deformed in, say, the
5th month, what would you council Mom to do?
|
| 20.5359 | re: .5342 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 21:01 | 28 |
| csc32::m_evans writes:
>and what body handles both the feeding and the waste products of said
>fetus? Free Clue 400+ calories/day to support a fetus within a woman's
>body.
>some believe that the buildup of waste products is one cause of kidney
>failure in pregnanct women.
>Diabetes in pregnancy is much higher than for women of childbearing as
>a whole. 40% of those diagnosed with gestational diabetes go on to
>have type II diabetes forever more.
That pregnancy imposes a substantial physiological load on the mother is
inarguable. I believe that I have never said, or even implied, anything to the
contrary.
I understand and am familiar with gestational diabetes. But, as I claimed in
an earlier response to you, simply cataloging all of the nasty things that
can arise during pregnancy does not support the claim that a pregnant woman is
at higher risk. When I fly to Boston, I encur the risk of dying in a plane
crash. However, the new risk of dying in a plane crash is more than offset by
the elimination of the far greater risk of my dying in a car crash were I to
drive to Boston.
CDC, NIH, and insurance companies have found over and over again that becoming
pregnant reduces a woman's risk of acquiring disease or dying in an accident.
Michael
|
| 20.5360 | Boggles | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 14 1996 21:06 | 5 |
|
Man-O-Man. If a woman were a Klein bottle, we'd all be inside her.
|
| 20.5361 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Aug 14 1996 21:07 | 1 |
| Moebius, moebino.
|
| 20.5362 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 14 1996 21:11 | 1 |
| eine kleine nachtbottle
|
| 20.5363 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Aug 14 1996 21:50 | 6 |
| I've been laughing uncontrollably for the last 30 entries or so. I've
read and even participated in some ridiculous arguments in the BOX. But,
the argument that the fetus is not part of the woman's body, has got to
be the most ridiculous of all. Even though this discussion of abortion
divides us in two, ideologically, I appreciate it, for the reason that
it has brought us all together on one side, except for one of us.
|
| 20.5364 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 14 1996 21:55 | 17 |
| > the argument that the fetus is not part of the woman's body, has got to
> be the most ridiculous of all.
No biologist considers the fetus to be _part_ of the woman's body.
It is an offspring enclosed by an organ of the woman's body.
Though enclosed by the body, which is a reasonable definition of "inside",
it is not inside the body in the same way a spleen is inside the body.
At a subatomic level, though, nothing is "inside" anything else. So I
agree that the "inside" discussion is pretty bizarre.
But I repeat that the fetus is _not_ "part" of a woman's body any more
than a sucking infant is "part" of a woman's body.
/john
|
| 20.5365 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Aug 14 1996 22:05 | 1 |
| Make that except for two of us :)
|
| 20.5366 | A person on a respirator does not become PART of the respirator | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Aug 14 1996 22:28 | 4 |
| I think you're actually one of the _few_ who thinks the fetus is _part_
of a woman's body.
/john
|
| 20.5367 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Aug 14 1996 22:53 | 7 |
| Re: .5366
That would be OK. I fit in the minority category very comfortably.
Though I wonder what the fetus is part of, if not the woman's body?
By the way, one of the definitions of part is "one's proper or expected
share in responsibility or obligation"
|
| 20.5368 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Wed Aug 14 1996 23:03 | 6 |
|
Mr. Ralston, while I mostly agree with you on this topic, I'm afraid that
I must say I also believe the "not part" argument is correct.
What really amazes me here is the unlikely collaberation of a major thumper
and an atheist. What a world :-}
|
| 20.5369 | | BUSY::SLAB | A seemingly endless time | Wed Aug 14 1996 23:05 | 4 |
|
Covert, while it might not be part of the woman's body, it is
definitely inside the woman's body.
|
| 20.5370 | | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Kabal wins.....FATALITY | Wed Aug 14 1996 23:12 | 2 |
| One disturbing element of this debate is the reference to the
fetus as an "it", as if you were discussing a tumor.
|
| 20.5371 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | R.I.P.-30AUG96 | Wed Aug 14 1996 23:19 | 1 |
| Yeah, let's call "IT" "the fetus in question"
|
| 20.5372 | The Fetus as Part of the Mother's Body (Long) | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Aug 14 1996 23:34 | 74 |
| (Sorry for the length, but I wanted to be reasonably complete as possible)
The Fetus Is Not Part of the Mother's Body
A fetus is a unique and individual member of its species (identical twins,
notwithstanding). In fact, few, if any, distinctions exist between a fetus
and a newborn baby relative to its biological and topological relationship to
its mother. To believe that a fetus is [even] remotely analogous to a
a mother's arm, leg, spleen, or ovaries is to ignore anatomical fact. To
base a conclusion on this fallacy casts serious doubt on the validity of
the conclusion.
Note the following observations:
1) Immunological
The fetus is immunologically incompatible with the mother. This is to say,
that, in the absence of immunological suppression, the maternal host will
reject (destroy and expel) the fetus using the same mechanisms by which she
would reject a foreign tissue graft. Fortunately, the maternal cellular
immune system's response to the antigens of its fetus is suppressed. Once
birth occurs, the immune system's reactivity is restored and a subsequent
graft of infant tissue to its mother will be rejected outright. Nature
has provided specific mechanisms suppressing the maternal host's normal
rejection response to the allogeneic tissue of the fetus. Note carefully
that histoincompatibility (which causes rejection of foreign tissue) is
used in both scientific and legal forums to define individuality.
2) Genetic
The genotype of a fetus, determined as it is by combining both paternal and
maternal DNA, is genetically distinct from both its mother and its father.
By construction, this finding demonstrates biological individuality.
3) Anatomical and Physiological
The fetus is anatomically and physiologically separate from its mother.
The fetus attaches to the outside (the topological exterior) surface of its
mother's uterus (The uterine wall) and, under normal circumstances, does not
invade or otherwise penetrate into the interior of the mother's body. The
womb (i.e., the uterine cavity) is exactly analogous to a marsupial pouch.
The fetus resides in this pouch, on the exterior surface of the mother, until
ready for birth.
Anatomically, a fetus is unlike its mother's arms, legs, spleen, or
brain. Genetically and immunologically the fetus is a unique individual.
The fetus obtains nourishment by absorbing nutrients across its placental
membranes (the placenta is fetal tissue, not maternal). A suckling infant,
subject to the full protection of the law, obtains its nourishment in the
same manner except it forces fluid from its mother's breast by creating a
vacuum over the nipple, whereas a fetus's nourishment is transferred across
its placental membranes via an osmotic pump. Both fetus and newborn would
die of starvation, but for the mother.
4) Conclusion
The fetus is immunologically, genetically, anatomically, physiologically,
and topologically analogous to a suckling infant; and no less an individual
as a consequence. To understand otherwise is naive and adheres to
the invalid assumption that a fetus is biologically analogous to a spleen.
A fetus, apart from its size and shape, is provably a unique individual that,
in a normal course of events will grow to be an adult. More to the point, a
fetus, begins its life completely separate and apart from its mother and,
just like newborn infants, is totally dependent on the favorable
intentions, health, and competence of its mother for survival.
The overwhelming evidence for biological individuality of the fetus,
separate from that of its maternal host, argues strongly against the
pro-abortionist's argument that, because a fetus is part of a woman's body,
she should have life or death control over its fate. Put simply, the fetus
is not a part of her body, never was, and never will be.
Michael
|
| 20.5373 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Aug 14 1996 23:37 | 11 |
| >What really amazes me here is the unlikely collaberation of a major
>thumper and an atheist. What a world :-}
Could happen! :)
The argument over the word "part" is almost as ridiculous as the rest
of the argument. The fetus belongs to the woman who carries it within
her and the father, if that person is willing to take full
responsibility. It doesn't belong to anyone else, regardless of those
who want to show that they have a right to interfere.
|
| 20.5374 | No person "belongs to" any other person | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Aug 15 1996 00:03 | 1 |
| Sort of like a slave belongs to its owners?
|
| 20.5375 | | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Kabal wins.....FATALITY | Thu Aug 15 1996 00:06 | 4 |
| Well, we say animals "belong" to us, despite the fact that the
average dog is as intelligent as a five year old child. There has to be
a limit somewhere in that age range. When a child is wholly dependent
on a mother for survival, what term would you use?
|
| 20.5376 | | NETRIX::thomas | The Code Warrior | Thu Aug 15 1996 00:39 | 4 |
| Re: 5372
A newborn can get care from others besides its mother. A fetus can't.
That's where the analogy breaks and voids your conclusion.
|
| 20.5377 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Aug 15 1996 00:45 | 11 |
| It only voids the conclusion when one refuses to accept the concept of
responsibility for the defenseless and dependent members of society.
By voluntary act of engaging in sexual intercourse, the laws of nature
may impose upon a couple the responsibility of raising a child to the
age at which it can fend for itself or to find other parents for it.
The fact that the first nine months are a time where the care can't be
foisted off on someone else is natural law.
/john
|
| 20.5378 | | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Aug 15 1996 00:52 | 86 |
| Reading this thread leaves me with the impression that some boxer's are
under the impression that the question of wheather (may have bought an
extra vowel here...) a fetus is or is not a part of the pregnant
woman's body is a relevant issue in discussing the morality of
abortion.
Somehow this seems to have led to the depths of lunacy resulting in a
discussion of wheather a fetus is or is not inside a pregnant woman's
body.
A lot of this type of discussion seems to flow from inappropriate
inferences based on the unfortunate (self-?) labelling of the
defenders of a pregnant woman's right to obtain an abortion in an
environment that provides her with the benefit of all current medical
knowledge as being Pro-Abortion or even Pro-Choice.
A recent series on articles in the Washington Post has highlighted the
fact that no woman chooses to obtain an abortion in the same way that,
say, any person chooses to have a Martini or a Big-Mac. (I use the
sweeping generalization "no woman" with the usual caution that applies
to all such blanket statements.)
I think/hope that on both sides of the fence there is actually agreement
that any abortion is a true tragedy.
I think there is understanding on both sides that there are medical (or
at least biological) effects of any pregnancy on any pregnant woman.
There is also agreement that at times these can be life threatening for
the pregnant woman. This is a fact even if the fetus is in a different
time-space continuum from the mother.
I don't have data, but would assume that most abortions in the US are
not related to protecting the physical life of the pregnant woman.
There is something very wrong in any social organization where abortions
are obtained due to pressures placed on a pregnant woman other than
questions of health. Hopefully the hard cases could be reduced to
questions concerning the physical health of the pregnant woman, but it
will be a long time before the questions of psychological health (from
pregnancies resulting from rape or incest) will be easily dismissable.
As a society we lack a joy in life and lack support systems that
reflect any real positive valuation on human life on behalf of women
who are pregnant.
What would it take to create an environment where there is virtually
unanimous joy on the occasion of any pregnancy?
I have known several couples with fertility problems. How can we
arrange that all women would be in a position to allow the joy that
these couples would have experienced if their efforts had been
successful?
Anyone who is truely interested in saving the lives of the unborn would
not spend one minute working for legal restrictions on abortions, or
protesting outside of the locations where abortions are obtained.
They would focus their energy supporting pregnant women that they know
personally.
They would focus energy on ensuring that any woman or family would have
sufficient resources to rear any children that are come into our world.
They would focus on ensuring that, in the case of very young women,
capable adults are found to rear the children that eventually will be
born.
They would focus on "life education" programs (not "sex education"
programs) in school systems, public and private, that build self esteem
and an awareness of the value our society places on them, their
families and on any children they might ever bear.
But since our American society places less and less value on human life
or even human dignity, abortions become more prevalent.
The struggle to "outlaw" abortion is actually just another example
of a low evaluation of human life.
We should be struggling to "eliminate" abortions, not "outlaw" them.
We did not combat smallpox by "outlawing" it.
FJP
|
| 20.5379 | | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Kabal wins.....FATALITY | Thu Aug 15 1996 01:02 | 4 |
| This "low evaluation of human life" is the result of mass
overpopulation. While I don't believe in abortion as a means of
controlling the population, I hardly think that your approach of
encouraging pregnancy is a responsible alternative.
|
| 20.5380 | | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Aug 15 1996 01:28 | 5 |
| Nonsense.
This planet is virtually uninhabited.
FJP
|
| 20.5381 | | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Kabal wins.....FATALITY | Thu Aug 15 1996 02:32 | 1 |
| Virtually, except for five billion destructive parasites.
|
| 20.5382 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | R.I.P.-30AUG96 | Thu Aug 15 1996 02:53 | 1 |
| So why don't you shoot yourself?
|
| 20.5383 | | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Kabal wins.....FATALITY | Thu Aug 15 1996 03:12 | 3 |
| Terribly sorry, that was an inappropriate, inexcusable remark. My
apologies to any noters that may have seen it. What I meant to say was
"Not again, SS. That hurt!"
|
| 20.5384 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Aug 15 1996 03:13 | 62 |
| Frank,
Thank you for bringing one of my dismissed arguments into play again.
the number one cause of abortion is an unplanned and unwanted
pregnancy. The Republican Party, for all its pro-life rhetoric, comes
across as strongly anti-life, given that one of its upstanding examples
of welfare reform is New Jersey, which makes an unplanned pregnancy to
a woman already on AFDC even more likely to be unwanted. (Another free
hint. The pregnancy rate for women on AFDC has remained unchanged, but
the birth rate has dropped radically. Do you all like to think these
are all spontaneous abortions? If so, you had best start looking into
the nutrition and health of NJ women)
Michael, I don't particularly care how many relatives you put on a
pedestal for leaving their other children motherless, while carrying to
term. It has been my experience from dealing with survivors of a
maternal death that the pain was worth less than the dubious baby, if
it survived, (not to mention survivor guilt on the part of a person who
did live through a birth his mother died in)
I am excrutiatingly familiar with Gestational Diabetes, along with the
lingering effect on friends family and myself. I am also personally
familiar with the effects of pre-eclampsia, post-partum vascular
collapse, liver and kidney failure, cardiac arythmia, hypo and
hypertension........
I do know that a lot of this can be controlled by nutrition, however, I
see people working to cut nutritional options off from the very women
who need it most.
I see people trying to ban abortions, while cutting off money for new
mouths, training and job assistance for parents, daycare, education,
and a new attempt at "stigmatizing" single parents, which will only
increase the pressure on people dealing with unplanned pregnancies to
discontinue same. The Catholic bishops of the US have even pointed
this out. The $500 sop is not enough to keep one kid in cloth diapers,
let alone buy a breast pump, arrange for child care, formula for those
who insist on or need to use, cloths, a decent education, even
in public schools, which so many disparage, and certainly does nothing
for decent prenatal care, even among direct-entry midwives.
I had two grandmothers come close to death after criminal abortions,
an aunt lost her fertility, also due to illegal and unsafe abortions.
their backs were against the wall from knowing there was no support for
the kids. I see us going back to this now.
Lets look at better contraception, better education, better child
support, better child-care, and much better medical care for people. I
would like to see paid leave for parents, I would like to see better
opportunities for parents working outside the home.
As far as contraception after one or more births, I have to wonder how
much obstetrical information you gleaned as an assistant. Both
cervical caps and diaphrams become a difficult fit, if not impossible
after multiple births. Hormonal solutions are not adequate or safe for
many women and IUD's are definitely not safe for women without a
monogamous partner. Do the math. A lot of us are limited to barrier
methods, rhythm, condoms, and some other barrier methods or alternate
sexual practices
meg
|
| 20.5385 | | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Aug 15 1996 03:50 | 14 |
| RE:.5381
I hope you forgot the ;-), or that it is just assumed in the BOX.
Otherwise, the view that humans are destructive parasites is precisely
what I was talking about.
Frank (who spent the afternoon in the park with a line of "destructive
parasites" waiting their turn to throw the frisbee for my border
collie, Lady Diana)
|
| 20.5386 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Aug 15 1996 03:53 | 8 |
| Michael
I guess you could also say tapeworms and roundworms are not within a
woman's body.
Neither are some forms of cancer.
meg
|
| 20.5387 | | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Aug 15 1996 04:27 | 55 |
| re: .5384
Meg,
Beyond the hard cases of complicated pregnacies, the abortion pressure
comes from the current teaching that a pregnancy must be planned before
it is permitted to be wanted.
I absolutely agree that many of the trends to "get tough" on destitute
women who are pregnant flies in the face on any possible claim to value
human life.
I am not advocating any nonsense such as encouraging pregnancy without
any consideration of the ability to care for the resulting children.
We need to focus tightly on positive, tangible expression of our
individual and our social valuation of each individual in our
community. We need to foster higher self regard than our current
institutions permit.
It is not enough to teach our young that sex makes babies. It is not
enough to teach our young that sex can be a vector for (now) deadly
disease.
There must be a real evident hope for a rich participation in a
respectful society before our young will be able to value their persons
highly enough to avoid self destructive behavior.
And yet we must be realistic and expect that there will be families,
single women (and children) who will bear children that they can not
hope to support if our social structure remains as it is.
If we wish to arrest the tragedy of abortion, then carrying a child to
term has to be more than just a "viable" option. It has to be the most
desirable option.
Making it a desirable option has to be more than just providing for the
physical support requirements of the family, the woman or the child.
We need a society that permits (and expresses) joy at the birth of a
child. Any child.
None of this can really be "legislated". We can only work with the
educational facilities. Home, church and schools.
How did the view that each new birth is "one more parasite" get such a
grip on Western minds? Or is only "their" births that are the
"parasites"?
At this point I must confess that I was once a firm believer in such
tripe. It is only as I grew older, having made nearly irrevocable life
decisions based on such cant, that I have understood the utter
destructiveness of such viewpoints.
Frank
|
| 20.5388 | | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Kabal wins.....FATALITY | Thu Aug 15 1996 04:36 | 4 |
| Well, utter destructiveness is what this planet needs. Actually,
the anhilliation of every last man, woman, and child. But since that
isn't likely to happen any time soon, other control measures need to be
studied.
|
| 20.5389 | An unusual position, have you thought it through? | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Aug 15 1996 04:45 | 8 |
| Hmm, I guess the ommission of the smiley was not inadvertant.
Is there a topic where the details of your ethical stance is being
discussed?
Have you sought any professional help?
FJP
|
| 20.5390 | | MFGFIN::EPPERSON | driven by demons | Thu Aug 15 1996 04:51 | 4 |
| Ed doesn`t need any professional help. What Ed needs is to be turned
loose in public with a loaded SKS so that he can lay some worthless
people to death. The world is like a very dirty stall that really
needs a cleaning, and Ed has a very large shovel.
|
| 20.5391 | | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Kabal wins.....FATALITY | Thu Aug 15 1996 04:59 | 5 |
| Okay, I admit I went a little too far. Since I am always
ridiculing other people's religious beliefs in this conference, I won't
go into the details of Death Worship here. It is enough to say that
anyone who believes that overpopulation is not a problem is either
ignorant or one helluvan optimist.
|
| 20.5392 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | R.I.P.-30AUG96 | Thu Aug 15 1996 05:09 | 4 |
| I disagree. This planet has not reached its maximum occupancy, and
probably won't for about another 100 years when it is predicted that
the population growth will level off.
-ss
|
| 20.5393 | Ever been to Montana, or the South of France? | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Aug 15 1996 05:12 | 22 |
| Do the math... (Careful now, Marian Vos Savant missed by two orders of
magnitude.)
Overpopulation could _become_ a problem. Absolutely no question about
that. It is really hard to tell what the limit for the planet is. I'd
say we are at about 10% across the planet. The Indian subcontinent is
undoubtably in worse shape.
Ridiculous distribution mechanisms are definitely a _current_ problem.
Grain is rotting in the midwest and cows are fat while people starve.
"Butter mountains" are political hot potatoes in Europe.
We value the "American Standard of Living" much more than human life.
There is no energy expended to ensure that prosperity takes in the
entire citizenry, much less the rest of the world. Even market
mechanisms that could help in this spread are vigorously opposed.
Is there a Malthusian disaster topic in the BOX?
Frank
|
| 20.5394 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 15 1996 12:21 | 30 |
| The butter mountains and wine lakes were the result of poor
agricultural policy - paying farmers CAP funds to produce foods instead
of letting market forces take care of it. Very little to do with
population forces. (And yes, I've spent a lot of time in the south of
France. In some parts it's wall-to-wall people. In August, it's all
wall-to-wall Parisians.)
If you want to trace a plausible relationship between the abortion,
population and political ideology you have to consider the structure of
Western economies. Anyone who has studied economics 101 knows that
people are a commodity to be bought, sold, and traded. However, it is
people (or rather their sweat) that are the essential component in all
economies no matter what other resources you have. The one thing that
you cannot afford to run out of is enough people. It is one of the
very few limiting factors on development and sustaining constant and
"healthy" economic growth inan industrial economy. When people are in
short supply, wages (and operating costs) are high, profits are low,
markets are not expanding. We are told that none of us will get any
richer without healthy sustainable growth.
Consider a population in full control of its own reproductive destiny.
The "supply side" economics would be firmly on the side of the
worker bee. A pool of labour is essential to a capitalist system, or
so the capitalist economists tell us. We're told that if the pool
dries up, we will all suffer because of the effects on the market (yet
we're simultaneously told that the unemployed leeches in the pool are
sucking us dry with welfare benefits).
Colin
|
| 20.5395 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Aug 15 1996 12:24 | 82 |
|
Pregnant Woman Arrested For Drinking, Endangering
Unborn Child
By Associated Press, 08/14/96
CHESTERFIELD, N.H. (AP) - A pregnant Chesterfield
woman charged with endangering the welfare of her
fetus by getting drunk says police can't tell her
what to do with her body.
``This is my body. If I choose to abort, if I
choose to do anything to my body, it's my body,''
Rosemarie Tourigny, 31, maintains.
Police filed the charge against Tourigny Friday
night during a shouting match at a local motel,
said Sgt. Lester Fairbanks. Her blood-alcohol
content was 0.21 percent, he said.
As part of Tourigny's bail conditions, she must
not drink. She must check in daily with
Chesterfield police and go to Alcoholics Anonymous
meetings, Fairbanks said.
Tourigny said Friday afternoon was the first time
in four months she had fallen off the wagon. Even
so, she claims it's not the government's business.
Tourigny says it doesn't matter because she is
planning on having an abortion as soon as she can
afford one. She said she doesn't yet have the
money for the second-trimester abortion, which
would be done in Boston.
Fairbanks said he brought the charge to protect
the fetus. He said he didn't consult any experts
before bringing it.
``She can pickle herself all she wants, but that
child doesn't have an opportunity to decide
whether it's going to be retarded or not,'' he
said. ``Somebody has to have responsibility for
her unborn child.''
He said Massachusetts authorities have taken three
children from Tourigny, who comes from Gardner,
Mass. She recently was a resident at an alcohol
and drug treatment center.
Tourigny blamed Friday's three-hour drinking binge
on stress brought on by her fight to regain
custody of her children. The children - a
6-year-old and 4-year-old twins - were taken from
her two years ago because of allegations of
physical abuse, she said. Authorities are in the
process of putting one child up for adoption, she
said.
Her arraignment on the misdemeanor charge is
scheduled for Sept. 9 in Keene District Court. The
maximum penalty is a year in jail and a $2,000
fine.
AP-DS-08-14-96 1545EDT
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or
video material shall not be published, broadcast,
rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed
directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP
Materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a
computer except for personal and non-commercial use.The
AP will not be held liable for any delays,
inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the
transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or
for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
[Majesty Cruises]
------------------------------------------------
Search Feedback Talk About Us Email the Globe Back to
Boston.Com
|
| 20.5396 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 15 1996 12:38 | 21 |
| Re .5315:
> Certainly to _kill_ to defend your home the threat has to be more
> than a little baby sleeping in the front parlor for seven or eight
> months.
Fetuses do not sleep for seven or eigth months; they cause a great deal
of change in the mother's body, draining it literally and figuratively.
> If the effects on the mother's body are not expected to be life
> threatening, then the mother's defense need not be to kill.
Yes, it needs to be, since there is no other way to terminate the
assault.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5398 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 15 1996 12:44 | 19 |
| Re .5377:
> It only voids the conclusion when one refuses to accept the concept
> of responsibility for the defenseless and dependent members of society.
I have no responsibility for anybody else, period.
> By voluntary act of engaging in sexual intercourse, the laws of
> nature may impose upon a couple the responsibility . . .
Nature is physical; responsibility is ethical. Nature knows nothing of
responsibility and imposes it upon nobody.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5399 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 15 1996 12:48 | 11 |
| Re .5334:
Your incorrect argument has been addressed previously, in .4767 and
.4783.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5400 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Thu Aug 15 1996 13:27 | 14 |
| re .5378
> A recent series on articles in the Washington Post has highlighted the
> fact that no woman chooses to obtain an abortion in the same way that,
> say, any person chooses to have a Martini or a Big-Mac. (I use the
> sweeping generalization "no woman" with the usual caution that applies
> to all such blanket statements.)
I know I've said this in here before, but I had several friends in college
that had already decided that in the event of an unplanned pregnancy,
they would immediately opt for an abortion.
|
| 20.5401 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, DTN 847 6586 | Thu Aug 15 1996 13:32 | 9 |
| <<< Note 20.5400 by CNTROL::JENNISON "It's all about soul" >>>
> I know I've said this in here before, but I had several friends in college
> that had already decided that in the event of an unplanned pregnancy,
> they would immediately opt for an abortion.
Sounds eminently sensible to me.
|
| 20.5402 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Thu Aug 15 1996 13:35 | 11 |
| .5396
So now pregnancy is reduced to the poor woman being victimized by the
bad old fetus (which would not be there without the mother and father
consenting to behave in a certain manner well known to produce
offspring). Yes, we must end such "assaults" forever more. Ban
fetuses! (that would certainly solve ALL our problems eventually -
solve 'em for good, too)
-steve
|
| 20.5403 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Ranch send no girl | Thu Aug 15 1996 13:57 | 2 |
| I think that Chesterfield woman needs to meet a nice Sofa man or an
ottoman.
|
| 20.5404 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Thu Aug 15 1996 13:58 | 3 |
|
How clever of you to couch your argument in those terms.
|
| 20.5405 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:01 | 9 |
| Steve,
If you injure yourself doing karate, will you pay for the Dr out ofyour
own pocket, and refuse any sicktime/disability payments from digital?
I mean, it is a voluntary act on your part, and there is a real, if
small risk of serious injury/disability.
meg
|
| 20.5406 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Ranch send no girl | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:19 | 3 |
| |How clever of you to couch your argument in those terms.
You some sort of arm chair critic?
|
| 20.5407 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:21 | 3 |
|
Perhaps we should table this discussion.
|
| 20.5408 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Ranch send no girl | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:27 | 1 |
| Why don't you furnish us with a reason to.
|
| 20.5409 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:31 | 3 |
|
Oh, calling me on the carpet, are you?
|
| 20.5410 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:41 | 17 |
| Re .5402:
> So now pregnancy is reduced . . .
Reduced? Who said anything about reduced? Who said anything about
that being ALL there was to pregnancy? The effects on the mother's
body are factors. You might not like the fact that they have to be
considered in the pregnancy, but that's your problem. They do have to
be considered, and fabricating a lie that the pregnancy is "reduced" to
that doesn't change it.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5411 | IMNSHO | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:43 | 20 |
| I'm going to get out of this topic, simply because it is an argument
that can't be won by either side. My opinion is that the pro-life side
is deluded. The arguments of the fetus not belonging to the pregnant
woman and comparing abortion rights to slavery are non sequitur
arguments that really only prove the delusion and show a lack of any
objective, reality based logic.
Also, IMO the badly misguided concept of "murdering" fetuses springs from
emotional brainwashings by false political and "spiritual" leaders, leaders
who support agendas needed to advance their own self-serving demagogic
livelihoods. At any stage or situation, a fetus is nothing more than
protoplasm. The fetus is not a baby, not a child, not a human being. The
defining essence or attribute of a human being is consciousness, conscious
awareness and conscious functioning. The fetus has no consciousness. The
fetus is not a human being. The fetus has no rights. The fetus requires no
legal or moral protection. The pregnant woman is the only conscious being
that reasonably needs protection, especially from the onslaught of
those presumptuous individuals and groups who "know" that they are the
keepers of all "truth".
|
| 20.5412 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:44 | 14 |
| >Sort of like a slave belongs to its owners?
Sort of like a child belongs to its parents when the subject
of sex education arises.
>By voluntary act of engaging in sexual intercourse, the laws
>of nature may impose upon a couple the responsibility of raising
>a child to the age at which it can fend for itself or to find
>other parents for it.
No they don't. You just made that up. Or someone else did, and
you are parroting it.
|
| 20.5413 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:45 | 18 |
| >What would it take to create an environment where there is virtually
>unanimous joy on the occasion of any pregnancy?
It would take an environment where there is virtually unanimous
ability to prevent conception as a consequence of having sex.
The fact that many so-called pro-life people are actually trying to
PREVENT that from happening shows very clearly that their true
agenda is not what they claim.
>I have known several couples with fertility problems. How can we
>arrange that all women would be in a position to allow the joy that
>these couples would have experienced if their efforts had been
>successful?
The same way we could arrange that all people have blue eyes and
blonde hair.
|
| 20.5414 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:45 | 18 |
| > This planet is virtually uninhabited.
Have I got a deal for you! 3 acres with a view of the south pole,
and I'll let you have 'em for $5000 down!
>I disagree. This planet has not reached its maximum occupancy, and
>probably won't for about another 100 years when it is predicted that
>the population growth will level off.
Hogwash. There are places on the planet today where the population
has attained a level such that starvation, disease, or natural
disasters of one kind or another are the only thing that keeps the
numbers from continuing to increase.
You may want to live with the entire planet in that situation, but
I sure don't. Just because there is room for 8 more people in
your cubicle doesn't mean we should put them there.
|
| 20.5415 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:56 | 7 |
| The whole population put in sardine can form would fill the state of
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
Most of the world people populate urban areas. There is alot of sparse
land out there.
-Jack
|
| 20.5416 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Will Work For Latte | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:57 | 4 |
|
Would they really be in Rhode Island, then, or just in sardine cans
that happen to be in Rhode Island?
|
| 20.5417 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Thu Aug 15 1996 14:59 | 6 |
| There's a lot of barren land out there, incapable of sustaining more
than a couple humans per square mile... if that.
Chairman Mao made this same mistake, assuming that all that empty land
meant room for more people. He encouraged population growth. The land
didn't (and still doesn't) support it.
|
| 20.5418 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 15 1996 15:04 | 5 |
| > The whole population put in sardine can form
Yup, that's how I want to live, allright...
Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it is a good idea.
|
| 20.5419 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 15 1996 15:06 | 2 |
| Besides, when we're all in the can, the phone will ring. It never
fails.
|
| 20.5420 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Thu Aug 15 1996 15:07 | 7 |
| The question is:
Who has to live upside down?
Living in Rhode Island is a horrible enough thing to contemplate. Living
in Rhode Island with everyone else, face to foot, packed in oil and bunged
up with some botulin bateria just adds to the image.
|
| 20.5421 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 15 1996 15:08 | 11 |
| I was just making the point that the space humans take is minimal in
scope of the land mass.
Z There's a lot of barren land out there, incapable of sustaining more
Z than a couple humans per square mile... if that.
Walt Disney built his palace in Florida on what was considered swamp
land. I believe our technology will very soon allow us to live where
it may now be inconceivable. Buy desert property!
-Jack
|
| 20.5422 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Aug 15 1996 15:10 | 32 |
| > <<< Note 20.5327 by DECWET::MPETERSON "Max Overhead" >>>
> My freedom to swing ends at your nose because statute and case law
> express and enforce this limit. Without the protection provided
> by such laws I can do what I will and suffer no consequence.
Nonsense. Laws are nothing but words on a piece of paper. Your freedom ends
at my nose because you have violated my freedom by force. No one needs a law
to tell them that such an individual is acting immorally, and needs to be
restrained. You must be one of those folks who believe that society would
crumble if the cops disappeared.
> More generally, rationale societies establish laws that
> seek a balance between the freedom to swing one's arms and the
> responsibility to protect the noses of its citizens.
Well, that leaves us out, because the Supreme Court has ruled that government
has no resposibilty to protect any individual whatsoever. Which is as it
should be - aside from assigning every single citizen their own personal
bodyguard, it's impossible.
The problem is, the politicians aren't satisfied with that. They'll pass a
law banning swinging your arms, and trumpet how they've "gotten tough". In
actual fact, nothing whatsoever is there to protect you when someone swings,
swinging your arms is now illegal, even for a good reason, and the
politicians who engineered the whole thing get re-elected.
> Under this model, I seek to constrain a mother's desire to abort her
> fetus because I believe the fetus has the same rights as
> the fetus after birth. Both are, after all, the same individual.
Yep, a perfect non-solution. Women will continue to get abortions anyway, and
the politicians come out smiling.
|
| 20.5423 | But I don't want land, father. | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 15 1996 15:10 | 2 |
| ....I build me castle and it sank into the swamp. So I built another
castle, and that burned, fell over and sank into the swamp....
|
| 20.5424 | re:. 5386 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Aug 15 1996 15:39 | 14 |
| csc32_m::evans writes:
>I guess you could also say tapeworms and roundworms are not within a
>woman's body.
If I recall parisitology correctly, tapeworms are in the gut and
so are external to the body. Roundworms, however, penetrate thru
the soles of their victims feet during one stage of their lives and,
for a time, are within the host's body.
>Neither are some forms of cancer.
Which forms would these be?
Michael
|
| 20.5425 | re: .5411 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Aug 15 1996 16:02 | 31 |
| genral::ralston writes:
>My opinion is that the pro-life side
>is deluded. The arguments of the fetus not belonging to the pregnant
>woman and comparing abortion rights to slavery are non sequitur
>arguments
Too bad you're opting out of the debate. I would have been
very interested in understanding why you believe that slavery
and abortion rights, or more correctly the premise upon which
abortion rights are founded, are not related.
That premise is, as abortion rights advocates in this forum have argued,
that a woman's right to abort her fetus derives *directly* from the
assumption that since the fetus is a part of her body then it follows
that it "belongs" to her(1). As with cars, ownership carries with it
the freedom to {sell, junk} it if the car becomes inconvenient or does
not meet the owner's expecations.
I call your attention to the Dred Scott decision: In that decision,
Mr. Scott was judged by the Supreme court of the United States not to
be a person, but a slave, and ordered returned to Missouri.
In RvW, a whole class of individuals (i.e., fetuses) have been judged
to be less than human and not deserving of the full protection of the
constitution.
Michael
(1) A corollary argument is that since the fetus has a dramatic physiological
impact on the mother then it follows that she has a right to choose to
carry it to term.
|
| 20.5426 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Thu Aug 15 1996 16:05 | 18 |
| .5414
> There are places on the planet today where the population
> has attained a level such that...
Codswallop. The problem is not the sheer number of people, it is the
ways the world's people choose to live. Slash-and-burn agriculture,
lack of crop rotation, ill-conceived non-contour irrigation, and other
stupid avoidable mistakes have rendered roughly 1/3 of the world's
arable land useless for farming. Additionally, the United States,
instead of freeling sharing its wealth, elects to play dog in the
manger, hoarding millions of tons of grains that will *rot* rather than
give the stuff away to starving people overseas. If food were shared
equitably all over the planet, and if we hadn't made such a damn mess
of it in our greed, and if we were willing to settle for a lifestyle
that doesn't include raping the entire planet of its natural resources
to please the privileged few, there would easily be room and resources
for twice the current population.
|
| 20.5427 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 15 1996 16:17 | 8 |
| .5399
Your arguments in .4767 and .4783 were without merit when originally
entered and are no more so meritorious because of age.
Individuals bear responsibility for their actions, particularly when
another person is involved, and it is not an issue that a society has no
interest in.
|
| 20.5428 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Aug 15 1996 16:32 | 7 |
| Rocush,
Do you participate in any risky behaviors, such as driving? If you are
in an accident do you depend on the insurance to pay, or do you pay it
all out of pocket?
|
| 20.5429 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 15 1996 16:33 | 21 |
| Re .5427:
> Your arguments in .4767 and .4783 were without merit when originally
> entered and are no more so meritorious because of age.
Your rebuttal to .4783 is without existence and is no more extant
because of age.
> Individuals bear responsibility for their actions, . . .
No, individuals have no responsibility for their actions -- they have
responsibility for wrongs done or promises made. Any action that does
no wrong or makes no promise incurs no responsibility. As
demonstrated, engaging in sex is neither wrong nor a promise.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5430 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 15 1996 16:36 | 11 |
| Z Additionally, the United States,
Z instead of freeling sharing its wealth, elects to play dog in the
Z manger, hoarding millions of tons of grains that will *rot* rather
Z than give the stuff away to starving people overseas.
I asked about this once. I was told the major problem here is
distribution and governments.
Bring four tons of grain to Nigeria and their horrid government will
confiscate it so it will rot right on the barge. Also, who would foot
the bill for this kind of transportation?
|
| 20.5431 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Thu Aug 15 1996 16:40 | 14 |
| .5430
> distribution and governments
All of which can be overcome with money. Offer the Nigerian government
a billion dollsrs cash if it will let us distribute a billion dollars'
worth of food directly to the people.
> ... who would foot the bill...
I already give more than 10% of everything I earn - not including
taxation; that's extra - to charitable causes, of which a significant
majority are in the business of providing food to people who otherwise
would starve. How about you?
|
| 20.5432 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 15 1996 16:54 | 25 |
| Z All of which can be overcome with money. Offer the Nigerian
Z government a billion dollsrs cash if it will let us distribute a billion
Z dollars' worth of food directly to the people.
A billion dollars to a radical government is as damaging as
Iran/Contra. Gummints would use the money for armaments and
underground activity including drug trafficking. We'd be cutting off
our nose to spite our face. The concept isn't that easy. Furthermore,
1B of our tax money being used as a bribe is nothing more than
extortion.
> ... who would foot the bill...
Z I already give more than 10% of everything I earn - not including
Z taxation; that's extra - to charitable causes, of which a significant
Z majority are in the business of providing food to people who
Z otherwise would starve. How about you?
I also give 10% but I give it to the local church. This way, I know how
the money is being spent. While it is true the food is rotting, I
would suspect the farmer would want a stipend for these heaps. Combine
that with transportation and it appears we still have a problem. The
government apparently doesn't see this as doable!
-Jack
|
| 20.5433 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Thu Aug 15 1996 17:18 | 17 |
| .5432
> I give it to the local church. This way, I know how
> the money is being spent.
No better than I know how the organizations to which I give are
spending my money, I'm sure. I don't give to the United Way, Jack; I
choose carefully.
> farmer would want a stipend for these heaps.
The farmer has already been paid for the stuff. It's the property of
the government.
> government apparently doesn't see this as doable!
Why does that not surprise me?
|
| 20.5434 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Future Chevy Blazer owner | Thu Aug 15 1996 17:28 | 5 |
|
<<<< I already give 10% of my earnings....
I knew it!!! You've been a closet Mormon all these years. This indeed
speaks volumes about you.
|
| 20.5435 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Thu Aug 15 1996 17:32 | 1 |
| Not bloody likely, Mark.
|
| 20.5436 | Better analogy. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 15 1996 18:19 | 17 |
| .5428
Your analogy is flawed. Driving a car does not result in the creation
or destruction of life. If you wanted a better analogy, you should use
drunk driving.
If I drink and drive I now, through my voluntary actions, place other
innocent people at risk. I can claim that the person I killed was
unplanned or unwanted, but is wholely without merit as I undertook to
conduct myself in a fashion that could reasonably be expected to result
in negative consequenses.
I can hear it now. "Did your car jump the curb and kill that
pedestrian?" "Yes, Your Honor, but that person was unplanned so it
doesn't count. I didn't think that being drunk out of my mind should
have any bearing on what happened." Yeah, I want to hear that defense.
|
| 20.5437 | Wrong again. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 15 1996 18:22 | 9 |
| .5429
Engaging in sex may be neither wrong nor represent a promise. Creating
a baby human life does.
You can engage in all of the sex you want and be totally without any
promise, once your sexual activity creates another person then you have
a responsibility whether you want it or not really doesn't matter.
|
| 20.5438 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Aug 15 1996 19:14 | 7 |
| As I have pointed out, God took at least four of those "persons" from
my uterus,.
Driving a car is voluntary act that can easily kill someone, however
small the risk, sober or drunk.
|
| 20.5439 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 15 1996 19:31 | 13 |
| > If ... there would easily be room and resources for twice the
> current population.
OK, and then what would happen?
>[ the US could feed the world, or whatever ]
It's interesting in this day and age of avid opposition to
welfare that someone thinks the United States should single-
handedly provide food for the entire planet. Or do you think
we should conquer the entire planet so we can bestow on
everyone the enlightenment of American agricultural knowhow?
|
| 20.5440 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 15 1996 19:47 | 38 |
| Re .5436:
> Your analogy is flawed. Driving a car does not result in the creation
> or destruction of life.
The analogy is not flawed. The issue in question is not whether or not
life is created, but whether or not undertaking actions with known
possible consequences causes responsibility. That issue is
definitively disproven by the car-thief example.
> I can claim that the person I killed was unplanned or unwanted, but
> is wholely without merit as I undertook to conduct myself in a fashion
> that could reasonably be expected to result in negative consequenses.
The same is true of jogging through Central Park at night: It could
reasonably be expected to result in negative consequences. By your
argument, that undertaking an action with a reasonable expectation of
negative consequences, a person is responsible for the result, then a
murdered jogger is responsible for their own death.
> I can hear it now. "Did your car jump . . .
Making up fictitious arguments for the opposition is invalid reasoning.
A drunk driver is responsible for deaths they cause by the
non-fictitious principle I gave earlier: They caused damage. A jogger
is not responsible for their own death because they did not _cause_ it.
Similarly, a woman who gets pregnant has not caused any damage to the
baby, so she has incurred no responsibility. But the baby does cause
damage to the woman, even if that damage is caused without intent. The
mother has a right to stop that damage.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5441 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 15 1996 19:49 | 15 |
| Re .5437:
> Engaging in sex may be neither wrong nor represent a promise. Creating
> a baby human life does.
You can tell no promise has been made because promises can be made only
with communication -- such as written or oral statements. Acts alone
are not promises.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5442 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 15 1996 19:55 | 8 |
| .5438
Abortion is a voluntary act that WILL kill someone. The risk of death
to the baby is 100%.
With your first sentence are you implying that you can play GOD with a
baby's life?? Very dangerous ground.
|
| 20.5443 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 15 1996 19:59 | 22 |
| Re .5442:
> Abortion is a voluntary act that WILL kill someone. The risk of
> death to the baby is 100%.
Yes, abortion kills. It is self-defense. The baby caused damage to
the mother first. Although the baby has no conscious intent, it still
did the damage first, and the mother has a right to defend herself.
> With your first sentence are you implying that you can play GOD with a
> baby's life??
There is no god. It is a stupid idea.
As long as the job's vacant, somebody might as well do it.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5444 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 15 1996 20:00 | 15 |
| .5440
Wrong analogy again. The woman who has sex and gets pregnant does
damage to the baby. the damage to her is self-inflicted by the
activity she engaged in.
Taking your Central Park jogger as your analogy, in order to make it
appropriate, you need to insert the right circumstances. If your
jogger runs through Central Park, sees a group of thugs and says, "Beat
the hell out of me." this she willingly did and if she ends up dead
because someone hit her too hard, that is her responsibility and I
doubt seriously that there would be any significant criminal charges
brought. Wait a minute, I forgot about the stupid legal system we
have, maybe they would have charges brought, but they shouldn't.
|
| 20.5445 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 15 1996 20:12 | 19 |
| Re .5444:
> The woman who has sex and gets pregnant does damage to the baby.
Getting pregnant does not damage the baby.
> If your jogger runs through Central Park, sees a group of thugs and
> says, "Beat the hell out of me."
In your new, modified analogy, the jogger has communicated with the
thugs. If we make a similar modification to the pregnancy, and the
mother tells the baby she will bear it, then she should.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5446 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 15 1996 20:57 | 11 |
| .5445
My sentence should have said,...has an abortion. that definitely
damages the baby.
The rest of your note, I assume, is an attempt at humor since you can
no longer support your analogy. But just in case you may have been
seriouus, the communication is done between the sperm and the egg.
I've never been there at the time so I'm not sure how much discussion
gose on, but I can assure you there is clear communication.
|
| 20.5447 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 15 1996 21:25 | 5 |
| >With your first sentence are you implying that you can play GOD with a
>baby's life?? Very dangerous ground.
Now let's see ... "God" would be a concept _you_ made up, right?
|
| 20.5448 | Didn't follow this one | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Fri Aug 16 1996 12:22 | 7 |
| RE: .5413
My neighbors would not be happy if we insisted that all babies had blue
eyes and blond hair ;-)
FJP
|
| 20.5449 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 16 1996 12:36 | 19 |
| >>I have known several couples with fertility problems. How can we
>>arrange that all women would be in a position to allow the joy that
>>these couples would have experienced if their efforts had been
>>successful?
>The same way we could arrange that all people have blue eyes and
>blonde hair.
> -<Didn't follow this one>-
>My neighbors would not be happy if we insisted that all babies had blue
>eyes and blond hair ;-)
I was making a sarcastic comment on the writer's question about
how we could arrange things so that all women would be as happy
to bear a child as women who want kids but have fertility problems.
The only way I can think of is by some sort of "social engineering",
past attempts at which have led to some unhappy results.
|
| 20.5450 | You can't depend on planning | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Fri Aug 16 1996 12:48 | 26 |
| re: .5400
"I know I've said this in here before, but I had several friends in
college that had already decided that in the event of an unplanned
pregnancy, they would immediately opt for an abortion. "
This is my point. Starting out life with this kind mind set is a
horrendous impoverishment. What are we doing that teaches people to
think in this fashion?
The notion that you will be able to have children when you "plan" them
is a rock that many couples have foundered on, which much sorrow.
This is the real disease. Abortion rates are only the symptom.
Doubtless, many who think they have made this decision will reconsider.
If this had been the rule in my parents day, I might be missing two
sisters. According to my parents, I was the only child who was
"planned". My older sister and my younger were "surprises". (But not
a startling surprise, I expect ;-)
Several couples that were close friends of my parents had "un-planned"
children as well. Wonderful people now. All of them.
Frank
|
| 20.5451 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Fri Aug 16 1996 13:27 | 33 |
| .5410
My point was, if I may extend it to what may not have been obvious by
what I wrote (but was what I was thinking while writing it), that in
order to argue for abortion "rights", you have to somehow demonize or
dehumanize the unborn. If it ain't "human" or a "person" (however
subjectively we may define these terms in our own mind), then there's
nothing wrong with ridding ourselves of this biological nuissance/drain.
It's merely a way to assuage guilt for that which we know intuitively is
wrong, IMO, for the sake of convenience.
The pro-choice arguments (that I've seen in here) center around four
things:
1) the unborn is part of the mother's body, thus she can terminate it as
she would a tumor (a demonstrably false assumption, FWIW)
2) the unborn is not human (also false)
3) the unborn is not a person, thus has no "right to life"
4) the unborn is a health detriment to the mother, thus she should be
able to terminate her pregnancy (and I'm not talking about aborting to
save the life of the mother, either... such a decision can only be made
by the mother, IMO)
There are other, sillier arguments, like aborting the unborn due to
financial situation (which puts $$ above human life), and the like.
-steve
|
| 20.5452 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 16 1996 13:28 | 9 |
| >This is my point. Starting out life with this kind mind set is a
>horrendous impoverishment.
No it isn't.
>What are we doing that teaches people to think in this fashion?
Encouraging common sense.
|
| 20.5453 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 16 1996 13:33 | 14 |
| >in order to argue for abortion "rights", you have to somehow
>demonize or dehumanize the unborn.
No you don't.
The pro-choice arguments (that I've seen in here) center around four
things:
>1) the unborn is part of the mother's body, thus she can terminate
>it as she would a tumor (a demonstrably false assumption, FWIW)
She certainly CAN terminate it, and often does. Isn't that exactly
what you all are complaining about? You seem to be a little confused.
|
| 20.5454 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 16 1996 14:51 | 18 |
|
.5453
The majority of those who espouse an unrestricted pro-choice position
base their argument on the fact that the fetus is not a human being and
therefore not entitled to any rights. Also, the fetus is no more than
a clump od cells and can be eliminated the same as any tumor, etc.
There are also those radical extremists who really don't care whether
the fetus is a human being or not, you can kill it at any time. this
is a group of people who represent a true minority and really need not
be included in any debate or discussion as their radical extremism
precludes any rational discussion. the same applies to the staunchly
pro-life people who would refuse abortion even if the alternative was
the death of the mother. these people get grouped with the other
radicals on the other side. Both should be ignored and marginalized as
merely noise.
|
| 20.5455 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 16 1996 15:19 | 24 |
| >There are also those radical extremists who really don't care whether
>the fetus is a human being or not, you can kill it at any time.
And then there is a whole big group like myself who really don't
care what arguments you try to use to justify sticking your nose
into people's bodies, and isn't going to allow you to do it in
any case.
>this is a group of people who represent a true minority and really
>need not be included in any debate or discussion
One of the wonderful things about this country is that it does not
matter what the majority want, or how small the minority is, if
the majority are trying to do something to the minority that is not
allowed by the constitution. This is the same constitution that
explicitly prevents RR and other fanatics from imposing their
opinions on everyone else. You can't ignore any minority you choose
just because you are powerless to deal with it. Suck it up there,
big fella, and learn to deal with it.
Pro-choice people take responsibility for their own behavior. You
should do the same, instead of trying to modify everyone else's
behavior.
|
| 20.5456 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Aug 16 1996 16:20 | 20 |
| >==============================================================================
>Note 20.5455 Abortion 5455 of 5455
>RUSURE::GOODWIN "Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburge" 24 lines 16-AUG-1996 11:19
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Pro-choice people take responsibility for their own behavior. You
> should do the same, instead of trying to modify everyone else's
> behavior.
Not quite true. Many Pro-choice people in this forum want to FORCE a
modification (to be defenseless) on othe people thru so call gun
control.
When you come down to it, there are pro-choice (for everyone for
everything) people and there are pro-abortion (to hell with you on your
desires, my abortion 'rights' are all that counts) people.
Which are you...?
Steve
|
| 20.5457 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Fri Aug 16 1996 16:49 | 36 |
| Steve,
I think you are missing the flavors of pro-choice in the world and are
over generalizing AGAIN.
There are those of us who are practically libertarian regarding choice
in a whole batch of things, including substances, weaponry,
reproductive choices, lifestyle choices, etc.
There are those who are pro choice for certain things, and
pro-prohibition for others.
With the exception of the implied threats in Idaho, Utah, New Jersey,
South Carolina and California regarding what happens to single, poor
women who become pregnant, I haven't met anyone who believes that all
pregnancies to certain classes of women should be aborted, in the US
which is pro-abortion IMNSHO. The current welfare deform act will most
likely also encourage more terminations of pregnancies, with its
draconian rules on support for children and poor women. the Catholic
Bishops have already pointed this out.
I am pro-choice for more than the reason that only a woman, her Dr, her
diety, and hopefully her SO should be involved in reproductive choice.
While I deplore some reasons some women give for abortions, I also
recognize that if we let the government begin making some reproductive
choices for women, that it may not be that much longer before it starts
making ALL reproductive choices for ALL women, eg Romania and China.
Being forced to take a pregnancy test every month, and having the
government tell me what I can and can't about it should I come up + is
not freedom. In both cases it has lead to demographic imbalances,
orphans, dead mothers, abandoned children, more dead mothers, a high
rate of infant mortality, more dead women, infections, sterility, and
even still more dead women.
meg
|
| 20.5458 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 16 1996 17:15 | 24 |
| .5457
If I read your note correctly you believe that it is an all or nothing
situation. Either there is total, unrestricted abortions for anyone,
at any time, under any circumstances or the government will require you
to take a monthly pregnancy test and terminate those pregnancies they
don't want or force you to get pregnant if you don't want to.
If that's the case, then I guess, once again, I disagree with you as I
believe there is a reasonable and rational position that can be taken.
It would respect life as well as protect the mother.
Also, your statment regarding a change in the welfare system leading to
more abortions, I believe, is incorrect. Pregnancy, motherhood and
father hood decisions should never be based on whether or not the
government will provide you with a check. Family decisions should be
based on personal commitments to having a family and personal ability
to maintain a family. If a person is totally without self-control and
must engage in sex without any thought of the consequences, that is a
more deeply rooted problem that welfare checks just mask, but do
nothing to correct. If removing the mask causes people to face the
issue and deal with it on a personal basis, then it has been long
overdue.
|
| 20.5459 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Aug 16 1996 17:43 | 3 |
| deity.
nnttm.
|
| 20.5460 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Fri Aug 16 1996 18:16 | 1 |
| -1 good song by Ministry.
|
| 20.5461 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Fri Aug 16 1996 18:33 | 26 |
| Rocush,
If you have no way to support a child and no way to even support
prenatal care, or you and the father of the baby are likely to wind up
in jail (ALA california, Idaho and Utah) just because a pregnancy
exists, tell me what the pressure is going to be.
"Honey, I know I knocked you up, but you and I will be detained by the
police when this pregnancy is found out, and I may go to jail for up to
5 years. don't you think we should do something about this now?"
having been in a situation where another baby would have sunk all
chances for myself and my living child, (Thankfully I didn't get
pregnant) of the time, I could easily understand where there would be
pressure to abort if there was no way to support that child.
You can disagree with me, but the pregnancy rate for women on Welfare
in NJ is unchanged, however the number of live births has gone down
substantially among women on AFDC. Caseworkers are counseling women to
terminate. and you think it won't happen in other states with Welfare
reform hits.
OBTW How are you on gun possesion and control? For me it is also all
or nothing.
meg
|
| 20.5462 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 16 1996 20:25 | 12 |
| .5461
I still think that if rational people know the consequences of their
actions BEFORE the fact they will generally do the right thing.
Also, my position on gun control and ownership is basically the same as
it is with abortion and sex. You are responsible for what you do with
the gun. I would not outlaw guns nor sex. I would, however, have very
strict laws regarding what happens after you use the gun. I believe
people will do what is appropriate if they know the consequences ion
advance.
|
| 20.5463 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 16 1996 20:34 | 17 |
| >Not quite true. Many Pro-choice people in this forum want to FORCE a
>modification (to be defenseless) on othe people thru so call gun
>control.
True. Nobody's perfect. I don't agree with gun control either.
>When you come down to it, there are pro-choice (for everyone for
>everything) people and there are pro-abortion (to hell with you on
>your desires, my abortion 'rights' are all that counts) people.
>Which are you...?
Pro-choice. My stance on abortion doesn't really matter, since
I will never have one, being a bit too manly for that. :-)
But I support a woman's freedom to make that choice for herself,
as I support the right to bear arms and the other amendments,
except for number 18. :-)
|
| 20.5464 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Fri Aug 16 1996 20:49 | 11 |
| >strict laws regarding what happens after you use the gun. I believe
>people will do what is appropriate if they know the consequences ion
>advance.
I agree that rational people usually act according to their perceived
incentives. The problem with what you are trying to do is that you
are artificially altering the incentives to manipulate people's
behavior to be what _you_ think it should be, instead of what _they_
think it should be. That is inimical to the principles of freedom
and liberty that most of us value so highly in this country.
|
| 20.5465 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 16 1996 21:38 | 17 |
| .5464
Wrong. Laws that are put in place tend to be there for the protection
of other people. I am against gun control, but support very strict and
harsh laws r3egarding the illegal use of guns. This may be an example
of how people have to modify their behavior, but such is the case.
Teh exact same thing applies to my view on abortion and welfare. You
are absolutely free to do whatever you want. When it comes to how your
actions affect another human being then you have some limitations on
your freedom. Whether that limitation is in terms of ending another
person's life or taking another person's earnings, you do have limits
to your freedom.
If you think that a society can exist without any limitations, then I
believe you are sadly mistaken.
|
| 20.5466 | | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Sat Aug 17 1996 01:47 | 11 |
| re: 5452
>>No it isn't.
Ooh, tough.
My witty reposte:
Yes, it is!
FJP
|
| 20.5467 | Let's hear it for the "pro-death" position | FABSIX::D_HORTERT | | Sat Aug 17 1996 03:24 | 27 |
| RE .5457
> I am pro-choice for more than the reason that only a woman, her Dr, her
> diety, and hopefully her SO should be involved in reproductive choice.
BRAVO! I agree with you 100%. However, reproductive choice should be
made BEFORE you engage in an action (i.e. sex) that might produce a
5th person who also should be involved in the reproductive choice. A
5th person who did not come up to your deity and your doctor and bribe
them to convince "mom" to have sex with "dad" and also did not hold a
gun to "mom" and "dad's" head and make them procreate. As a supposed
adult, you are supposed to be able to make RESPONSIBLE decisions. If
you can't afford a child, if you don't want to risk your health, if you
just plain don't want children, or whatever you reason may be, then....
DON'T ENGAGE IN SEX OR TAKE ABSOLUTE STEPS TO INSURE YOU WON"T GET
PREGNANT!! I realize that "responsibility" is a curse word to all of
you liberals out there, but that is what the abortion issue boils down
to. The unborn child is NOT a parasite, the child is NOT a tumor, that
child is a human life that the mother and father are RESPONSIBLE for,
which means if an abortion is performed, the mother and father are
RESPONSIBLE for the murder of an innocent child. I think that all of
the so called "pro-choice" people should really be referred to as
"pro-irresponsibility" or maybe just plain "pro-death", the latter
being more accurate.
D.J.
|
| 20.5468 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Sat Aug 17 1996 04:24 | 2 |
| agagag "liberals".
|
| 20.5469 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Aug 17 1996 21:17 | 59 |
| 20.5470 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 19 1996 12:31 | 9 |
| >If you think that a society can exist without any limitations, then I
>believe you are sadly mistaken.
I _know_ that a society can exist very well indeed without your
brand of "limitations". I know that America was founded in part
as a result of people trying to get away from your brand of
"limitations". They are no more welcome here today than they
were a few hundered years ago.
|
| 20.5471 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 19 1996 12:33 | 7 |
| > >>No it isn't.
> Ooh, tough.
> My witty reposte:
> Yes, it is!
Yikes!
|
| 20.5472 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Aug 19 1996 13:16 | 23 |
| Re .5446:
> My sentence should have said,...has an abortion. that definitely
> damages the baby.
But that action comes only AFTER the baby has started affecting the
mother's body. So the abortion is a defense to the baby's unwitting
assault.
> But just in case you may have been seriouus, the communication is
> done between the sperm and the egg.
Using what language? It is you who are being absurd; there is NO
communication from the mother to the baby making any promise
whatsoever. The interactions between egg and sperm have no bearing on
whether or not the woman makes any promises.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5473 | Wrong, again. | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 19 1996 15:13 | 22 |
| .5470
Once again, you are relatively incorrect in your statments about the
founding of this country and the beliefs and attitudes prevalent at
that time. The very simple and reasonable restrictions, that the
majority of Americans prefer, on abortion are simplistic compared to
the moral values enforced in early America. If you have any doubts
merely review the literature of the time and you will see the
"limitations" that were in place and fully supported by Americans.
Your attempt to wrap personal irresponisbility into the freedoms of the
early Americans is questionable at best.
You would have a better argument if you supported the reduction and
elimination of taxes, welfare programs and items like Social Security
and Medicxxx. the early Americans definitely rebelled against taxes
and government interference in personal and commercial activities. They
had a penchant for stressing morals and values that were deemed
favorable and supportive of the community.
Abortion rights would be laughed out of the country if proposed at the
time you want to reference.
|
| 20.5474 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 19 1996 15:18 | 14 |
| .5472
Since you chose to ignore the obvious and continue with a silly line of
logic, I will accomodate you.
I am quite sure you are aware of the concept of implied consent.
Engaging in sexual activity carries with it the very real possibility
of creating a baby. This certainly indicates that you are giving
implied consent to the results of this activity.
You may continue to ignore the obvious and create fictions that support
your opinion, but they are basically without merit by the majority of
Americans.
|
| 20.5475 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Aug 19 1996 17:07 | 21 |
| Re .5474:
> This certainly indicates that you are giving implied consent to the
> results of this activity.
No, it does not. Even if it did, implied consent is overridden by
explicit statement -- if a woman says she does NOT consent, even though
she has sex, then you cannot correctly state she has implicitly
consented.
> . . . they are basically without merit by the majority of Americans.
The majority has no right to infringe on the rights of the minority.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5476 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 19 1996 17:34 | 15 |
| .5475
I will ignore your first paragraph as it has no bearing. Try selling
the explicit defense when the issue is implicit consent. Look to the
damage awards that are given, even when there are explicit statements
to the contrary.
Anyway, the second paragraph is equally falacious. The majority in
this country consistently steps on the minority. there are an
incridible number of examples that can be provided, but for a start
look at any election. The majority, even if it is not even a majority
of the voters voting in the election, puts the candidate in office.
Once again, your bias is coloring reality.
|
| 20.5477 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 19 1996 17:46 | 22 |
| No Rocush, you are wrong again. This country was founded by people
who came here for a variety of reasons, almost all of which had the
word "freedom" in them. Freedom from religious persecution was just
one of the many reasons, and that in effect is what pro-choicers are
up against right now -- religious persecution -- the attempt by
religious groups to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
The operative word is "FREEDOM". Try to remember it for a little
while.
And about your "implied consent" theory -- Mike Tyson tried that
defense. It didn't fly for him, and it ain't gonna fly for you.
>The majority in this country consistently steps on the minority.
No it doesn't. Certain things are defined by the constitution to
be decided by election by the majority, but the whole purpose of
a this constitutional form of government is to PREVENT the majority
from imposing its will on any minority, no matter how small.
What country were you born in? anyhow?
|
| 20.5478 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Mon Aug 19 1996 17:53 | 11 |
|
There are plenty of pro life people who make no claim to religious beliefs
of any kind.
Jim
|
| 20.5479 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Mon Aug 19 1996 17:59 | 2 |
| The Pilgrims came here looking for the freedom TO persecute on
religious bases.
|
| 20.5480 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:00 | 1 |
| who's on first?
|
| 20.5481 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:01 | 27 |
| Re .5476:
> Try selling the explicit defense when the issue is implicit consent.
> Look to the damage awards that are given, even when there are explicit
> statements to the contrary.
What possible bearing could _legal_ rules have on a discussion of the
_ethics_ of abortion? The state of liability law in this country is
hardly a reasonable basis for forming ethical principles.
> The majority in this country consistently steps on the minority.
This is a non sequitur. That the majority has no _right_ to infringe
on the minority's rights is not contradicted by the fact that they do.
You might as well argue that murder is ethical because there are many
murders.
> Once again, your bias is coloring reality.
Your lack of reasoning ability is undermining your arguments.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.5482 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:05 | 18 |
| > There are plenty of pro life people who make no claim to religious
> beliefs of any kind.
No doubt. And there are plenty of pro-choice people who are pro-life.
But it is the militants like the Christian Coalition, Operation Rescue,
Concerned Maine Families, and other such groups, usually characterizing
themselves as "Christians", who are causing most of the problem. These
groups are very definitely religious groups, or so they claim.
Of course the *real* Christian religions have often tried to distance
themselves from the militants, so maybe you're right -- it really isn't
a religious thing at all. It's a little hard to tell those who aren't
religious, though, when they claim they are and continually make
references to God, the bible, etc., to justify murdering doctors and
receptionists, picketing people's homes, etc.
Sometimes you'd think we were in Northern Ireland or something.
|
| 20.5483 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:07 | 6 |
| >The Pilgrims came here looking for the freedom TO persecute on
>religious bases.
Yeah, that's true. Which is why the FF correctly perceived that we
needed religious freedom. It amazes me that there are still people who
try to claim that this does not mean freedom FROM religion.
|
| 20.5484 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:13 | 17 |
|
> Of course the *real* Christian religions have often tried to distance
> themselves from the militants, so maybe you're right -- it really isn't
> a religious thing at all. It's a little hard to tell those who aren't
> religious, though, when they claim they are and continually make
> references to God, the bible, etc., to justify murdering doctors and
> receptionists, picketing people's homes, etc.
Well, I for one "religious" pro-lifer do NOT support that activity.
Jim
|
| 20.5485 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:14 | 6 |
| .5483
Why does it amaze you that the FF supported the concept of freedom OF
religion and did not state freedom FROM religion. there is a major
difference and the FF clearly stated which was their preference.
|
| 20.5486 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:19 | 16 |
|
.5477
Oh, so if the Constitution says that majority can impose it's will on
the minority it's OK. Well, then's what's your objection to putting a
vote forward in terms of a Constitutional amendment regarding abortion?
This would be within the Constitution and would clearly identify
exactly what the majority want, in a Constitutional sense. Are you
opposed because you know that the unrestricted, any time, any place for
any age position would not stand up to a vote by the American citizens?
If you think it would, then I would think that you would like tosee an
amendment voted on and defeated if that's what the citizens want. Or
do you figure you know better than the rest of the citizens?
|
| 20.5487 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:25 | 12 |
| >Why does it amaze you that the FF supported the concept of freedom OF
>religion and did not state freedom FROM religion. there is a major
>difference and the FF clearly stated which was their preference.
The FF were a little more logical than you evidently are, and
didn't figure they had to be that explicit about freedom FROM
religion, since they knew that freedom OF religion would have
to encompass freedom FROM it.
Only a religious fanatic would try to twist the freedom of religion
amendment around to mean you HAVE to practice a religion.
|
| 20.5488 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:32 | 16 |
| >Oh, so if the Constitution says that majority can impose it's will on
>the minority it's OK. Well, then's what's your objection to putting a
>vote forward in terms of a Constitutional amendment regarding
abortion?
You seem to be confused. What makes you think I have any objection
to following the established procedure for voting on an amendment?
>Are you opposed because you know that the unrestricted, any time,
>any place for any age position would not stand up to a vote by the
>American citizens?
You are definitely confused. I think an amendment attempt would be
a very good thing, just to show folks like yourself how much of a
minority they really are, even in the Republican Party alone.
|
| 20.5489 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:54 | 14 |
| .5488
Apparently you do not read the various reports that are published that
consistently show that the majority of Americans are opposed to
unrestricted abortions at any time. I believe the last report I saw
put the percentage somewhere around 60+%.
This puts me in pretty good company withino rowithout the Republican
Party.
It does tend to put the pro-choice faction that support unrestricted
abortions in the radical minority. You can find those folks right here
in this string.
|
| 20.5490 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 19 1996 18:58 | 12 |
| .5487
Apparently you have a problem with logic when it comes to the religious
freedom issue. The intent was that the government would not interfere
in your choice of religion nor the free expression thereof. This did
not imply that you could do so only in church or home. It could be
done anywhere at anytime. this would include schools, businesses, etc.
I am sure they did not anticipate the fine lines that are being drawn
to keep any religious activities away from all those poor,
impressionable sheep out there.
|
| 20.5491 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | it's about summer! | Mon Aug 19 1996 19:00 | 1 |
| bah-bah blah-blah
|
| 20.5492 | yeah, I know... 'consented'... | ACISS2::LEECH | | Mon Aug 19 1996 19:22 | 82 |
| .5477
> No Rocush, you are wrong again. This country was founded by people
> who came here for a variety of reasons, almost all of which had the
> word "freedom" in them.
And at this time in history, they also took responsibility for their
own actions.
> Freedom from religious persecution was just
> one of the many reasons,
Some *did* come here to be free of religious persecution. The majority
of the early settlers (who left England) were in search of FREEDOM of
religion... which is not the same thing. They did not want the way
they worshiped God to be dictated to them by the State.
> and that in effect is what pro-choicers are
> up against right now -- religious persecution -- the attempt by
> religious groups to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
Not even a remotely similar situation, even taking your "religious
persecution" comment seriously (anti-abortion people are certainly not
all religious).
You see, it is not imposing beliefs at all, but protecting life. Fact:
The unborn is alive. Fact: The unborn is human. Fact: We all were
uborn at one time, it is a natural stage in life. Fact: Outside of
very few exceptions, pregnancy occurs due to the willful actions of the
"mother" and "father". Irrelevant: Whether or not such a new life was
anticipated or wanted (they concented to have sex, they should both be
willing to share in the responsibility of their actions). Irrelevant:
Viability of the unborn. Irrelevant: Whether or not the unborn is
considered a "person". Irrelevant: Whether or not the unborn is
perceived by the parents as being of any value. Irrelevant: Subjective
determination of "quality of life" that the unborn will have once born.
Irrelevant: Changes the mother's body goes through (exception: life of
the mother is in jeopardy)- as these are all normal aspects of
pregnancy.
Common sense tells us that that easiest way to keep from getting
pregnant is to NOT have sex. I'm not telling anyone not to have sex,
FWIW, but if you do choose to have sex, and the results of your
actions is pregnancy, then you also have a responsibility (both
parents) to the life created. Killing the unborn simply is not a
rational alternative, when it was willful actions that brought about
its existence (especially when the "parents" know that this is a
possibility going in).
The real issue surrounding this debate is _human life_ and
_responsibility_. The 'viability', 'rights', 'financial' and 'person'
arguments for abortion are only attempts to distract from the real issues,
which are quite simple (not that the answers for those in a subjectively
'bad' pregnancy are any easier, mind you).
> The operative word is "FREEDOM". Try to remember it for a little
> while.
There can be no freedom without responsibility. As long as we continue
to find ways out of our responsibilities, we will continue to lose our
freedoms (there is a direct corrolation between the two).
> No it doesn't. Certain things are defined by the constitution to
> be decided by election by the majority, but the whole purpose of
> a this constitutional form of government is to PREVENT the majority
> from imposing its will on any minority, no matter how small.
No, it is not. The main purpose of the Constitution is to outline
federal powers and responsibilities. There is no mention, nor intention,
of thwarting laws that a majority of people wished to pass (except for
the fact that their petitions go through their elected representatives
- which is indeed one of our system's checks) - UNLESS they did not meet
constitutional muster.
The checks and balances are in the electorate, representatives, and our
vote; as well as in the separate parts of the federal government -
Judiciary, Legislative and Executive branches. Our brand of
government is not a mob-rule, nor is it supposed to supress the
majority (how can we be self-governing, when the majority has no say?).
-steve
|
| 20.5493 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 20 1996 13:54 | 31 |
| >Apparently you do not read the various reports that are published that
>consistently show that the majority of Americans are opposed to
>unrestricted abortions at any time. I believe the last report I saw
>put the percentage somewhere around 60+%.
You're breathing your own exhaust.
The percentage of pro-life delegates at the repub convention was
put at about 60%, which was much higher than for the republican
party in general, which in turn is higher than the population as
a whole. The anti-choice lobby somehow stacked the republican
convention, probably in the same way they stacked the school
board in Merrimack, NH -- by lying about their true motives until
they got elected.
The 60% of delegates at that convention in no way reflects American
society as a whole, except in the fertile imaginations and fervent
wishes of those who are against a woman's right to make her own
choices.
>It does tend to put the pro-choice faction that support unrestricted
>abortions in the radical minority. You can find those folks right here
>in this string.
Even if the pro-choice % of America *were* only 40%, that is by no
stretch of anyone's imagination by yours a "radical minority".
You and the rest of those who are trying to perpetrate a religious
coup in this country must fail miserably, or our constitution will
have failed. My money's on the constitution.
|
| 20.5494 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 20 1996 14:01 | 33 |
| >Apparently you have a problem with logic when it comes to the
>religious freedom issue.
Nope. I have no problem with religious freedom, because it is
exactly that constitutionally mandated freedom of religion that
allows me to choose my own religion or to choose no religion at
all.
>The intent was that the government would not interfere
>in your choice of religion nor the free expression thereof.
Exactly.
>This did
>not imply that you could do so only in church or home. It could be
>done anywhere at anytime. this would include schools, businesses, etc.
Well... not quite. If your practice of your religion interferes
with my practice of my religion because you are doing it in a public
place or because you are doing it in school and forcing my kids to
do it too, then you have gone too far, and the government has the
right and the responsibility to encourage you to confine your
religious practices to times and places where you won't interfere
with others who hold religious beliefs different from yours.
>I am sure they did not anticipate the fine lines that are being drawn
>to keep any religious activities away from all those poor,
>impressionable sheep out there.
I'm sure they did, and that is what is so frustrating to you people
who want *your* religious beliefs to be the only ones allowed by
law in this country.
|
| 20.5495 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 20 1996 14:17 | 52 |
| >And at this time in history, they also took responsibility for their
>own actions.
In your dreams.
>Some *did* come here to be free of religious persecution. The majority
>of the early settlers (who left England) were in search of FREEDOM of
>religion... which is not the same thing. They did not want the way
>they worshiped God to be dictated to them by the State.
That is the same thing.
>(anti-abortion people are certainly not all religious).
True. A lot of them call themselves pro-choice.
>Common sense tells us that that easiest way to keep from getting
>pregnant is to NOT have sex.
Which is the "pro-life" lobby's underlying goal, which is why they
do not avidly support contraception to prevent the need for abortion,
even when some contraception would also prevent STDs. A more anti-
social group I have not seen in recent history.
>There can be no freedom without responsibility. As long as we continue
>to find ways out of our responsibilities, we will continue to lose our
>freedoms (there is a direct corrolation between the two).
No, in this case it is pro-lifers who are trying to cause the loss
of freedom, justifying it with their self-righteous pomposities.
>There is no mention, nor intention, of thwarting laws that a
>majority of people wished to pass ... UNLESS they did not meet
>constitutional muster.
Exactly. I'm glad you agree.
>(how can we be self-governing, when the majority has no say?).
In areas covered by the constitution, and more explicitly by the
Bill of Rights, a minority of one cannot be dictated to even by
all the other 259,999,999. That is what I'm talking about when
I say the majority cannot impose its will on a minority. And
you know it's true. The principle applies to certain things
listed in the Bill of Rights, which include free speech, gun
ownership, religion, etc., and has been extended specifically to
include people of any race, gender, etc.
And even with all that protection, we can still be self-governing
very well. We just can't impose all our beliefs on each other,
which is what is driving pro-lifers up their tree.
|
| 20.5496 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 20 1996 15:04 | 14 |
| .5493
You either ignored or missed my point. The 60+% is not in or out of
the Republican Party, it is the % in almost all surveys regarding
abortion. The overwhelming majority of people believe that there
should be restrictions on abortion, but most agree that abortions
should be available under certain specific circumstances. The % tend
to change based on the exact restrictions and the elimination of
abortion in total.
The radical fringe of the pro-abortion faction that opposes all
restrictions of any sort are a very small minority just like those who
oppose ortions under any circumstances.
|
| 20.5497 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 20 1996 15:11 | 14 |
| .5494
The middle of your note is the area of divergence. If such was truly
the case then the US Congress would not have a Chaplain and begin every
session with a prayer. If the Constitution really had such
prohibitions then it would certainly apply to the primary legislative
body in the country.
If a common ground can be found that is acceptable to over 500 average
citizens, and it is considered Constituio then the same should apply to
all areas. I find that only those who refuse to accept that there are
valid reasons to base a society on a strong moral code, reinforced in
all aspects, tend to oppose Constituional activities.
|
| 20.5498 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 20 1996 15:19 | 18 |
| .5495
You are wrong again. the majority can impose their will on the
minority, even if the minority is greater than one. The evidence of
this is clear in numerous laws and regulations.
Just look to the environmental laws, the AA laws, gun ownership
restrictions, income taxes, etc. the evidence is clear whether you
chose to accept it or not doesn't change the facts.
Also, your attempt to use the views of the most restrictive views of
the pro-life people as a broad brush to indict all pro-lifers is
specious. the same can be said about the radical pro-abortion group.
That just gets us back tot he original problem, which, I guess, is your
point. Just cast aspersions, don't discuss alternatives. It's all or
nothing.
|
| 20.5499 | | MROA::YANNEKIS | Hi, I'm a 10 year NOTES addict | Tue Aug 20 1996 15:31 | 24 |
|
> >Apparently you do not read the various reports that are published that
> >consistently show that the majority of Americans are opposed to
> >unrestricted abortions at any time. I believe the last report I saw
> >put the percentage somewhere around 60+%.
>
> You're breathing your own exhaust.
No, he's not. The stuff I've read about survey results match his
statement. In response to questions worded like "should unrestricted
abortions be allowed at anytime" the response rate tends to run 60%
against.
Left out was when questions are worded like "should women have the
right to decide what to do with their own bodies" the responses tend to
run 60% in favor.
IMO the dichotomy shows the unease Americans feel in general over
abortion and the very different image the two questions create for some
people.
Greg
|
| 20.5500 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 20 1996 15:35 | 20 |
| >The 60+% is not in or out of the Republican Party, it is the %
>in almost all surveys regarding abortion.
Yeah, right. I can imagine who authored the surveys you choose
to quote.
>You either ignored or missed my point.
Pot & kettle candidate. My point, which you evidently missed or
ignored, is that if the delegates to the repub convention could
muster only 60% anti-choice, and if the anti-choice percent in
the rest of the republican party in general is, as was claimed in
party polls, much less than that, then I am not about to believe
your claim that 60% of America is against choice.
Any idiot can design a questionnaire that will produce the answer
s/he is looking for in a poll. I'm sure pro-lifers have done many
such polls, just as pro-choicers have, and I'm sure they show quite
different results. So what?
|
| 20.5501 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Tue Aug 20 1996 15:37 | 20 |
| I am pro choice. I am personally against abortion, but since I'll
never be in any position to have one, it ain't really my question, so I
bow out.
Given that, and given that I do not believe that women should be slaves
to their wombs, I generally support abortion, although I get seriously
creeped out at certain abortions.
For instance, an "abortion" during labor would be right over the line
for me. For that matter, an abortion just a couple of weeks before the
due date would get me wondering what the deal really is. Abortion as a
means for birth selection (aborting female fetuses, etc) strikes me as
grotesque. Aborting one fetus out of a set of twins strikes me as
hypocritical.
So, mark me down as one of the 60% in favor of giving women the right
to decide what to do with their own bodies. Mark me down as one of the
60% who are opposed to unrestricted abortions at any time. I do not
see this as a contradiction, merely an acknowledgement of what for me
is a rather large grey area.
|
| 20.5502 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 20 1996 15:40 | 13 |
| You are wrong again. the majority can impose their will on the
minority, even if the minority is greater than one. The evidence of
this is clear in numerous laws and regulations.
The majority cannot impose their will in all areas. The majority
used to want separate accomodations for black people. The majority
used to want only men to vote. The majority have at times wanted
people not to be able to burn the flag. The majority have at times
wanted there to be prayer in public schools. The majority want a
lot of things that they can't have.
Where have you been all this time?
|
| 20.5503 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Tue Aug 20 1996 17:16 | 78 |
| .5495
> In your dreams.
Now there's a convincing retort. Flippant responses aren't helping
your position any.
me >Some *did* come here to be free of religious persecution. The majority
>of the early settlers (who left England) were in search of FREEDOM of
>religion... which is not the same thing. They did not want the way
>they worshiped God to be dictated to them by the State.
> That is the same thing.
If you can't tell the difference between 'persecution' and 'freedom',
it may be helpful to consult a dictionary.
me >(anti-abortion people are certainly not all religious).
> True. A lot of them call themselves pro-choice.
And your purpose of this twist? You know very well what I was talking
about.
me >Common sense tells us that that easiest way to keep from getting
>pregnant is to NOT have sex.
> Which is the "pro-life" lobby's underlying goal, which is why they
> do not avidly support contraception to prevent the need for abortion,
> even when some contraception would also prevent STDs. A more anti-
> social group I have not seen in recent history.
Who was it that wrote "understand your enemy"? You would do well to
take this advice, and quit inserting your own personal bias into
another group's goals. How you see things is vastly different from
reality, it would seem.
me >There can be no freedom without responsibility. As long as we continue
>to find ways out of our responsibilities, we will continue to lose our
>freedoms (there is a direct corrolation between the two).
> No, in this case it is pro-lifers who are trying to cause the loss
> of freedom, justifying it with their self-righteous pomposities.
You disagree with what? That freedom and responsibility are mutually
exclusive? You'll have a hard time supporting this position.
The juvenile attempt to turn the tables on the pro-lifers is specuous,
at best. The inharent responsibility for creating a new life lies with
the "parents". Killing this life, due to the error/behavior of
oneself, is NOT taking responsibility, it is avoiding responsibility.
This is the point you and others turn a blind eye to, as it shows the
indefensibility of your position.
> In areas covered by the constitution, and more explicitly by the
> Bill of Rights, a minority of one cannot be dictated to even by
> all the other 259,999,999. That is what I'm talking about when
> I say the majority cannot impose its will on a minority.
The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the majority. It has
everything to do with restricting the federal government.
The 14th may have changed this application, but restriction of federal
powers - to insure that the rights of the individual are not infringed
by the federal government- was the intent of the first ten amendments.
This may not be meaningful today, but our string touched upon the FF
and intent of their day.
> And even with all that protection, we can still be self-governing
> very well. We just can't impose all our beliefs on each other,
> which is what is driving pro-lifers up their tree.
But you see, it isn't about forcing beliefs at all... it is about
forcing responsibility. It is about protecting the innocent. And this
attempt to hold people accountable for their own actions seems to be
driving the pro-choice folks into apoplexy.
-steve
|
| 20.5504 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 20 1996 18:38 | 9 |
| >forcing responsibility. It is about protecting the innocent.
>And this attempt to hold people accountable for their own actions
>seems to be driving the pro-choice folks into apoplexy.
"apoplexy" -- you mean like shooting people?
You sound just like the typical self-deluded abusive parent/spouse
with fist in the air yelling, "Now don't make me hit you again!"
|
| 20.5505 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 20 1996 18:45 | 20 |
| .5502
Thank you for proving my point, although I am sure that was not your
intent.
Using your own examples, and your own term, "minority of one" you have
proved that the mjority can enforce it's will on the minority. Using
just your first example, there is till a very real % of people, albeit
a minority and decreasing, that still want segregation and separate
facilities for different races. This is a minority, but their views
and opinions and wishes are being overridden by the majority.
This is an example of the majority exercising their will over a
minority. It is a good thing that they do, but it flies in the face of
your contention that the Constitution needs to protact the rights and
views of minorities. I can't think of very many people who would
support it.
Thanks again.
|
| 20.5506 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Tue Aug 20 1996 18:46 | 5 |
| Steve,
Maybe to your religion an abortion is killing a unique soul. My
tradition says that if that soul is meant to be born, it will find a
way, eventually.
|
| 20.5507 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 20 1996 18:49 | 6 |
| Lemme try it one more time...
There are some things that a majority of people in this country are not
allowed to do even if they want to.
That's all I'm saying, and you know it's true.
|
| 20.5508 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 20 1996 19:10 | 14 |
| .5507
This is a lot different than your original reply, and significantly
different. It does, however, support the contention that there are a
significant number of people who are opposed to unrestricteed
abortions, and this majority can place their views on the minority
whowant to stop them.
My major concern is that the radical minority of pro-abortion folks who
oppose any restrictions will end up alienating an ever growing % of
people. What will happen is that ultimately a more restrictive
situation will develop than what could have been achieved through
rational discussion.
|
| 20.5509 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Tue Aug 20 1996 19:35 | 8 |
| who are the people dragging all pregnant women they see into abortion
clinics?
These would be the only pro-abgortion people I could list, other than
those statews who are actively encouraging abortions among the welfare
and juvenile classes.
|
| 20.5510 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Tue Aug 20 1996 19:39 | 6 |
| .5506
My view on abortion stands firm outside of any religious context.
-steve
|
| 20.5511 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Tue Aug 20 1996 19:42 | 7 |
| .5507
You seem to be changing your tune from your original "majority"
argument. This is a good thing. 8^)
-steve
|
| 20.5512 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Tue Aug 20 1996 19:52 | 8 |
| .5504
Your retorts grow more and more desperate. It is quite amusing to
watch you grasp at straws, but it would be more interesting to see you
address the points I've brought up in this string.
-steve
|
| 20.5513 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | prickly on the outside | Tue Aug 20 1996 19:54 | 1 |
| steve, you forgot to point out that he is wrong again.
|
| 20.5514 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Tue Aug 20 1996 20:01 | 1 |
| <--- Oh, my... you are correct. How absent-minded of me.
|
| 20.5515 | spelling, it's not just for breakfast | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Wed Aug 21 1996 12:57 | 5 |
| 20.5516 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 21 1996 13:27 | 47 |
| >This is a lot different than your original reply, and significantly
>different.
No it isn't. It is just stated simply enough that you finally
understood it.
>It does, however, support the contention that there are a
>significant number of people who are opposed to unrestricteed
>abortions, and this majority can place their views on the minority
>whowant to stop them.
Nope. It supports the view that even if 90% of people thought
people shouldn't have abortions, they would not have the right to
stop them.
>My major concern is that the radical minority of pro-abortion folks
who
>oppose any restrictions will end up alienating an ever growing % of
>people. What will happen is that ultimately a more restrictive
>situation will develop than what could have been achieved through
>rational discussion.
Yes, I'm sure you are very concerned about this. What a crock.
The only "concern" you and the rest of the would-be abortion police
have is to make it illegal so women have to go back to the alleys
again. Your only "concern" is just like the "concern" of the guy
in the school board meeting in my town who said that AIDS is God's
way of punishing sinners, so we shouldn't get in the way by making
condoms more available to kids in school.
Your only "concern" is to push your moral agenda down the throats
of the American people instead of letting each individual live by
their own moral code. You see yourself as a missionary among
unenlightened savages, a moral superior among hordes of unworthy
sinners, a messenger from God with a divine right to poke your
nose into everyone else's bedrooms and bodies and with a mandate
to make everyone live they way you think they should live.
Without the power of religious organizations to support, encourage,
fund, and organize anti-choice crusades, there would be no killing of
abortion doctors, no bombing of clinics, and no nation-wide battle over
women's right to choose abortion. You can claim there is no religious
connection, but you can't fool anyone. And this is exactly the sort of
meddling in everyone else's lives that the Bill of Rights is meant to
protect us from, even if it were from a majority.
Control your own behavior, and quit trying to control everyone else's.
|
| 20.5517 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Aug 21 1996 13:57 | 32 |
| New Jersey Parents Sue Over Child's Deafness
A couple who said they would have aborted their deaf child has filed suit
against doctors for failing to tell them that their first-born daughter would
likely have health problems.
The wrongful life lawsuit alleges obstetricians never told Cathleen
Bellettiere the results of tests which determined she had a virus associated
with abnormalities in newborns. Bellettiere, then 27, was seven weeks
pregnant when she sought treatment for a fever. Six months after her
daughter, Cheyenne America, was born, doctors told her that the girl was deaf.
The girl turned two last week, the same day her parents filed suit.
The lawsuit, filed in state Superior Court, alleges four obstetricians
from a practice called the Burlington Obstetrical and Gynecological
Association were negligent for not disclosing the test results and failing to
provide proper treatment and care. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for
the Mount Holly couple and their child.
The suit names Michael Horn, R. Richard Messick, John R. O'Neal, and
Michael Zalkin as defendants. Their practice has offices in Willingboro,
Cinnaminson, Mount Laurel, and Browns Mills. The doctors did not immediately
return telephone calls yesterday seeking comment.
New Jersey is among only a few states that have recognized "wrongful life"
claims, according to George J. Annas, health law professor at Boston
University's School of Medicine. As medical technology advances, such
lawsuits will become more prevalent, he predicts. "We'll have to deal with
a basic ethical question of when should you decide to end a pregnancy
because you don't think the quality of life is sufficient," Annas said.
"Where do you draw that line? How bad is deafness?"
In 1984, New Jersey became one of only three states where the courts
said that parents of a retarded child could sue doctors for negligently
failing to diagnose the situation and advise the parents.
(from the Trenton (NJ) Times, Saturday, August 7, 1993)
|
| 20.5518 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Aug 21 1996 14:13 | 31 |
| Misseur Goodwin:
I've said it before but I think it bears repeating. You want abortion
rights? Fine, you got them through legal means. The law of the land,
bogus as it was done, affords women this right.
However, for some reason you are likened to the annoying neighbor who
owns the little obnoxious noisy dog. You walk by my premises every
morning with this little poop factory...which is all it equates to at
best, you go about two feet up on my property and the little thing
bends, shakes its legs feverishly, and expells on my well cared for
grass. Now the irony of the whole thing is you are convinced in your
mind that I as a homeowner reeeaaally reeaaally want to hear your chit
factory bark in the early hours and for some reason you think I want to
have little fifi fudge on the yard. Reality check Misseur...I would
love to pick your dog up by the scruff and apply pressure on its throat
but I am a civil man by nature and would not partake in such
activities. I could pull out my BB gun and shoot lil fifi in the ass,
but that would simply exaserbate the problem.
Therefore, I bring this small piece of advice. Your dog is
unpalletable, I despise it with a passion. Keep your poop factory
off my front yard and put a muzzle in its mouth. If you and the fifi's
of the world want to march in DC and act like a bunch of idiots, then I
honor your 1st ammendment right. I don't have to watch Brokaw.
However, I will not have my hard earned money used to fund your whiney
whiney rights blah blah blah.
I hope this allegory has entertained you!
-Jack
|
| 20.5519 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 21 1996 14:23 | 1 |
| Some pointhead remarks there.
|
| 20.5520 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Aug 21 1996 14:34 | 12 |
| Then so be it. Consider my remarks charitable, considering the lefties
out there consistently use terms like meanspirited and the like. If
you want to refer to me that way, so be it. I don't owe anybody who
takes part in deviant activity any kind of compassion or assistance. I
only owe you the right to exercise your freedom but that is all.
Libertarian perspective...legalize everything but if you find yourself
wailing in sorrow, deal with it, learn from it, and be thankful when
you get assistance, but don't expect it because you are not entitled to
it.
-Jack
|
| 20.5521 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 21 1996 14:41 | 14 |
| >I've said it before but I think it bears repeating. You want abortion
>rights? Fine, you got them through legal means. The law of the land,
>bogus as it was done, affords women this right.
Wrong. Women always had this right, just as people always had
all the rights they have. It took a court to keep other people
from trying to take their rights away.
The rest of your note is total nonsense, but I'll agree with you on
one thing: I'll be glad to keep my dog off your lawn (I already do),
and I'll be more than glad if you'll keep you nose out of my
bedroom and out of my wife.
Libertarian perspecitive? Yeah, I'll go along with that.
|
| 20.5522 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Aug 21 1996 15:03 | 5 |
| Z I'll be more than glad if you'll keep you nose out of my
Z bedroom and out of my wife.
Keep my nose...out of your wife??? I think you meant life didn't
you???
|
| 20.5523 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 21 1996 15:06 | 4 |
| > Keep my nose...out of your wife??? I think you meant life didn't
> you???
No, but since you bring it up, ok, my life too. :-)
|
| 20.5524 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 21 1996 15:06 | 1 |
| Nasal sex. It's the hot new thing.
|
| 20.5525 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Aug 21 1996 15:06 | 1 |
| Nothing to sneeze at, Doc.
|
| 20.5526 | young girls walk down the street and saw WOW! look at his! | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | and your little dog, too! | Wed Aug 21 1996 15:08 | 1 |
| Eckspecially if one's proboscis is of Bergerac-ean proportions.
|
| 20.5527 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 21 1996 15:08 | 1 |
| A whole new use for long nose hair
|
| 20.5528 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | So far away from me | Wed Aug 21 1996 15:32 | 1 |
| I thought most people look down their nose at nasal sex.
|
| 20.5529 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | New Chevy Blazer owner | Wed Aug 21 1996 15:57 | 2 |
|
brings new meaning to the phrase, a nose is a nose by any other name.
|
| 20.5530 | :-) | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Aug 21 1996 16:08 | 11 |
| __,,,,_
, _ ___.--'''`--''// ,-_ `-.
\`"' ' || \\ \ \\/ / // / ,- `,_
/'` \ || Y | \|/ / // / -.,__ `-,
/@"\ \ \\ | | ||/ // | \/ \ `-._`-,_.,
/ _.-. .-\,___| _-| / \ \/|_/ | `-._._)
`-' f/ | / __/ \__ / |__/ \
PEOPLE!!!!! `-' | -| \__ \ |-' |
__/ /__,-' ) ,' _|'
(((__.-'((___..-'((__,'
|
| 20.5531 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 21 1996 17:42 | 1 |
| You give good beast
|
| 20.5532 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Aug 21 1996 18:44 | 9 |
|
(__)
(00)
/-------\/
/ | || \
* ||W---|| Here kitty kitty...
~~ ~~
[carnivorous_cow tries to lure his prey...]
|
| 20.5533 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 21 1996 18:58 | 1 |
| Cow tipping -- the next olympic sport!
|
| 20.5534 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Aug 21 1996 19:01 | 1 |
| I always tip them 20%.
|
| 20.5535 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Wed Aug 21 1996 19:05 | 8 |
|
I'd give them an udder 5%, Mr. Sacks.
Jim
|
| 20.5536 | :-) | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Aug 21 1996 19:16 | 6 |
|
That cow sure is a rarey.
Ans 20% is "a long way to tip a rarey"...
bb
|
| 20.5537 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Wed Aug 21 1996 19:20 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.5534 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
| I always tip them 20%.
You know, I enter into notes, and find myself in the abortion topic.
Then I read your reply.... kind of funny....
|
| 20.5538 | | BUSY::SLAB | Be gone - you have no powers here | Wed Aug 21 1996 19:24 | 5 |
|
But when you tip them 20%, how far do they teeter the other
way? 15% or so? At least there's no danger of them tipping
51% and ultimately 100% and right on top of you.
|
| 20.5539 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Aug 21 1996 19:57 | 9 |
|
(__)
(OO)
/-------\/
/ | || \
* ||W---|| Cow tipping? How udderly crude and barbaric.
~~ ~~
|
| 20.5540 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Aug 22 1996 12:20 | 27 |
| 20.5541 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Aug 22 1996 12:46 | 13 |
| 20.5542 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | New Chevy Blazer owner | Thu Aug 22 1996 13:11 | 4 |
| 20.5543 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Thu Aug 22 1996 13:41 | 3 |
| 20.5544 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 22 1996 14:22 | 24 |
| 20.5545 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 22 1996 15:07 | 17 |
| 20.5546 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 22 1996 15:18 | 16 |
| 20.5547 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 22 1996 15:41 | 31 |
| 20.5548 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Aug 22 1996 16:18 | 17 |
| 20.5549 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 22 1996 16:21 | 4 |
| 20.5550 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 22 1996 16:22 | 5 |
| 20.5551 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Aug 22 1996 16:33 | 31 |
| 20.5552 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Aug 22 1996 16:36 | 9 |
| 20.5553 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 22 1996 16:40 | 1 |
| 20.5554 | | BUSY::SLAB | Crazy Cooter comin' atcha!! | Thu Aug 22 1996 16:42 | 4 |
| 20.5555 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 22 1996 17:09 | 19 |
| 20.5556 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Thu Aug 22 1996 17:20 | 10 |
| 20.5557 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Aug 22 1996 17:51 | 5 |
| 20.5558 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 22 1996 19:25 | 19 |
| 20.5559 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 22 1996 19:43 | 7 |
| 20.5560 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 22 1996 21:37 | 18 |
| 20.5561 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | R.I.P.-30AUG96 | Thu Aug 22 1996 21:41 | 1 |
| 20.5562 | | STAR::OKELLEY | Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS/NT Affinity | Fri Aug 23 1996 13:48 | 29 |
| 20.5563 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Aug 23 1996 15:50 | 10 |
| 20.5564 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 23 1996 16:05 | 10 |
| 20.5565 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Fri Aug 23 1996 16:47 | 5 |
| 20.5566 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Aug 23 1996 16:50 | 5 |
| 20.5567 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Fri Aug 23 1996 16:53 | 1 |
| 20.5568 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | So far away from me | Fri Aug 23 1996 16:54 | 1 |
| 20.5569 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Aug 23 1996 18:08 | 4 |
| 20.5570 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Aug 23 1996 18:35 | 6 |
| 20.5571 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Aug 26 1996 13:10 | 21 |
| 20.5572 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 26 1996 14:23 | 12 |
| 20.5573 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Aug 26 1996 14:43 | 29 |
| 20.5574 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 14:59 | 4 |
| 20.5575 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 26 1996 15:10 | 22 |
| 20.5576 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Aug 26 1996 15:14 | 1 |
| 20.5577 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Aug 26 1996 15:23 | 17 |
| 20.5578 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 15:29 | 5 |
| 20.5579 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:03 | 20 |
| 20.5580 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:12 | 10 |
| 20.5581 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:14 | 4 |
| 20.5582 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:19 | 6 |
| 20.5583 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:26 | 8 |
| 20.5584 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:34 | 10 |
| 20.5585 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:45 | 9 |
| 20.5586 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:47 | 2 |
| 20.5587 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Mon Aug 26 1996 16:48 | 4 |
| 20.5588 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:26 | 35 |
| 20.5589 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:32 | 13 |
| 20.5590 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:33 | 4 |
| 20.5591 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:43 | 5 |
| 20.5592 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:44 | 4 |
| 20.5593 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I'm brave but my chicken's sick | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:48 | 4 |
| 20.5594 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:50 | 3 |
| 20.5595 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:51 | 1 |
| 20.5596 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I'm brave but my chicken's sick | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:53 | 2 |
| 20.5597 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:54 | 1 |
| 20.5598 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Aug 26 1996 17:55 | 1 |
| 20.5599 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:00 | 4 |
| 20.5600 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I'm brave but my chicken's sick | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:01 | 3 |
| 20.5601 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:17 | 1 |
| 20.5602 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:24 | 3 |
| 20.5603 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:29 | 2 |
| 20.5604 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:31 | 1 |
| 20.5605 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:33 | 4 |
| 20.5606 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:33 | 1 |
| 20.5607 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:34 | 4 |
| 20.5608 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:46 | 7 |
| 20.5609 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:46 | 4 |
| 20.5610 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:49 | 6 |
| 20.5611 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:51 | 8 |
| 20.5612 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:51 | 5 |
| 20.5613 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:52 | 6 |
| 20.5614 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:55 | 5 |
| 20.5615 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:57 | 3 |
| 20.5616 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 18:59 | 2 |
| 20.5617 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:00 | 14 |
| 20.5618 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:02 | 4 |
| 20.5619 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:05 | 4 |
| 20.5620 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:11 | 37 |
| 20.5621 | | BULEAN::BANKS | | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:12 | 4 |
| 20.5622 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:17 | 4 |
| 20.5623 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:19 | 7 |
| 20.5624 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:25 | 20 |
| 20.5625 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:26 | 6 |
| 20.5626 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:29 | 6 |
| 20.5627 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I'm brave but my chicken's sick | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:29 | 2 |
| 20.5628 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:30 | 18 |
| 20.5629 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:31 | 21 |
| 20.5630 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:32 | 5 |
| 20.5631 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:33 | 4 |
| 20.5632 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I'm brave but my chicken's sick | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:36 | 4 |
| 20.5633 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:39 | 9 |
| 20.5634 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:40 | 3 |
| 20.5635 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:43 | 3 |
| 20.5636 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:45 | 2 |
| 20.5637 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | New Chevy Blazer owner | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:46 | 2 |
| 20.5638 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:47 | 3 |
| 20.5639 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:49 | 8 |
| 20.5640 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:50 | 7 |
| 20.5641 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:53 | 6 |
| 20.5642 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:56 | 10 |
| 20.5643 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:57 | 15 |
| 20.5644 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 19:58 | 34 |
| 20.5645 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:01 | 8 |
| 20.5646 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:05 | 16 |
| 20.5647 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:06 | 20 |
| 20.5648 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:13 | 5 |
| 20.5649 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:17 | 5 |
| 20.5650 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:20 | 4 |
| 20.5651 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:20 | 7 |
| 20.5652 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:24 | 53 |
| 20.5653 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:27 | 4 |
| 20.5654 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:27 | 28 |
| 20.5655 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:33 | 6 |
| 20.5656 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:40 | 57 |
| 20.5657 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:42 | 22 |
| 20.5658 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:45 | 2 |
| 20.5659 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:57 | 26 |
| 20.5660 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 20:59 | 27 |
| 20.5661 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:00 | 7 |
| 20.5662 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:02 | 3 |
| 20.5663 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:02 | 1 |
| 20.5664 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:03 | 53 |
| 20.5665 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:03 | 6 |
| 20.5666 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:03 | 1 |
| 20.5667 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:04 | 7 |
| 20.5668 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:04 | 7 |
| 20.5669 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:06 | 5 |
| 20.5670 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:09 | 14 |
| 20.5671 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:11 | 3 |
| 20.5672 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:18 | 57 |
| 20.5673 | A new approach | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | Night of the Living Ed | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:29 | 5 |
| 20.5674 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Mon Aug 26 1996 21:48 | 3 |
| 20.5675 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 01:47 | 21 |
| 20.5676 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Tue Aug 27 1996 02:06 | 3 |
| 20.5677 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | R.I.P.-30AUG96 | Tue Aug 27 1996 02:58 | 2 |
| 20.5678 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Aug 27 1996 04:02 | 35 |
| 20.5679 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Aug 27 1996 04:11 | 23 |
| 20.5680 | Convenient reply | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Tue Aug 27 1996 12:38 | 10 |
| 20.5681 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | New Chevy Blazer owner | Tue Aug 27 1996 12:41 | 4 |
| 20.5682 | Not an act of compassion towards the mother - she's irrelevant. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Aug 27 1996 13:18 | 7 |
| 20.5683 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | New Chevy Blazer owner | Tue Aug 27 1996 13:20 | 2 |
| 20.5684 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 13:38 | 3 |
| 20.5685 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | New Chevy Blazer owner | Tue Aug 27 1996 13:42 | 2 |
| 20.5686 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:16 | 16 |
| 20.5687 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:43 | 7 |
| 20.5688 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:45 | 74 |
| 20.5689 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:46 | 5 |
| 20.5690 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:48 | 10 |
| 20.5691 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:51 | 1 |
| 20.5692 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:52 | 1 |
| 20.5694 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:57 | 12 |
| 20.5695 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:58 | 1 |
| 20.5693 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 14:59 | 2 |
| 20.5696 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | a crimson flare from a raging sun | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:00 | 12 |
| 20.5697 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:00 | 1 |
| 20.5698 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:02 | 11 |
| 20.5699 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:05 | 10 |
| 20.5700 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:08 | 4 |
| 20.5701 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:10 | 3 |
| 20.5702 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:14 | 13 |
| 20.5703 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:25 | 28 |
| 20.5704 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:25 | 20 |
| 20.5705 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:29 | 5 |
| 20.5706 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:36 | 27 |
| 20.5707 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:42 | 1 |
| 20.5708 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Aug 27 1996 15:43 | 34 |
| 20.5709 | | MROA::YANNEKIS | Hi, I'm a 10 year NOTES addict | Tue Aug 27 1996 16:25 | 38 |
| 20.5710 | interjection | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Tue Aug 27 1996 16:26 | 9 |
| 20.5711 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 16:31 | 3 |
| 20.5712 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 27 1996 18:48 | 12 |
| 20.5713 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 27 1996 18:59 | 10 |
| 20.5714 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 19:22 | 6 |
| 20.5715 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 27 1996 19:37 | 11 |
| 20.5716 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 19:41 | 6 |
| 20.5717 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Tue Aug 27 1996 19:55 | 5 |
| 20.5718 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I'm brave but my chicken's sick | Tue Aug 27 1996 19:58 | 1 |
| 20.5719 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:02 | 5 |
| 20.5720 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Blazer= babe magnet | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:07 | 3 |
| 20.5721 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:12 | 5 |
| 20.5722 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Blazer = babe magnet | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:16 | 2 |
| 20.5723 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | all of which are American dreams | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:20 | 1 |
| 20.5724 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:24 | 5 |
| 20.5725 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:25 | 5 |
| 20.5726 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your only god | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:31 | 3 |
| 20.5727 | confuscious say | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:32 | 5 |
| 20.5728 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Blazer = babe magnet | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:32 | 2 |
| 20.5729 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your only god | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:32 | 3 |
| 20.5730 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your only god | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:38 | 4 |
| 20.5731 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Aug 27 1996 20:52 | 5 |
| 20.5732 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your only god | Tue Aug 27 1996 21:14 | 9 |
| 20.5733 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Tue Aug 27 1996 21:16 | 4 |
| 20.5734 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Tue Aug 27 1996 21:19 | 10 |
| 20.5735 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your only god | Tue Aug 27 1996 21:27 | 8 |
| 20.5736 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your only god | Tue Aug 27 1996 21:31 | 1 |
| 20.5737 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 28 1996 12:58 | 5 |
| 20.5738 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Aug 28 1996 12:58 | 5 |
| 20.5739 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Blazer = babe magnet | Wed Aug 28 1996 13:07 | 2 |
| 20.5740 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 28 1996 13:19 | 5 |
| 20.5741 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 28 1996 13:35 | 25 |
| 20.5742 | That's life... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Aug 28 1996 13:41 | 4 |
| 20.5743 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 28 1996 13:46 | 13 |
| 20.5744 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 28 1996 13:50 | 9 |
| 20.5745 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 28 1996 14:06 | 7 |
| 20.5746 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your only god | Wed Aug 28 1996 15:09 | 7 |
| 20.5747 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your only god | Wed Aug 28 1996 15:17 | 43 |
| 20.5748 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Blazer = babe magnet | Wed Aug 28 1996 15:20 | 2 |
| 20.5749 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 28 1996 16:39 | 28 |
| 20.5750 | get real. | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Aug 28 1996 16:44 | 19 |
| 20.5751 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 28 1996 16:47 | 15 |
| 20.5752 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 28 1996 16:48 | 6 |
| 20.5753 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Aug 28 1996 16:49 | 16 |
| 20.5754 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 28 1996 20:24 | 13 |
| 20.5755 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 28 1996 20:28 | 18 |
| 20.5756 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 28 1996 20:30 | 5 |
| 20.5757 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Blazer = babe magnet | Wed Aug 28 1996 20:32 | 2 |
| 20.5758 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 28 1996 20:32 | 16 |
| 20.5759 | \ | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Aug 28 1996 20:33 | 2 |
| 20.5760 | | BIGQ::SILVA | quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/ | Wed Aug 28 1996 20:35 | 32 |
| 20.5761 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Aug 28 1996 21:11 | 21 |
| 20.5762 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Aug 28 1996 21:16 | 22 |
| 20.5763 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 28 1996 21:33 | 9 |
| 20.5764 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 28 1996 21:49 | 9 |
| 20.5765 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Aug 28 1996 21:53 | 17 |
| 20.5766 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Aug 28 1996 22:35 | 19 |
| 20.5767 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Aug 28 1996 22:43 | 35 |
| 20.5768 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Aug 28 1996 22:49 | 12 |
| 20.5769 | | THEMAX::SMITH_S | R.I.P.-30AUG96 | Wed Aug 28 1996 22:58 | 1 |
| 20.5770 | Rambling While Feeling Mighty Serious... | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | | Wed Aug 28 1996 23:25 | 19 |
| 20.5771 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 29 1996 12:38 | 7 |
| 20.5772 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 29 1996 12:44 | 1 |
| 20.5773 | DougO exaggerates. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Aug 29 1996 12:46 | 15 |
| 20.5774 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 29 1996 14:04 | 17 |
| 20.5775 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 29 1996 14:05 | 7 |
| 20.5777 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 29 1996 14:07 | 5 |
| 20.5778 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Aug 29 1996 15:03 | 22 |
| 20.5779 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 29 1996 15:23 | 2 |
| 20.5780 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Aug 29 1996 15:27 | 5 |
| 20.5781 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | prickly on the outside | Thu Aug 29 1996 15:32 | 1 |
| 20.5782 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 29 1996 15:33 | 8 |
| 20.5783 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Aug 29 1996 15:38 | 3 |
| 20.5784 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Aug 29 1996 15:41 | 3 |
| 20.5785 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I'm brave but my chicken's sick | Thu Aug 29 1996 15:42 | 1 |
| 20.5786 | | SKETCH::MARSH | | Thu Aug 29 1996 16:05 | 1 |
| 20.5787 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 29 1996 16:06 | 11 |
| 20.5788 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 29 1996 16:12 | 15 |
| 20.5789 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Aug 29 1996 16:18 | 3 |
| 20.5790 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Aug 29 1996 16:25 | 5 |
| 20.5791 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Thu Aug 29 1996 16:31 | 6 |
| 20.5792 | Braucher obfuscates. | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Aug 29 1996 16:37 | 24 |
| 20.5793 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Aug 29 1996 16:54 | 19 |
| 20.5794 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Thu Aug 29 1996 17:00 | 15 |
| 20.5795 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 29 1996 17:02 | 9 |
| 20.5796 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Thu Aug 29 1996 17:16 | 2 |
| 20.5797 | yeah....and | KERNEL::FREKES | Excuse me while I scratch my butt | Thu Aug 29 1996 17:35 | 2 |
| 20.5798 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your only god | Thu Aug 29 1996 17:36 | 1 |
| 20.5799 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 29 1996 17:45 | 4 |
| 20.5800 | illegal in the uk | KERNEL::FREKES | Excuse me while I scratch my butt | Thu Aug 29 1996 17:47 | 4 |
| 20.5801 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Thu Aug 29 1996 17:50 | 9 |
| 20.5802 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Aug 29 1996 18:47 | 16 |
| 20.5803 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Sat Aug 31 1996 15:07 | 9 |
| 20.5804 | Exodus 20:13 = Thou shalt not kill. | N2DEEP::SHALLOW | I'm just a child at heart. | Sat Aug 31 1996 16:32 | 16 |
| 20.5805 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Sat Aug 31 1996 17:01 | 28 |
| 20.5806 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Sat Aug 31 1996 18:42 | 16 |
| 20.5807 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Sat Aug 31 1996 18:45 | 4 |
| 20.5808 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | watch this space | Sat Aug 31 1996 19:43 | 46 |
| 20.5809 | One more, then hello pillow! | N2DEEP::SHALLOW | I'm just a child at heart. | Sun Sep 01 1996 07:32 | 34 |
| 20.5810 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Tue Sep 03 1996 13:21 | 17 |
| 20.5811 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 03 1996 13:26 | 1 |
| 20.5812 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Sep 03 1996 13:53 | 32 |
| 20.5813 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 03 1996 14:00 | 10 |
| 20.5814 | Lets try and establish some ground points here!! | KERNEL::FREKES | Excuse me while I scratch my butt | Tue Sep 03 1996 14:50 | 22 |
| 20.5815 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Tue Sep 03 1996 15:09 | 3 |
| 20.5816 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 03 1996 15:09 | 5 |
| 20.5817 | | KERNEL::FREKES | Excuse me while I scratch my butt | Tue Sep 03 1996 16:35 | 13 |
| 20.5818 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, DTN 847 6586 | Tue Sep 03 1996 16:43 | 2 |
| 20.5819 | | CHEFS::COOKS | Half Man,Half Biscuit | Tue Sep 03 1996 16:55 | 9 |
| 20.5820 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 03 1996 16:55 | 22 |
| 20.5821 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Tue Sep 03 1996 17:00 | 15 |
| 20.5822 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Tue Sep 03 1996 17:22 | 15 |
| 20.5823 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Tue Sep 03 1996 17:32 | 24 |
| 20.5824 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Tue Sep 03 1996 18:00 | 3 |
| 20.5825 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Tue Sep 03 1996 18:19 | 10 |
| 20.5826 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Tue Sep 03 1996 18:35 | 5 |
| 20.5827 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 03 1996 18:47 | 8 |
| 20.5828 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Sep 03 1996 18:52 | 7 |
| 20.5829 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Tue Sep 03 1996 18:54 | 9 |
| 20.5830 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Tue Sep 03 1996 18:56 | 13 |
| 20.5831 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 03 1996 19:21 | 8 |
| 20.5832 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Tue Sep 03 1996 19:23 | 20 |
| 20.5833 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 03 1996 19:34 | 11 |
| 20.5834 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Tue Sep 03 1996 19:37 | 7 |
| 20.5835 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | prickly on the outside | Tue Sep 03 1996 19:42 | 8 |
| 20.5836 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Tue Sep 03 1996 20:05 | 30 |
| 20.5837 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | prickly on the outside | Tue Sep 03 1996 20:19 | 9 |
| 20.5838 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Sep 03 1996 20:27 | 15 |
| 20.5839 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Tue Sep 03 1996 20:31 | 6 |
| 20.5840 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | prickly on the outside | Tue Sep 03 1996 20:35 | 10 |
| 20.5841 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 03 1996 20:43 | 3 |
| 20.5842 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 03 1996 20:44 | 3 |
| 20.5843 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Tue Sep 03 1996 20:45 | 7 |
| 20.5844 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 03 1996 20:48 | 3 |
| 20.5845 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Tue Sep 03 1996 20:53 | 13 |
| 20.5846 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Tue Sep 03 1996 21:29 | 11 |
| 20.5847 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Tue Sep 03 1996 21:49 | 12 |
| 20.5848 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 04 1996 03:29 | 31 |
| 20.5849 | | KERNEL::FREKES | Excuse me while I scratch my butt | Wed Sep 04 1996 12:27 | 9 |
| 20.5850 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 12:28 | 6 |
| 20.5851 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Sep 04 1996 12:36 | 9 |
| 20.5852 | UK different from the US | KERNEL::FREKES | Excuse me while I scratch my butt | Wed Sep 04 1996 12:39 | 8 |
| 20.5853 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Wed Sep 04 1996 12:44 | 16 |
| 20.5854 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 12:50 | 7 |
| 20.5855 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 04 1996 13:13 | 8 |
| 20.5856 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Sep 04 1996 13:17 | 18 |
| 20.5857 | animals-mammals-people | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Sep 04 1996 13:20 | 1 |
| 20.5858 | trimesters?? | CHEFS::NORRISV | | Wed Sep 04 1996 13:24 | 11 |
| 20.5859 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:02 | 3 |
| 20.5860 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:10 | 25 |
| 20.5861 | What did you think we were, plants ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:15 | 4 |
| 20.5862 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:16 | 2 |
| 20.5863 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:19 | 4 |
| 20.5864 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | prickly on the outside | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:22 | 3 |
| 20.5865 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:24 | 1 |
| 20.5866 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:25 | 14 |
| 20.5867 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:27 | 9 |
| 20.5868 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:34 | 16 |
| 20.5869 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:36 | 14 |
| 20.5870 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:45 | 11 |
| 20.5871 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:48 | 6 |
| 20.5872 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:49 | 20 |
| 20.5873 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:54 | 11 |
| 20.5874 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your | Wed Sep 04 1996 14:58 | 1 |
| 20.5875 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:02 | 16 |
| 20.5876 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:02 | 12 |
| 20.5877 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:04 | 6 |
| 20.5878 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:05 | 14 |
| 20.5879 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:07 | 10 |
| 20.5880 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:10 | 10 |
| 20.5881 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:13 | 4 |
| 20.5882 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:21 | 3 |
| 20.5883 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:22 | 7 |
| 20.5884 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:27 | 3 |
| 20.5885 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:40 | 24 |
| 20.5886 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:41 | 2 |
| 20.5887 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your | Wed Sep 04 1996 15:45 | 2 |
| 20.5888 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:22 | 9 |
| 20.5889 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:23 | 3 |
| 20.5890 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:25 | 2 |
| 20.5891 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:27 | 2 |
| 20.5892 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:28 | 5 |
| 20.5893 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:29 | 4 |
| 20.5894 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:31 | 5 |
| 20.5895 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Fear is your | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:33 | 3 |
| 20.5896 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:36 | 20 |
| 20.5897 | The Barbarity of the Partial Birth Abortion Procedure | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:38 | 30 |
| 20.5898 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:41 | 10 |
| 20.5899 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:42 | 3 |
| 20.5900 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:42 | 1 |
| 20.5901 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:44 | 5 |
| 20.5902 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:45 | 4 |
| 20.5903 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:54 | 15 |
| 20.5904 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:55 | 4 |
| 20.5905 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 16:58 | 4 |
| 20.5906 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:05 | 5 |
| 20.5907 | Set scarcasm/high | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:24 | 37 |
| 20.5908 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:24 | 30 |
| 20.5909 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:27 | 10 |
| 20.5910 | Just don't get it. | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:31 | 6 |
| 20.5911 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:32 | 7 |
| 20.5912 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:32 | 5 |
| 20.5913 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:33 | 4 |
| 20.5914 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:37 | 6 |
| 20.5915 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:46 | 4 |
| 20.5916 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:50 | 4 |
| 20.5917 | | BUSY::SLAB | Form feed = <ctrl>v <ctrl>l | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:56 | 3 |
| 20.5918 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 17:59 | 3 |
| 20.5919 | Does this clarify ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Sep 04 1996 18:04 | 11 |
| 20.5920 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Sep 04 1996 18:09 | 8 |
| 20.5921 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 18:24 | 9 |
| 20.5922 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 18:33 | 4 |
| 20.5923 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 04 1996 18:44 | 27 |
| 20.5924 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Sep 04 1996 18:48 | 1 |
| 20.5925 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Wed Sep 04 1996 19:00 | 21 |
| 20.5926 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 19:22 | 4 |
| 20.5927 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 19:23 | 1 |
| 20.5928 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Sep 04 1996 19:32 | 10 |
| 20.5929 | | BUSY::SLAB | Go Go Gophers watch them go go go! | Wed Sep 04 1996 19:34 | 10 |
| 20.5930 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I'm brave but my chicken's sick | Wed Sep 04 1996 19:36 | 3 |
| 20.5931 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Wed Sep 04 1996 19:41 | 17 |
| 20.5932 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:02 | 12 |
| 20.5933 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:04 | 8 |
| 20.5934 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:07 | 13 |
| 20.5935 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:12 | 2 |
| 20.5936 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:20 | 5 |
| 20.5938 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:20 | 1 |
| 20.5939 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:24 | 35 |
| 20.5940 | | BUSY::SLAB | Good Heavens,Commander,what DID you do? | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:32 | 13 |
| 20.5941 | | BUSY::SLAB | Good Heavens,Commander,what DID you do? | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:35 | 11 |
| 20.5942 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:44 | 5 |
| 20.5943 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:45 | 1 |
| 20.5944 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:48 | 4 |
| 20.5945 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:50 | 1 |
| 20.5946 | | BUSY::SLAB | Good Heavens,Commander,what DID you do? | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:51 | 4 |
| 20.5947 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Wed Sep 04 1996 20:55 | 29 |
| 20.5948 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:00 | 15 |
| 20.5949 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:03 | 2 |
| 20.5950 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:06 | 1 |
| 20.5951 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:07 | 9 |
| 20.5952 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:08 | 4 |
| 20.5953 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:08 | 4 |
| 20.5954 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:20 | 21 |
| 20.5955 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:21 | 30 |
| 20.5956 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:23 | 13 |
| 20.5957 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:24 | 4 |
| 20.5958 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:24 | 1 |
| 20.5959 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:26 | 1 |
| 20.5960 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:27 | 9 |
| 20.5961 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:29 | 1 |
| 20.5962 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:29 | 4 |
| 20.5963 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:37 | 7 |
| 20.5964 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:47 | 5 |
| 20.5965 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:48 | 3 |
| 20.5966 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:51 | 4 |
| 20.5967 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:55 | 5 |
| 20.5968 | | BUSY::SLAB | Got into a war with reality ... | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:56 | 9 |
| 20.5969 | | BUSY::SLAB | Got into a war with reality ... | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:57 | 4 |
| 20.5970 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Wed Sep 04 1996 22:00 | 1 |
| 20.5971 | | BUSY::SLAB | Got into a war with reality ... | Wed Sep 04 1996 22:01 | 5 |
| 20.5972 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Sep 04 1996 22:06 | 5 |
| 20.5973 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Sep 05 1996 02:49 | 6 |
| 20.5974 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Thu Sep 05 1996 03:56 | 31 |
| 20.5975 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Thu Sep 05 1996 12:54 | 18 |
| 20.5976 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Thu Sep 05 1996 12:59 | 13 |
| 20.5977 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Sep 05 1996 13:01 | 6 |
| 20.5978 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Thu Sep 05 1996 13:16 | 14 |
| 20.5979 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago Bears fan | Thu Sep 05 1996 13:27 | 3 |
| 20.5980 | Didn't his parents teach him the FACTS of life? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Sep 05 1996 13:28 | 8 |
| 20.5981 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Thu Sep 05 1996 13:39 | 8 |
| 20.5982 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago Bears fan | Thu Sep 05 1996 13:43 | 4 |
| 20.5983 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Thu Sep 05 1996 13:46 | 4 |
| 20.5984 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Cleaver...YOU'RE FIRED!!! | Thu Sep 05 1996 13:50 | 6 |
| 20.5985 | An end to abortion | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Sep 05 1996 13:55 | 1 |
| 20.5986 | careful... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Sep 05 1996 14:00 | 4 |
| 20.5987 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Thu Sep 05 1996 14:29 | 11 |
| 20.5988 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | The sky is falling! | Thu Sep 05 1996 15:54 | 7 |
| 20.5989 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago Bears fan | Thu Sep 05 1996 16:35 | 3 |
| 20.5990 | | BUSY::SLAB | A swift kick in the butt - $1 | Thu Sep 05 1996 16:43 | 5 |
| 20.5991 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago Bears fan | Thu Sep 05 1996 16:46 | 4 |
| 20.5992 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Thu Sep 05 1996 17:25 | 6 |
| 20.5993 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Sep 05 1996 17:28 | 12 |
| 20.5994 | | BUSY::SLAB | Act like you own the company | Thu Sep 05 1996 17:42 | 6 |
| 20.5995 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago Bears fan | Thu Sep 05 1996 17:43 | 6 |
| 20.5996 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Thu Sep 05 1996 17:48 | 5 |
| 20.5997 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago Bears fan | Thu Sep 05 1996 17:49 | 2 |
| 20.5998 | | BIGQ::MARCHAND | | Thu Sep 05 1996 17:50 | 3 |
| 20.5999 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago Bears fan | Thu Sep 05 1996 17:54 | 2 |
| 20.6000 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I'm brave but my chicken's sick | Thu Sep 05 1996 18:06 | 1 |
| 20.6001 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Sep 05 1996 18:55 | 9 |
| 20.6002 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Sep 05 1996 18:56 | 3 |
| 20.6003 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Sep 05 1996 19:03 | 1 |
| 20.6004 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Thu Sep 05 1996 19:35 | 6 |
| 20.6005 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I Need To Get Out More! | Mon Sep 09 1996 16:04 | 13 |
| 20.6006 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Mon Sep 09 1996 17:36 | 17 |
| 20.6007 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I Need To Get Out More! | Mon Sep 09 1996 17:57 | 12 |
| 20.6008 | an RN on partial birth abortion | PHXSS1::HEISER | maranatha! | Mon Sep 09 1996 18:06 | 22 |
| 20.6009 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | It's falling, the sky | Mon Sep 09 1996 19:26 | 1 |
| 20.6010 | and lacking in important detail .... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Sep 09 1996 19:31 | 0 |
| 20.6011 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | It's falling, the sky | Mon Sep 09 1996 19:39 | 1 |
| 20.6012 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Mon Sep 09 1996 19:41 | 1 |
| 20.6013 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I Need To Get Out More! | Mon Sep 09 1996 19:46 | 2 |
| 20.6014 | ! | STAR::JESSOP | Tam quid? | Mon Sep 09 1996 19:48 | 1 |
| 20.6015 | I think this is the answer you were looking for ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Sep 09 1996 19:55 | 13 |
| 20.6016 | | BUSY::SLAB | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Mon Sep 09 1996 20:04 | 4 |
| 20.6017 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Mon Sep 09 1996 20:31 | 18 |
| 20.6018 | another myth put to rest | PHXSS1::HEISER | maranatha! | Mon Sep 09 1996 23:08 | 8 |
| 20.6019 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Sep 10 1996 14:31 | 35 |
| 20.6020 | Anesthesia's Effect on the Baby | PHXSS1::HEISER | maranatha! | Tue Sep 10 1996 14:39 | 13 |
| 20.6021 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Tue Sep 10 1996 14:41 | 12 |
| 20.6022 | | PHXSS1::HEISER | maranatha! | Tue Sep 10 1996 14:44 | 5 |
| 20.6023 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Tue Sep 10 1996 14:48 | 3 |
| 20.6024 | | DPE1::ARMSTRONG | | Tue Sep 10 1996 15:14 | 8 |
| 20.6025 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Tue Sep 10 1996 15:35 | 12 |
| 20.6026 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 10 1996 16:02 | 19 |
| 20.6027 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Tue Sep 10 1996 16:08 | 8 |
| 20.6028 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Sep 10 1996 16:08 | 4 |
| 20.6029 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 10 1996 16:37 | 16 |
| 20.6030 | ...skip this note... | STAR::JESSOP | Tam quid? | Tue Sep 10 1996 16:39 | 4 |
| 20.6031 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 10 1996 16:41 | 5 |
| 20.6032 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Sep 10 1996 16:44 | 4 |
| 20.6033 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Tue Sep 10 1996 16:50 | 5 |
| 20.6034 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago Bears fan | Tue Sep 10 1996 17:10 | 4 |
| 20.6035 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Tue Sep 10 1996 18:28 | 4 |
| 20.6036 | $bottomline$ | PHXSS1::HEISER | maranatha! | Tue Sep 10 1996 20:29 | 3 |
| 20.6037 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Sep 10 1996 20:36 | 9 |
| 20.6038 | | PHXSS1::HEISER | maranatha! | Tue Sep 10 1996 20:39 | 2 |
| 20.6039 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Sep 10 1996 20:40 | 1 |
| 20.6040 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Sep 10 1996 20:54 | 8 |
| 20.6041 | | PHXSS1::HEISER | maranatha! | Tue Sep 10 1996 21:16 | 8 |
| 20.6042 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Tue Sep 10 1996 21:21 | 5 |
| 20.6043 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I won't get soaped | Tue Sep 10 1996 21:22 | 1 |
| 20.6044 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Tue Sep 10 1996 22:58 | 8 |
| 20.6045 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Tue Sep 10 1996 23:29 | 5 |
| 20.6046 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Sep 11 1996 01:37 | 31 |
| 20.6047 | Repeatedly visit .5804 | N2DEEP::SHALLOW | Nobodys perfect, cept for the Lord | Wed Sep 11 1996 07:57 | 6 |
| 20.6048 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Sep 11 1996 08:42 | 6 |
| 20.6049 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Sep 11 1996 12:57 | 5 |
| 20.6050 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Wed Sep 11 1996 13:09 | 4 |
| 20.6051 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Sep 11 1996 13:22 | 1 |
| 20.6052 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Wed Sep 11 1996 13:40 | 5 |
| 20.6053 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago Bears fan | Wed Sep 11 1996 13:55 | 2 |
| 20.6054 | | PHXSS1::HEISER | maranatha! | Wed Sep 11 1996 15:41 | 4 |
| 20.6055 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Wed Sep 11 1996 15:50 | 11 |
| 20.6056 | | PHXSS1::HEISER | maranatha! | Wed Sep 11 1996 15:54 | 2 |
| 20.6057 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 11 1996 18:16 | 15 |
| 20.6058 | Answers, not excuses | N2DEEP::SHALLOW | Nobodys perfect, cept for the Lord | Wed Sep 11 1996 18:35 | 35 |
| 20.6059 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Wed Sep 11 1996 18:40 | 5 |
| 20.6060 | Do they serve that at McD's? | N2DEEP::SHALLOW | Nobodys perfect, cept for the Lord | Wed Sep 11 1996 21:30 | 11 |
| 20.6061 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Sacred Cows Make the Best Hamburger | Thu Sep 12 1996 12:13 | 3 |
| 20.6062 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Thu Sep 12 1996 18:11 | 10 |
| 20.6063 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Thu Sep 12 1996 19:08 | 10 |
| 20.6064 | Meowski's correct | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Sep 12 1996 19:42 | 33 |
| 20.6065 | normal FDA procedure... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Sep 20 1996 13:07 | 6 |
| 20.6066 | override ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Sep 20 1996 13:12 | 7 |
| 20.6067 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Fri Sep 20 1996 16:35 | 17 |
| 20.6068 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Fri Sep 20 1996 20:15 | 34 |
| 20.6069 | Tenth Amendment irrelevant here... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Sep 20 1996 20:22 | 15 |
| 20.6070 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | war inside my head | Fri Sep 20 1996 20:43 | 4 |
| 20.6071 | | SALEM::DODA | Searching for the next distraction | Fri Sep 20 1996 20:45 | 4 |
| 20.6072 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Fri Sep 20 1996 21:04 | 29 |
| 20.6073 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Sep 20 1996 21:42 | 7 |
| 20.6074 | Bureau of Abortion, Tobacco, and Fire arms | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Bos-Mil-Atl Braves W.S. Champs | Mon Sep 23 1996 15:31 | 20 |
| 20.6075 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Sep 23 1996 17:30 | 7 |
| 20.6076 | | GALAXY::OKELLEY | Where am I? #2: In The Village. | Mon Sep 23 1996 17:31 | 40 |
| 20.6077 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Think locally, act locally | Mon Sep 23 1996 17:36 | 2 |
| 20.6078 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Atlanta Braves, N.L. East Champs | Mon Sep 23 1996 18:05 | 16 |
| 20.6079 | :^) | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Mon Sep 23 1996 19:10 | 8 |
| 20.6080 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Sep 23 1996 19:21 | 11 |
| 20.6081 | | GALAXY::OKELLEY | Where am I? #2: In The Village. | Mon Sep 23 1996 20:34 | 27 |
| 20.6082 | The Difference | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Sep 24 1996 14:39 | 8 |
| 20.6083 | That Was Moving | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Sep 24 1996 14:47 | 5 |
| 20.6084 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 25 1996 15:28 | 12 |
| 20.6085 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 25 1996 15:28 | 12 |
| 20.6086 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 25 1996 15:28 | 21 |
| 20.6087 | | 2543::MAIEWSKI | Atlanta Braves, N.L. East Champs | Wed Sep 25 1996 19:32 | 15 |
| 20.6088 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Sep 25 1996 21:19 | 5 |
| 20.6089 | | 2543::MAIEWSKI | Atlanta Braves, N.L. East Champs | Thu Sep 26 1996 12:38 | 34 |
| 20.6090 | | 2543::MAIEWSKI | Atlanta Braves, N.L. East Champs | Fri Sep 27 1996 12:33 | 12 |
| 20.6091 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | I'm just a girl | Fri Sep 27 1996 13:37 | 1 |
| 20.6092 | | EVMS::MORONEY | YOU! Out of the gene pool! | Fri Sep 27 1996 15:18 | 7 |
| 20.6093 | disgusting | TEXAS1::SOBECKY | That thing you do.. | Fri Sep 27 1996 15:51 | 8 |
| 20.6094 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Fri Sep 27 1996 18:24 | 38 |
| 20.6095 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Fri Sep 27 1996 18:25 | 4 |
| 20.6096 | | 2543::MAIEWSKI | Atlanta Braves, N.L. East Champs | Fri Sep 27 1996 19:16 | 16 |
| 20.6097 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Fri Sep 27 1996 19:44 | 18 |
| 20.6098 | | 2543::MAIEWSKI | Atlanta Braves, N.L. East Champs | Fri Sep 27 1996 20:01 | 20 |
| 20.6099 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Fri Sep 27 1996 20:32 | 14 |
| 20.6100 | | 2543::MAIEWSKI | Atlanta Braves, N.L. East Champs | Fri Sep 27 1996 20:59 | 22 |
| 20.6101 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Sep 27 1996 21:58 | 7 |
| 20.6102 | Good! | TEXAS1::SOBECKY | That thing you do.. | Fri Sep 27 1996 23:24 | 8 |
| 20.6103 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Sep 30 1996 14:29 | 4 |
| 20.6104 | | TEXAS1::SOBECKY | I've got bigger fish to fry... | Mon Sep 30 1996 16:21 | 13 |
| 20.6105 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Mon Sep 30 1996 17:11 | 50 |
| 20.6106 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Sep 30 1996 17:14 | 18 |
| 20.6107 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Sep 30 1996 17:39 | 13 |
| 20.6108 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Blazer Boy | Mon Sep 30 1996 17:42 | 2 |
| 20.6109 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Sep 30 1996 17:44 | 4 |
| 20.6110 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Sep 30 1996 17:51 | 27 |
| 20.6111 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Think locally, act locally | Mon Sep 30 1996 17:53 | 4 |
| 20.6112 | Moderators!! | BUSY::SLAB | Repaint Your Wagon | Mon Sep 30 1996 17:54 | 7 |
| 20.6113 | | BUSY::SLAB | Repaint Your Wagon | Mon Sep 30 1996 17:57 | 11 |
| 20.6114 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Sep 30 1996 18:00 | 5 |
| 20.6115 | | BUSY::SLAB | Repaint Your Wagon | Mon Sep 30 1996 18:06 | 5 |
| 20.6116 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Sep 30 1996 18:53 | 7 |
| 20.6117 | | BUSY::SLAB | Rita Hayworth gave good FACE? | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:04 | 4 |
| 20.6118 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:09 | 9 |
| 20.6119 | yep | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:09 | 9 |
| 20.6120 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:10 | 1 |
| 20.6121 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:34 | 9 |
| 20.6122 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:41 | 9 |
| 20.6123 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:44 | 1 |
| 20.6124 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:44 | 8 |
| 20.6125 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:46 | 16 |
| 20.6126 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:49 | 4 |
| 20.6127 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Sep 30 1996 19:59 | 9 |
| 20.6128 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Think locally, act locally | Mon Sep 30 1996 20:00 | 1 |
| 20.6129 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Sep 30 1996 20:44 | 4 |
| 20.6130 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Sep 30 1996 20:48 | 2 |
| 20.6131 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Think locally, act locally | Mon Sep 30 1996 20:49 | 1 |
| 20.6132 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Sep 30 1996 20:52 | 1 |
| 20.6133 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Sep 30 1996 20:54 | 10 |
| 20.6134 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | a box of stars | Mon Sep 30 1996 21:01 | 1 |
| 20.6135 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Sep 30 1996 21:03 | 1 |
| 20.6136 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Sep 30 1996 21:07 | 1 |
| 20.6137 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Sep 30 1996 21:20 | 7 |
| 20.6138 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 01 1996 03:06 | 52 |
| 20.6139 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, 847 6586 | Tue Oct 01 1996 08:44 | 11 |
| 20.6140 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Oct 01 1996 10:29 | 18 |
| 20.6141 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, 847 6586 | Tue Oct 01 1996 10:38 | 1 |
| 20.6142 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Tue Oct 01 1996 13:13 | 7 |
| 20.6143 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 01 1996 13:42 | 7 |
| 20.6144 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Oct 01 1996 14:08 | 14 |
| 20.6145 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 01 1996 14:57 | 10 |
| 20.6146 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Oct 01 1996 15:06 | 9 |
| 20.6147 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Oct 01 1996 15:08 | 9 |
| 20.6148 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Oct 01 1996 15:15 | 11 |
| 20.6149 | | BUSY::SLAB | Slabbage Patch Kid | Tue Oct 01 1996 15:16 | 6 |
| 20.6150 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Oct 01 1996 15:18 | 1 |
| 20.6151 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Oct 01 1996 15:45 | 5 |
| 20.6152 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Oct 01 1996 15:48 | 7 |
| 20.6153 | | BUSY::SLAB | Slabbage Patch Kid | Tue Oct 01 1996 15:50 | 5 |
| 20.6154 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Oct 01 1996 15:57 | 5 |
| 20.6155 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Good-a-niiiiite-a-ding-ding-ding | Tue Oct 01 1996 19:14 | 1 |
| 20.6156 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Blazer Boy | Tue Oct 01 1996 19:33 | 2 |
| 20.6157 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Oct 01 1996 20:08 | 3 |
| 20.6158 | | BUSY::SLAB | SSSS-AAAA-FFFF-EEEE-TTTT-YYYY | Tue Oct 01 1996 20:10 | 3 |
| 20.6159 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Wed Oct 02 1996 11:37 | 4 |
| 20.6160 | | SHRCTR::PJOHNSON | aut disce, aut discede | Wed Oct 02 1996 13:36 | 5 |
| 20.6161 | Sigh | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, 847 6586 | Thu Oct 03 1996 07:58 | 80 |
| 20.6162 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Oct 03 1996 10:57 | 1 |
| 20.6163 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Oct 03 1996 12:25 | 5 |
| 20.6164 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 03 1996 12:30 | 3 |
| 20.6165 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Oct 03 1996 12:35 | 10 |
| 20.6166 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Thu Oct 03 1996 12:39 | 3 |
| 20.6167 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 03 1996 12:41 | 3 |
| 20.6168 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Oct 03 1996 12:56 | 3 |
| 20.6169 | re: .6167 | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Thu Oct 03 1996 13:02 | 1 |
| 20.6170 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Good-a-niiiiite-a-ding-ding-ding | Thu Oct 03 1996 13:06 | 2 |
| 20.6171 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Oct 03 1996 13:09 | 6 |
| 20.6172 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 03 1996 13:19 | 1 |
| 20.6173 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Thu Oct 03 1996 13:25 | 3 |
| 20.6174 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, 847 6586 | Thu Oct 03 1996 13:29 | 1 |
| 20.6175 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Good-a-niiiiite-a-ding-ding-ding | Thu Oct 03 1996 13:31 | 2 |
| 20.6176 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Oct 03 1996 13:46 | 16 |
| 20.6177 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Thu Oct 03 1996 13:50 | 4 |
| 20.6178 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, 847 6586 | Thu Oct 03 1996 14:03 | 1 |
| 20.6179 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Good-a-niiiiite-a-ding-ding-ding | Thu Oct 03 1996 14:07 | 1 |
| 20.6180 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Thu Oct 03 1996 14:17 | 28 |
| 20.6181 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 03 1996 14:17 | 13 |
| 20.6182 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Thu Oct 03 1996 14:19 | 2 |
| 20.6183 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Oct 03 1996 14:20 | 1 |
| 20.6184 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Thu Oct 03 1996 14:52 | 4 |
| 20.6185 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 03 1996 14:52 | 7 |
| 20.6186 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 03 1996 14:57 | 8 |
| 20.6187 | | BUSY::SLAB | The Second Winds of War | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:01 | 5 |
| 20.6188 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:19 | 18 |
| 20.6189 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:21 | 12 |
| 20.6190 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:23 | 5 |
| 20.6191 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:27 | 11 |
| 20.6192 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:29 | 1 |
| 20.6193 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:29 | 1 |
| 20.6194 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:30 | 3 |
| 20.6195 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:32 | 6 |
| 20.6196 | Brits, of course... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:34 | 5 |
| 20.6197 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:39 | 2 |
| 20.6198 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:39 | 25 |
| 20.6199 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:40 | 1 |
| 20.6200 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Oct 03 1996 15:48 | 25 |
| 20.6201 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:00 | 28 |
| 20.6202 | | BUSY::SLAB | The Vanishing Hitchhiker | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:01 | 16 |
| 20.6203 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:05 | 1 |
| 20.6204 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:09 | 2 |
| 20.6205 | the one with the GREEN margarita... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:16 | 6 |
| 20.6206 | | BUSY::SLAB | The age of aquarius | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:18 | 4 |
| 20.6207 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:25 | 2 |
| 20.6208 | yeah, that's _definitely_ it | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:33 | 3 |
| 20.6209 | | BUSY::SLAB | The age of aquarius | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:42 | 4 |
| 20.6210 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:47 | 2 |
| 20.6211 | | BUSY::SLAB | The age of aquarius | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:48 | 6 |
| 20.6212 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:50 | 2 |
| 20.6213 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Good-a-niiiiite-a-ding-ding-ding | Thu Oct 03 1996 16:59 | 3 |
| 20.6214 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 03 1996 17:06 | 6 |
| 20.6215 | w80 | MROA::YANNEKIS | Hi, I'm a 10 year NOTES addict | Thu Oct 03 1996 17:22 | 25 |
| 20.6216 | Is this the 'new math' everyone is complaining about? | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Thu Oct 03 1996 17:23 | 12 |
| 20.6217 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Thu Oct 03 1996 17:26 | 22 |
| 20.6218 | | BUSY::SLAB | The new phone book's here!! | Thu Oct 03 1996 17:55 | 12 |
| 20.6219 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 03 1996 18:57 | 4 |
| 20.6220 | | BUSY::SLAB | The stakes are high, and so am I. | Thu Oct 03 1996 19:02 | 8 |
| 20.6221 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | mz_debra fan club member | Thu Oct 03 1996 19:31 | 2 |
| 20.6222 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 03 1996 21:29 | 10 |
| 20.6223 | | BUSY::SLAB | Thigh master | Thu Oct 03 1996 21:35 | 9 |
| 20.6224 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 03 1996 21:44 | 4 |
| 20.6225 | | BUSY::SLAB | Thigh master | Thu Oct 03 1996 21:49 | 4 |
| 20.6226 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 03 1996 21:51 | 3 |
| 20.6227 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Oct 03 1996 21:55 | 9 |
| 20.6228 | | BUSY::SLAB | Thigh master | Thu Oct 03 1996 22:03 | 11 |
| 20.6229 | Look at this clearly, not via hormonal reaction | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy Leslie, 847 6586 | Fri Oct 04 1996 08:57 | 58 |
| 20.6230 | | 2543::MAIEWSKI | Atlanta Braves, N.L. East Champs | Fri Oct 04 1996 12:22 | 13 |
| 20.6231 | | CHEFS::16.42.32.175::lesliea | really POMPY::LESLIE | Fri Oct 04 1996 12:26 | 3 |
| 20.6232 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Oct 04 1996 12:57 | 4 |
| 20.6233 | whaddaya mean there's no free ride anymore? | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | drinking life to the lees | Fri Oct 04 1996 12:58 | 2 |
| 20.6234 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Oct 04 1996 13:12 | 4 |
| 20.6235 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Oct 04 1996 14:44 | 17 |
| 20.6236 | | BUSY::SLAB | To the Batmobile ... let's go!!! | Fri Oct 04 1996 14:50 | 8 |
| 20.6237 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Good-a-niiiiite-a-ding-ding-ding | Fri Oct 04 1996 15:04 | 5 |
| 20.6238 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Fri Oct 04 1996 16:15 | 4 |
| 20.6239 | | MROA::YANNEKIS | Hi, I'm a 10 year NOTES addict | Fri Oct 04 1996 16:23 | 38 |
| 20.6240 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Fri Oct 04 1996 16:41 | 20 |
| 20.6241 | | KERNEL::FREKES | Excuse me while I scratch my butt | Mon Oct 07 1996 09:49 | 9 |
| 20.6242 | oh.... this is not the big announcement.... | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 07 1996 13:26 | 26 |
| 20.6243 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Oct 07 1996 14:29 | 7 |
| 20.6244 | Main Thought On This String | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Oct 08 1996 22:01 | 13 |
| 20.6245 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Oct 09 1996 12:17 | 6 |
| 20.6246 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Oct 09 1996 12:20 | 10 |
| 20.6247 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Oct 09 1996 13:10 | 34 |
| 20.6248 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Wed Oct 09 1996 13:27 | 8 |
| 20.6249 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Oct 09 1996 13:56 | 11 |
| 20.6250 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy, living in a Dilbert world | Wed Oct 09 1996 13:59 | 5 |
| 20.6251 | Guns and Roses | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Oct 09 1996 14:01 | 6 |
| 20.6252 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Oct 09 1996 14:03 | 1 |
| 20.6253 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Oct 09 1996 14:09 | 9 |
| 20.6254 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy, living in a Dilbert world | Wed Oct 09 1996 14:27 | 2 |
| 20.6255 | | BUSY::SLAB | Being weird isn't enough | Wed Oct 09 1996 16:33 | 13 |
| 20.6256 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Wed Oct 09 1996 16:47 | 8 |
| 20.6257 | | BUSY::SLAB | Being weird isn't enough | Wed Oct 09 1996 16:50 | 6 |
| 20.6258 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 09 1996 16:53 | 8 |
| 20.6259 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Oct 09 1996 17:13 | 3 |
| 20.6260 | | BUSY::SLAB | Candy'O, I need you ... | Wed Oct 09 1996 17:50 | 7 |
| 20.6261 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Wed Oct 09 1996 17:52 | 7 |
| 20.6262 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 09 1996 17:59 | 6 |
| 20.6263 | | BUSY::SLAB | Candy'O, I need you ... | Wed Oct 09 1996 18:04 | 4 |
| 20.6264 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Oct 09 1996 19:05 | 3 |
| 20.6265 | | BUSY::SLAB | Catch you later!! | Wed Oct 09 1996 19:14 | 9 |
| 20.6266 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Wed Oct 09 1996 19:19 | 4 |
| 20.6267 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Oct 09 1996 19:36 | 20 |
| 20.6268 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Oct 09 1996 20:00 | 9 |
| 20.6269 | ... | STAR::JESSOP | Ankylosaurs had afterburners | Wed Oct 09 1996 20:01 | 1 |
| 20.6270 | | BUSY::SLAB | Consume feces and expire. | Wed Oct 09 1996 20:05 | 9 |
| 20.6271 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Wed Oct 09 1996 20:10 | 4 |
| 20.6272 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Thu Oct 10 1996 13:26 | 1 |
| 20.6273 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Oct 10 1996 13:54 | 2 |
| 20.6274 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 11 1996 18:46 | 81 |
| 20.6275 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Fri Oct 11 1996 18:54 | 9 |
| 20.6276 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 11 1996 18:57 | 1 |
| 20.6277 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:01 | 6 |
| 20.6278 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:04 | 1 |
| 20.6279 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:15 | 4 |
| 20.6280 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:18 | 9 |
| 20.6281 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | I'm not crazy! | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:19 | 1 |
| 20.6282 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:19 | 3 |
| 20.6283 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:23 | 9 |
| 20.6284 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:25 | 1 |
| 20.6285 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Think locally, act locally | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:25 | 1 |
| 20.6286 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:26 | 4 |
| 20.6287 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:28 | 7 |
| 20.6288 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:29 | 1 |
| 20.6289 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Think locally, act locally | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:29 | 3 |
| 20.6290 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:34 | 6 |
| 20.6291 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Think locally, act locally | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:35 | 1 |
| 20.6292 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:45 | 3 |
| 20.6293 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Fri Oct 11 1996 19:55 | 18 |
| 20.6294 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Think locally, act locally | Fri Oct 11 1996 20:00 | 3 |
| 20.6295 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Oct 11 1996 20:09 | 9 |
| 20.6296 | pardon my skepticism... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Oct 11 1996 20:10 | 8 |
| 20.6297 | AP Titles are _frequently_ changed by local editors | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 11 1996 20:38 | 6 |
| 20.6298 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Fri Oct 11 1996 20:40 | 4 |
| 20.6299 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Fri Oct 11 1996 20:44 | 15 |
| 20.6300 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Oct 11 1996 20:51 | 12 |
| 20.6301 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Fri Oct 11 1996 20:59 | 9 |
| 20.6302 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Oct 11 1996 21:53 | 5 |
| 20.6303 | | BUSY::SLAB | Grandchildren of the Damned | Fri Oct 11 1996 21:57 | 6 |
| 20.6304 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Sat Oct 12 1996 01:44 | 3 |
| 20.6305 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Sat Oct 12 1996 04:50 | 5 |
| 20.6306 | Must be from Nando.Net -- They partially rewrite the AP articles | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Oct 12 1996 05:09 | 3 |
| 20.6307 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Sat Oct 12 1996 05:22 | 2 |
| 20.6308 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Oct 12 1996 12:45 | 7 |
| 20.6309 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Oct 12 1996 13:15 | 131 |
| 20.6310 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Oct 12 1996 13:24 | 124 |
| 20.6311 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Sat Oct 12 1996 15:11 | 29 |
| 20.6312 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Sat Oct 12 1996 23:54 | 7 |
| 20.6313 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Sat Oct 12 1996 23:56 | 6 |
| 20.6314 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Oct 13 1996 04:50 | 8 |
| 20.6315 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sun Oct 13 1996 04:51 | 3 |
| 20.6316 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Sun Oct 13 1996 14:13 | 7 |
| 20.6317 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Sun Oct 13 1996 16:16 | 11 |
| 20.6318 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Sun Oct 13 1996 19:37 | 8 |
| 20.6319 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Sun Oct 13 1996 19:49 | 4 |
| 20.6320 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 14 1996 03:49 | 15 |
| 20.6321 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 14 1996 03:54 | 8 |
| 20.6322 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 14 1996 04:50 | 10 |
| 20.6323 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy, living in a Dilbert world | Mon Oct 14 1996 08:11 | 8 |
| 20.6324 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Oct 14 1996 08:31 | 4 |
| 20.6325 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 12:36 | 10 |
| 20.6326 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Oct 14 1996 12:46 | 3 |
| 20.6327 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Oct 14 1996 12:54 | 6 |
| 20.6328 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 13:09 | 17 |
| 20.6329 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 14 1996 13:16 | 18 |
| 20.6330 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Oct 14 1996 13:33 | 31 |
| 20.6331 | it's the usual lowering of standards - it's everywhere, even in ourselves... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Mon Oct 14 1996 13:34 | 20 |
| 20.6332 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 13:49 | 12 |
| 20.6333 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:00 | 8 |
| 20.6334 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:06 | 11 |
| 20.6335 | rewritten for broadcast or publication | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:07 | 5 |
| 20.6336 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:08 | 17 |
| 20.6337 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:11 | 12 |
| 20.6338 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:14 | 8 |
| 20.6339 | Is it time to forbid all News Article posting? Hmmm?? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:14 | 15 |
| 20.6340 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:15 | 10 |
| 20.6341 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:17 | 9 |
| 20.6342 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:17 | 11 |
| 20.6343 | I did not falsify anything: the title was in the article contents! | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:29 | 5 |
| 20.6344 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:37 | 8 |
| 20.6345 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:43 | 7 |
| 20.6346 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:43 | 4 |
| 20.6347 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:55 | 6 |
| 20.6348 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Mon Oct 14 1996 14:58 | 7 |
| 20.6349 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:00 | 6 |
| 20.6350 | | BUSY::SLAB | A seemingly endless time | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:00 | 15 |
| 20.6351 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:05 | 13 |
| 20.6352 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:18 | 15 |
| 20.6353 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | guess I'll set a course and go | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:19 | 1 |
| 20.6354 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:20 | 3 |
| 20.6355 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:22 | 13 |
| 20.6356 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:24 | 16 |
| 20.6357 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:30 | 4 |
| 20.6358 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:33 | 10 |
| 20.6359 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 14 1996 15:46 | 12 |
| 20.6360 | Agreeing to Disagree (again) | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Oct 14 1996 16:22 | 17 |
| 20.6361 | Own Up | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Oct 14 1996 16:24 | 10 |
| 20.6362 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Oct 14 1996 16:50 | 18 |
| 20.6363 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 16:53 | 5 |
| 20.6364 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 14 1996 17:29 | 21 |
| 20.6365 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Oct 14 1996 17:31 | 1 |
| 20.6366 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Oct 14 1996 17:44 | 47 |
| 20.6367 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Oct 14 1996 19:46 | 4 |
| 20.6368 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 19:48 | 3 |
| 20.6369 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 14 1996 19:48 | 5 |
| 20.6370 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Oct 14 1996 20:27 | 11 |
| 20.6371 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 14 1996 20:34 | 5 |
| 20.6372 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 14 1996 21:33 | 9 |
| 20.6373 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Bitin' off more than I can spew | Mon Oct 14 1996 21:35 | 1 |
| 20.6374 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Oct 14 1996 21:35 | 13 |
| 20.6375 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Bitin' off more than I can spew | Mon Oct 14 1996 21:37 | 1 |
| 20.6376 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 14 1996 21:47 | 4 |
| 20.6377 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 14 1996 21:47 | 9 |
| 20.6378 | | BUSY::SLAB | The Baby Train | Mon Oct 14 1996 21:54 | 5 |
| 20.6379 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Oct 14 1996 22:11 | 3 |
| 20.6380 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Oct 14 1996 22:49 | 20 |
| 20.6381 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Oct 15 1996 00:44 | 9 |
| 20.6382 | | CHEFS::16.42.32.55::lesliea | really POMPY::LESLIE | Tue Oct 15 1996 07:34 | 26 |
| 20.6383 | nice little earner | CHEFS::COOKS | Half Man,Half Biscuit | Tue Oct 15 1996 11:27 | 2 |
| 20.6384 | Summary (for me) | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Oct 15 1996 13:11 | 28 |
| 20.6385 | As Usual... | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Oct 15 1996 13:14 | 10 |
| 20.6386 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Oct 16 1996 14:36 | 10 |
| 20.6387 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 16 1996 14:48 | 13 |
| 20.6388 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | guess I'll set a course and go | Wed Oct 16 1996 15:01 | 11 |
| 20.6389 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Oct 16 1996 16:24 | 10 |
| 20.6390 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 16 1996 16:41 | 5 |
| 20.6391 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:09 | 7 |
| 20.6392 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:11 | 41 |
| 20.6393 | spelling question... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:17 | 4 |
| 20.6394 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:19 | 1 |
| 20.6395 | | BUSY::SLAB | Twisted forever, forever twisted. | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:34 | 3 |
| 20.6396 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:37 | 14 |
| 20.6397 | | BUSY::SLAB | Twisted forever, forever twisted. | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:42 | 5 |
| 20.6398 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:43 | 1 |
| 20.6399 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:45 | 2 |
| 20.6400 | different flavour... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:53 | 7 |
| 20.6401 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Oct 16 1996 17:59 | 3 |
| 20.6402 | howling like a quixote ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Oct 16 1996 18:05 | 11 |
| 20.6403 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 16 1996 19:11 | 30 |
| 20.6404 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Wed Oct 16 1996 19:34 | 5 |
| 20.6405 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 16 1996 19:38 | 6 |
| 20.6406 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy, living in a Dilbert world | Thu Oct 17 1996 06:58 | 7 |
| 20.6407 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Thu Oct 17 1996 11:09 | 7 |
| 20.6408 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy, living in a Dilbert world | Thu Oct 17 1996 11:23 | 7 |
| 20.6409 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 17 1996 12:36 | 5 |
| 20.6410 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy, living in a Dilbert world | Thu Oct 17 1996 12:41 | 1 |
| 20.6411 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Oct 17 1996 12:43 | 3 |
| 20.6412 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 17 1996 12:51 | 8 |
| 20.6413 | <boggle> backatya | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy, living in a Dilbert world | Thu Oct 17 1996 12:55 | 7 |
| 20.6414 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Oct 17 1996 12:58 | 3 |
| 20.6415 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Thu Oct 17 1996 12:59 | 7 |
| 20.6416 | i'll have what he's having... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Oct 17 1996 13:04 | 4 |
| 20.6417 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | guess I'll set a course and go | Thu Oct 17 1996 13:13 | 4 |
| 20.6418 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Oct 17 1996 13:15 | 1 |
| 20.6419 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Oct 17 1996 13:39 | 6 |
| 20.6420 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | guess I'll set a course and go | Thu Oct 17 1996 13:44 | 6 |
| 20.6421 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Oct 17 1996 13:49 | 5 |
| 20.6422 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Thu Oct 17 1996 13:54 | 4 |
| 20.6423 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Oct 17 1996 14:04 | 22 |
| 20.6424 | doesn't have what it takes... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Oct 17 1996 14:08 | 5 |
| 20.6425 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | guess I'll set a course and go | Thu Oct 17 1996 14:21 | 48 |
| 20.6426 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Oct 17 1996 14:25 | 3 |
| 20.6427 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Thu Oct 17 1996 14:28 | 6 |
| 20.6429 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Oct 17 1996 14:30 | 16 |
| 20.6430 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Oct 17 1996 14:32 | 1 |
| 20.6431 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Bitin' off more than I can spew | Thu Oct 17 1996 14:36 | 2 |
| 20.6432 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | mz_debra fan club member | Thu Oct 17 1996 15:56 | 2 |
| 20.6433 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Mon Oct 21 1996 16:09 | 6 |
| 20.6434 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 16:17 | 12 |
| 20.6435 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 16:20 | 1 |
| 20.6436 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 16:23 | 2 |
| 20.6437 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Mon Oct 21 1996 16:34 | 10 |
| 20.6438 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Mon Oct 21 1996 16:40 | 7 |
| 20.6439 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 16:46 | 8 |
| 20.6440 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Mon Oct 21 1996 16:49 | 9 |
| 20.6441 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Mon Oct 21 1996 16:57 | 19 |
| 20.6442 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:02 | 24 |
| 20.6443 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:06 | 4 |
| 20.6444 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:06 | 62 |
| 20.6445 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:09 | 3 |
| 20.6446 | | BULEAN::BANKS | America is Ferenginor | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:11 | 1 |
| 20.6447 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:12 | 14 |
| 20.6448 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:14 | 15 |
| 20.6449 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:19 | 1 |
| 20.6450 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:21 | 8 |
| 20.6451 | oh, the irony | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:39 | 6 |
| 20.6452 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:41 | 4 |
| 20.6453 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:42 | 3 |
| 20.6454 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Mon Oct 21 1996 17:44 | 3 |
| 20.6455 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Mon Oct 21 1996 18:36 | 4 |
| 20.6456 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Oct 21 1996 18:40 | 3 |
| 20.6457 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 18:41 | 6 |
| 20.6458 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Oct 21 1996 18:51 | 3 |
| 20.6459 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 18:53 | 1 |
| 20.6460 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Mon Oct 21 1996 18:55 | 1 |
| 20.6461 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 18:58 | 6 |
| 20.6462 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:00 | 12 |
| 20.6463 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:03 | 1 |
| 20.6464 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:05 | 27 |
| 20.6465 | | BUSY::SLAB | Can you hear the drums, Fernando? | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:06 | 4 |
| 20.6466 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:08 | 2 |
| 20.6467 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:16 | 11 |
| 20.6468 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:18 | 2 |
| 20.6469 | pit bonnie | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:21 | 4 |
| 20.6470 | | BUSY::SLAB | Can you hear the drums, Fernando? | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:26 | 6 |
| 20.6471 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:28 | 2 |
| 20.6472 | | BUSY::SLAB | Career Opportunity Week at DEC | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:30 | 5 |
| 20.6473 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:32 | 1 |
| 20.6474 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | guess I'll set a course and go | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:34 | 2 |
| 20.6475 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:39 | 7 |
| 20.6476 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:42 | 9 |
| 20.6477 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 19:45 | 3 |
| 20.6478 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Oct 21 1996 20:18 | 10 |
| 20.6479 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Oct 21 1996 20:33 | 30 |
| 20.6480 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Andruw Jones for President | Mon Oct 21 1996 21:22 | 28 |
| 20.6481 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 21:52 | 18 |
| 20.6482 | | BUSY::SLAB | Consume feces and expire. | Mon Oct 21 1996 21:58 | 6 |
| 20.6483 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | You're the one who's crazy! | Mon Oct 21 1996 22:12 | 1 |
| 20.6484 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Oct 22 1996 00:07 | 30 |
| 20.6485 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Oct 22 1996 02:02 | 74 |
| 20.6486 | Misc. | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Oct 22 1996 12:52 | 29 |
| 20.6487 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Andruw Jones for President | Tue Oct 22 1996 13:16 | 14 |
| 20.6488 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Oct 22 1996 13:40 | 19 |
| 20.6489 | Jurisdiction | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Oct 23 1996 12:43 | 15 |
| 20.6490 | Tried To Be Generic | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Oct 23 1996 12:46 | 15 |
| 20.6491 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Andruw Jones for President | Wed Oct 23 1996 17:00 | 10 |
| 20.6492 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 24 1996 17:24 | 13 |
| 20.6493 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Oct 24 1996 23:48 | 8 |
| 20.6494 | YES! | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Sun Oct 27 1996 19:44 | 7 |
| 20.6495 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Mon Oct 28 1996 11:58 | 8 |
| 20.6496 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 28 1996 12:53 | 81 |
| 20.6497 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Oct 28 1996 13:03 | 1 |
| 20.6498 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Oct 28 1996 13:33 | 14 |
| 20.6499 | Destruction of "family values" -- replaced with "village values" | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Oct 28 1996 13:42 | 10 |
| 20.6500 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Oct 28 1996 13:42 | 12 |
| 20.6501 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Mon Oct 28 1996 14:06 | 4 |
| 20.6502 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Oct 28 1996 14:07 | 1 |
| 20.6503 | | BUSY::SLAB | Subtract LAB, add TUD, invert nothing | Mon Oct 28 1996 14:18 | 7 |
| 20.6504 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Oct 28 1996 14:18 | 4 |
| 20.6505 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Oct 28 1996 14:40 | 12 |
| 20.6506 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Oct 28 1996 14:54 | 7 |
| 20.6507 | | BUSY::SLAB | Subtract LAB, add TUD, invert nothing | Mon Oct 28 1996 15:18 | 6 |
| 20.6508 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Oct 28 1996 15:28 | 7 |
| 20.6509 | | BUSY::SLAB | Subtract LAB, add TUD, invert nothing | Mon Oct 28 1996 15:29 | 5 |
| 20.6510 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Oct 29 1996 10:13 | 19 |
| 20.6511 | anecdotal evidence | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Tue Oct 29 1996 16:11 | 13 |
| 20.6512 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Oct 29 1996 17:04 | 2 |
| 20.6513 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | mz_debra fan club member | Tue Oct 29 1996 17:21 | 2 |
| 20.6514 | | BUSY::SLAB | Subtract LAB, add TUD, invert nothing | Tue Oct 29 1996 19:05 | 18 |
| 20.6515 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Oct 30 1996 02:12 | 48 |
| 20.6516 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Atheism, Religion of the Gods | Wed Oct 30 1996 13:44 | 3 |
| 20.6517 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 13:46 | 5 |
| 20.6518 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:00 | 3 |
| 20.6519 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:01 | 5 |
| 20.6520 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:02 | 2 |
| 20.6521 | | EVMS::MORONEY | Sorry, my dog ate my homepage. | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:02 | 6 |
| 20.6522 | so what ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:09 | 7 |
| 20.6523 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:10 | 3 |
| 20.6524 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:11 | 4 |
| 20.6525 | bzzt | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:12 | 3 |
| 20.6526 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:14 | 3 |
| 20.6527 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:15 | 1 |
| 20.6528 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:15 | 4 |
| 20.6529 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:16 | 4 |
| 20.6530 | yes it's 'possessive', I know... | EVMS::MORONEY | Sorry, my dog ate my homepage. | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:16 | 4 |
| 20.6531 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:18 | 5 |
| 20.6532 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:19 | 1 |
| 20.6533 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Vending machines=food of the gods | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:21 | 2 |
| 20.6534 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy, living in a Dilbert world | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:21 | 5 |
| 20.6535 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Vending machines=food of the gods | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:22 | 3 |
| 20.6536 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Vending machines=food of the gods | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:24 | 5 |
| 20.6537 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:25 | 11 |
| 20.6538 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:25 | 7 |
| 20.6539 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:28 | 7 |
| 20.6540 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy, living in a Dilbert world | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:30 | 6 |
| 20.6541 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:31 | 1 |
| 20.6542 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Vending machines=food of the gods | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:31 | 2 |
| 20.6543 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Vending machines=food of the gods | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:32 | 2 |
| 20.6544 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:32 | 11 |
| 20.6545 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:53 | 9 |
| 20.6546 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Andy, living in a Dilbert world | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:55 | 3 |
| 20.6547 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | sweet & juicy on the inside | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:57 | 3 |
| 20.6548 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:57 | 8 |
| 20.6549 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:58 | 1 |
| 20.6550 | | EVMS::MORONEY | Sorry, my dog ate my homepage. | Wed Oct 30 1996 14:59 | 17 |
| 20.6551 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Vending machines=food of the gods | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:01 | 3 |
| 20.6552 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:02 | 4 |
| 20.6553 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:14 | 10 |
| 20.6554 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:18 | 6 |
| 20.6555 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:24 | 5 |
| 20.6556 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:35 | 5 |
| 20.6557 | | SCAMP::MINICHINO | | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:37 | 2 |
| 20.6558 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | Look in ya heaaaaaaaaaaaart! | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:45 | 1 |
| 20.6559 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:49 | 3 |
| 20.6560 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Vending machines=food of the gods | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:54 | 2 |
| 20.6561 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:54 | 6 |
| 20.6562 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:58 | 4 |
| 20.6563 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Oct 30 1996 15:58 | 1 |
| 20.6564 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Oct 30 1996 16:05 | 3 |
| 20.6565 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Oct 30 1996 16:17 | 2 |
| 20.6566 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Wed Oct 30 1996 20:45 | 10 |
| 20.6567 | | BUSY::SLAB | Subtract LAB, add TUD, invert nothing | Thu Oct 31 1996 13:03 | 3 |
| 20.6568 | so what ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Oct 31 1996 13:12 | 5 |
| 20.6569 | | BUSY::SLAB | Subtract LAB, add TUD, invert nothing | Thu Oct 31 1996 13:19 | 5 |
| 20.6570 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Oct 31 1996 13:21 | 2 |
| 20.6571 | | ABACUS::MINICHINO | | Thu Oct 31 1996 14:58 | 9 |
| 20.6572 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Thu Oct 31 1996 15:23 | 7 |
| 20.6573 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Oct 31 1996 16:00 | 4 |
| 20.6574 | | BULEAN::BANKS | America is Ferenginor | Fri Nov 01 1996 13:33 | 4 |
| 20.6575 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | How high? | Fri Nov 01 1996 17:10 | 8 |
| 20.6576 | | BUSY::SLAB | Subtract LAB, add TUD, invert nothing | Fri Nov 01 1996 17:14 | 7 |
| 20.6577 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Nov 01 1996 18:11 | 22 |
| 20.6578 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Wed Nov 06 1996 19:54 | 19 |
| 20.6579 | | FABSIX::J_SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Wed Nov 06 1996 21:18 | 5 |
| 20.6580 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 06 1996 22:16 | 10 |
| 20.6581 | Get a clue, George | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Thu Nov 07 1996 11:38 | 8 |
| 20.6582 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Thu Nov 07 1996 11:50 | 18 |
| 20.6583 | it's in there | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Thu Nov 07 1996 11:57 | 6 |
| 20.6584 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Thu Nov 07 1996 11:58 | 5 |
| 20.6585 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Thu Nov 07 1996 12:14 | 20 |
| 20.6586 | | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Thu Nov 07 1996 12:35 | 6 |
| 20.6587 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Nov 07 1996 12:35 | 14 |
| 20.6588 | I stand corrected | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Thu Nov 07 1996 12:47 | 6 |
| 20.6589 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Thu Nov 07 1996 15:15 | 25 |
| 20.6590 | the first right, the right to life | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Thu Nov 07 1996 18:28 | 5 |
| 20.6591 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Thu Nov 07 1996 18:50 | 8 |
| 20.6592 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 08 1996 09:47 | 6 |
| 20.6593 | every sperm is sacred | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Fri Nov 08 1996 11:28 | 15 |
| 20.6594 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott itj | Fri Nov 08 1996 11:53 | 4 |
| 20.6595 | Are you under the impression that you have a point? | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Fri Nov 08 1996 11:56 | 2 |
| 20.6596 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott itj | Fri Nov 08 1996 12:00 | 4 |
| 20.6597 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Fri Nov 08 1996 12:15 | 13 |
| 20.6598 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 08 1996 12:35 | 10 |
| 20.6599 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Fri Nov 08 1996 12:58 | 21 |
| 20.6600 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 08 1996 13:47 | 11 |
| 20.6601 | amend the second, folks... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Nov 08 1996 13:55 | 4 |
| 20.6602 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Fri Nov 08 1996 14:32 | 18 |
| 20.6603 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Fri Nov 08 1996 14:37 | 11 |
| 20.6604 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Fri Nov 08 1996 14:46 | 16 |
| 20.6605 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Fri Nov 08 1996 14:54 | 4 |
| 20.6606 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 08 1996 15:07 | 10 |
| 20.6607 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Fri Nov 08 1996 15:16 | 5 |
| 20.6608 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 08 1996 15:22 | 5 |
| 20.6609 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Nov 08 1996 15:23 | 8 |
| 20.6610 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Fri Nov 08 1996 15:24 | 7 |
| 20.6611 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 08 1996 15:26 | 8 |
| 20.6613 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Nov 08 1996 15:37 | 1 |
| 20.6612 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Nov 08 1996 15:39 | 15 |
| 20.6614 | you loose | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Fri Nov 08 1996 16:37 | 51 |
| 20.6615 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Nov 08 1996 16:38 | 3 |
| 20.6616 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Nov 08 1996 16:47 | 23 |
| 20.6617 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Fri Nov 08 1996 16:54 | 6 |
| 20.6618 | santayana? | LANDO::OLIVER_B | | Fri Nov 08 1996 16:54 | 6 |
| 20.6619 | | BSS::DSMITH | RATDOGS DON'T BITE | Fri Nov 08 1996 18:25 | 8 |
| 20.6620 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Nov 08 1996 21:29 | 1 |
| 20.6621 | | BSS::PROCTOR_R | Flushed... not blanched! | Fri Nov 08 1996 23:22 | 3 |
| 20.6622 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 18 1996 16:40 | 70 |
| 20.6623 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Nov 19 1996 02:01 | 62 |
| 20.6624 | No, Meg did not say what it looks like I've quoted... | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 19 1996 03:28 | 14 |
| 20.6625 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Nov 19 1996 10:48 | 12 |
| 20.6626 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Nov 19 1996 11:10 | 5 |
| 20.6627 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Nov 19 1996 11:54 | 3 |
| 20.6628 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Tue Nov 19 1996 12:01 | 6 |
| 20.6629 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Nov 19 1996 12:05 | 3 |
| 20.6630 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Tue Nov 19 1996 12:08 | 12 |
| 20.6631 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Nov 19 1996 12:27 | 2 |
| 20.6632 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Tue Nov 19 1996 12:37 | 12 |
| 20.6633 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Clueless in Chicago | Tue Nov 19 1996 12:38 | 2 |
| 20.6634 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Nov 19 1996 12:42 | 1 |
| 20.6635 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Nov 19 1996 12:51 | 16 |
| 20.6636 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Nov 19 1996 12:52 | 21 |
| 20.6637 | | BUSY::SLAB | You and me against the world | Tue Nov 19 1996 13:35 | 5 |
| 20.6638 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 19 1996 13:36 | 1 |
| 20.6639 | | BUSY::SLAB | You and me against the world | Tue Nov 19 1996 13:53 | 3 |
| 20.6640 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott itj | Tue Nov 19 1996 14:21 | 60 |
| 20.6641 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Nov 19 1996 15:23 | 21 |
| 20.6642 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Nov 19 1996 15:32 | 14 |
| 20.6643 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 15:32 | 4 |
| 20.6644 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 15:33 | 3 |
| 20.6645 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Nov 19 1996 15:39 | 15 |
| 20.6646 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Nov 19 1996 15:44 | 11 |
| 20.6647 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Tue Nov 19 1996 16:44 | 15 |
| 20.6648 | | BUSY::SLAB | Your mother has an outie!! | Tue Nov 19 1996 16:55 | 3 |
| 20.6649 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Nov 19 1996 17:04 | 1 |
| 20.6650 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott itj | Tue Nov 19 1996 17:05 | 1 |
| 20.6651 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 17:44 | 17 |
| 20.6652 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Nov 19 1996 17:49 | 5 |
| 20.6653 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Nov 19 1996 17:56 | 18 |
| 20.6654 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 17:57 | 10 |
| 20.6655 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Tue Nov 19 1996 17:57 | 1 |
| 20.6656 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:06 | 19 |
| 20.6657 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:06 | 17 |
| 20.6659 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:09 | 10 |
| 20.6660 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:09 | 6 |
| 20.6661 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:12 | 3 |
| 20.6662 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:13 | 16 |
| 20.6663 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:13 | 25 |
| 20.6664 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:16 | 2 |
| 20.6665 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:18 | 9 |
| 20.6666 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:18 | 4 |
| 20.6667 | What an easy GOSUB EXIT that is | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:19 | 1 |
| 20.6668 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:20 | 26 |
| 20.6669 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:20 | 10 |
| 20.6670 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:21 | 9 |
| 20.6671 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:23 | 7 |
| 20.6672 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:25 | 17 |
| 20.6673 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:26 | 8 |
| 20.6674 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:27 | 3 |
| 20.6675 | send society to jail | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott itj | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:31 | 1 |
| 20.6676 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:39 | 12 |
| 20.6677 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:43 | 11 |
| 20.6678 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:44 | 2 |
| 20.6679 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott itj | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:47 | 17 |
| 20.6680 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:48 | 10 |
| 20.6681 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:48 | 3 |
| 20.6682 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:49 | 1 |
| 20.6683 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | look to the swedes! | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:51 | 1 |
| 20.6684 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Nov 19 1996 18:54 | 5 |
| 20.6685 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Tue Nov 19 1996 19:13 | 3 |
| 20.6686 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 20 1996 01:06 | 124 |
| 20.6687 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Nov 20 1996 09:32 | 18 |
| 20.6688 | | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Wed Nov 20 1996 10:44 | 16 |
| 20.6689 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Nov 20 1996 11:12 | 7 |
| 20.6690 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Nov 20 1996 11:18 | 4 |
| 20.6691 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Wed Nov 20 1996 11:40 | 11 |
| 20.6692 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Clueless in Chicago | Wed Nov 20 1996 11:55 | 2 |
| 20.6693 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Clueless in Chicago | Wed Nov 20 1996 11:56 | 4 |
| 20.6694 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Nov 20 1996 12:02 | 9 |
| 20.6695 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Clueless in Chicago | Wed Nov 20 1996 12:04 | 3 |
| 20.6696 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Nov 20 1996 12:05 | 42 |
| 20.6698 | please translate... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Nov 20 1996 12:31 | 9 |
| 20.6699 | Where was the compassionate counselling with pro-life choices? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 20 1996 12:31 | 18 |
| 20.6700 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Nov 20 1996 12:34 | 5 |
| 20.6701 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 20 1996 12:39 | 8 |
| 20.6702 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Wed Nov 20 1996 12:39 | 13 |
| 20.6703 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 20 1996 12:53 | 112 |
| 20.6704 | A bad case of hormones? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 20 1996 12:54 | 7 |
| 20.6705 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Nov 20 1996 15:00 | 8 |
| 20.6706 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Nov 20 1996 15:10 | 15 |
| 20.6707 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Nov 20 1996 15:16 | 9 |
| 20.6708 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Wed Nov 20 1996 15:35 | 4 |
| 20.6709 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Wed Nov 20 1996 17:11 | 8 |
| 20.6710 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Nov 20 1996 17:22 | 4 |
| 20.6711 | | BUSY::SLAB | Baroque: when you're out of Monet | Wed Nov 20 1996 17:23 | 4 |
| 20.6712 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Wed Nov 20 1996 17:27 | 4 |
| 20.6713 | the sad truth | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Wed Nov 20 1996 17:29 | 5 |
| 20.6714 | no towel needed this time. | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Wed Nov 20 1996 17:30 | 6 |
| 20.6715 | Keep sliding the envelope out just a bit... | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 20 1996 17:50 | 1 |
| 20.6716 | | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Wed Nov 20 1996 17:53 | 10 |
| 20.6717 | Not yet aware of anything... | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 20 1996 17:55 | 1 |
| 20.6718 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Wed Nov 20 1996 18:02 | 17 |
| 20.6719 | | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Wed Nov 20 1996 18:09 | 8 |
| 20.6720 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 20 1996 18:25 | 3 |
| 20.6721 | re -.1 | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Wed Nov 20 1996 18:33 | 4 |
| 20.6722 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Wed Nov 20 1996 18:34 | 3 |
| 20.6723 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Nov 20 1996 18:35 | 6 |
| 20.6724 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | look to the swedes! | Wed Nov 20 1996 18:44 | 4 |
| 20.6725 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Wed Nov 20 1996 18:44 | 22 |
| 20.6726 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Wed Nov 20 1996 18:46 | 1 |
| 20.6727 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 20 1996 20:25 | 11 |
| 20.6728 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | look to the swedes! | Wed Nov 20 1996 20:27 | 3 |
| 20.6729 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | look to the swedes! | Wed Nov 20 1996 20:30 | 3 |
| 20.6730 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 20 1996 20:56 | 11 |
| 20.6731 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 21 1996 03:01 | 73 |
| 20.6732 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott itj | Thu Nov 21 1996 10:20 | 14 |
| 20.6733 | Maybe Dersh isn't sure this was murder. Coulda been abortion. | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 21 1996 11:48 | 4 |
| 20.6734 | exact quote, 2nd time you have asked | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Thu Nov 21 1996 11:59 | 5 |
| 20.6735 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott itj | Thu Nov 21 1996 12:00 | 1 |
| 20.6736 | it doesn't matter how many | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Thu Nov 21 1996 12:07 | 29 |
| 20.6737 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Nov 21 1996 12:11 | 5 |
| 20.6738 | and also... | WONDER::BOISSE | | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:20 | 7 |
| 20.6739 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:24 | 6 |
| 20.6740 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:29 | 7 |
| 20.6741 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:33 | 6 |
| 20.6742 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:35 | 3 |
| 20.6743 | | BRAT::MINICHINO | | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:46 | 16 |
| 20.6744 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:47 | 91 |
| 20.6745 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:49 | 10 |
| 20.6746 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:51 | 7 |
| 20.6747 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:52 | 5 |
| 20.6748 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:53 | 1 |
| 20.6749 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott itj | Thu Nov 21 1996 15:56 | 15 |
| 20.6750 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:03 | 24 |
| 20.6751 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:11 | 8 |
| 20.6752 | Visiting our country must be wery wery dangerous | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:16 | 6 |
| 20.6753 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:22 | 16 |
| 20.6754 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | look to the swedes! | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:36 | 3 |
| 20.6755 | Also, Federal Law incorporates all of English Common Law | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:39 | 10 |
| 20.6756 | constitutional | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:39 | 11 |
| 20.6757 | lemme figger | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:45 | 6 |
| 20.6758 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:45 | 2 |
| 20.6759 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:51 | 9 |
| 20.6760 | And while on that very subject... | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:53 | 33 |
| 20.6761 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | look to the swedes! | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:55 | 6 |
| 20.6762 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Thu Nov 21 1996 16:58 | 23 |
| 20.6763 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Thu Nov 21 1996 17:00 | 10 |
| 20.6764 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 21 1996 17:03 | 3 |
| 20.6765 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Thu Nov 21 1996 17:11 | 10 |
| 20.6766 | need more juice | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Nov 21 1996 17:22 | 11 |
| 20.6767 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 21 1996 17:23 | 1 |
| 20.6768 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | look to the swedes! | Thu Nov 21 1996 17:27 | 3 |
| 20.6769 | in 1787 right to life was assumed | NCMAIL::JAMESS | | Thu Nov 21 1996 18:38 | 11 |
| 20.6770 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Thu Nov 21 1996 18:46 | 26 |
| 20.6771 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Thu Nov 21 1996 18:47 | 6 |
| 20.6772 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | look to the swedes! | Thu Nov 21 1996 18:52 | 1 |
| 20.6773 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 22 1996 04:08 | 10 |
| 20.6774 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Nov 22 1996 11:41 | 14 |
| 20.6775 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Fri Nov 22 1996 12:02 | 23 |
| 20.6776 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Nov 22 1996 13:01 | 26 |
| 20.6777 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Nov 22 1996 13:43 | 5 |
| 20.6778 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Nov 22 1996 15:00 | 8 |
| 20.6779 | I forgot, this is the abortion topic ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Nov 22 1996 15:15 | 34 |
| 20.6780 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Nov 22 1996 15:29 | 9 |
| 20.6781 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Fri Nov 22 1996 15:44 | 26 |
| 20.6782 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott itj | Fri Nov 22 1996 18:00 | 76 |
| 20.6783 | | BUSY::SLAB | Erin go braghless | Fri Nov 22 1996 18:04 | 3 |
| 20.6784 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Nov 23 1996 18:18 | 66 |
| 20.6785 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Nov 23 1996 18:20 | 9 |
| 20.6786 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Sat Nov 23 1996 19:39 | 3 |
| 20.6787 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 25 1996 00:07 | 3 |
| 20.6788 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Nov 25 1996 01:33 | 19 |
| 20.6789 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Nov 25 1996 02:13 | 11 |
| 20.6790 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Nov 25 1996 10:20 | 2 |
| 20.6791 | | SALEM::DODA | Visibly shaken, not stirred | Mon Nov 25 1996 11:51 | 7 |
| 20.6792 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Mon Nov 25 1996 12:21 | 2 |
| 20.6793 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Nov 25 1996 12:29 | 6 |
| 20.6794 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Mon Nov 25 1996 12:36 | 17 |
| 20.6795 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Nov 25 1996 12:48 | 13 |
| 20.6796 | | BUSY::SLAB | GTI 16V - dust thy neighbor!! | Mon Nov 25 1996 13:14 | 3 |
| 20.6797 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Nov 25 1996 14:26 | 17 |
| 20.6798 | wasn't it Colin ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Mon Nov 25 1996 14:34 | 12 |
| 20.6799 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Mon Nov 25 1996 14:39 | 20 |
| 20.6800 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Nov 25 1996 15:03 | 12 |
| 20.6801 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Nov 25 1996 15:33 | 28 |
| 20.6802 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Nov 25 1996 15:39 | 6 |
| 20.6803 | idiots | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Mon Nov 25 1996 15:46 | 16 |
| 20.6804 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159 | Mon Nov 25 1996 16:17 | 5 |
| 20.6805 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Nov 25 1996 16:18 | 3 |
| 20.6806 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Mon Nov 25 1996 16:19 | 1 |
| 20.6807 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Nov 25 1996 16:19 | 1 |
| 20.6808 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159 | Mon Nov 25 1996 16:21 | 11 |
| 20.6809 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Nov 25 1996 16:36 | 2 |
| 20.6810 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.yvv.com/decplus/ | Mon Nov 25 1996 17:37 | 5 |
| 20.6811 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Nov 25 1996 18:53 | 22 |
| 20.6812 | simple, DougO | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Mon Nov 25 1996 19:26 | 21 |
| 20.6813 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Nov 25 1996 20:44 | 23 |
| 20.6814 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Nov 26 1996 11:57 | 29 |
| 20.6815 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 26 1996 13:20 | 6 |
| 20.6816 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Nov 26 1996 14:27 | 21 |
| 20.6817 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Nov 26 1996 16:11 | 6 |
| 20.6818 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Nov 26 1996 16:44 | 4 |
| 20.6819 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Tue Nov 26 1996 16:45 | 3 |
| 20.6820 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Tue Nov 26 1996 16:48 | 5 |
| 20.6821 | | BUSY::SLAB | Act like you own the company | Tue Nov 26 1996 16:49 | 3 |
| 20.6822 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Tue Nov 26 1996 16:56 | 13 |
| 20.6823 | | POMPY::LESLIE | Personal magnetism erases floppies | Wed Nov 27 1996 12:55 | 12 |
| 20.6824 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 27 1996 17:03 | 9 |
| 20.6825 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 27 1996 17:04 | 60 |
| 20.6826 | | BULEAN::BANKS | America is Ferenginor | Wed Nov 27 1996 17:06 | 3 |
| 20.6827 | re: .6825 (special assignment for /john to think about) | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Wed Nov 27 1996 17:09 | 3 |
| 20.6828 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Wed Nov 27 1996 17:42 | 14 |
| 20.6829 | | BULEAN::BANKS | America is Ferenginor | Wed Nov 27 1996 17:46 | 5 |
| 20.6830 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Nov 27 1996 17:47 | 1 |
| 20.6831 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Wed Nov 27 1996 17:58 | 7 |
| 20.6832 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:17 | 5 |
| 20.6833 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | grindleproot hanglebungedy | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:20 | 1 |
| 20.6834 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:20 | 9 |
| 20.6835 | | BUSY::SLAB | Black No. 1 | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:21 | 3 |
| 20.6836 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:22 | 1 |
| 20.6837 | | BULEAN::BANKS | America is Ferenginor | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:22 | 7 |
| 20.6838 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:27 | 4 |
| 20.6839 | | BULEAN::BANKS | America is Ferenginor | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:33 | 1 |
| 20.6840 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:35 | 1 |
| 20.6841 | enuff with the definition game, please !! | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:37 | 11 |
| 20.6842 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Wed Nov 27 1996 18:40 | 1 |
| 20.6843 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Wed Nov 27 1996 20:04 | 32 |
| 20.6844 | | CHEFS::UKSTATIONERY | caw blimey, it's Merry Poppuns! | Thu Nov 28 1996 06:53 | 6 |
| 20.6845 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Nov 28 1996 11:57 | 5 |
| 20.6846 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Thu Nov 28 1996 12:15 | 3 |
| 20.6847 | Expecting colorfull humorous responses | CHEFS::UKSTATIONERY | caw blimey, it's Merry Poppuns! | Thu Nov 28 1996 13:56 | 10 |
| 20.6848 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Thu Nov 28 1996 14:03 | 5 |
| 20.6849 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Thu Nov 28 1996 14:10 | 3 |
| 20.6850 | | CHEFS::UKSTATIONERY | caw blimey, it's Merry Poppuns! | Thu Nov 28 1996 14:12 | 7 |
| 20.6851 | The point, for someone who never seems to get it | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Thu Nov 28 1996 14:13 | 4 |
| 20.6852 | | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | | Thu Nov 28 1996 16:33 | 176 |
| 20.6853 | | CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE | | Fri Nov 29 1996 16:28 | 227 |
| 20.6854 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 03:38 | 89 |
| 20.6855 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Dec 02 1996 12:08 | 2 |
| 20.6856 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 02 1996 12:19 | 40 |
| 20.6857 | | BULEAN::BANKS | America is Ferenginor | Mon Dec 02 1996 12:21 | 2 |
| 20.6858 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 02 1996 12:25 | 11 |
| 20.6859 | | BULEAN::BANKS | America is Ferenginor | Mon Dec 02 1996 12:26 | 3 |
| 20.6860 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Dec 02 1996 12:32 | 5 |
| 20.6861 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 02 1996 12:41 | 17 |
| 20.6862 | | BULEAN::BANKS | A prozac a day keeps the mailman at bay | Mon Dec 02 1996 12:46 | 4 |
| 20.6863 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 02 1996 12:55 | 14 |
| 20.6864 | | BULEAN::BANKS | A prozac a day keeps the mailman at bay | Mon Dec 02 1996 12:59 | 2 |
| 20.6865 | I have CORRECTLY represented Dersh's article | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 13:07 | 9 |
| 20.6867 | | BULEAN::BANKS | A prozac a day keeps the mailman at bay | Mon Dec 02 1996 13:21 | 3 |
| 20.6869 | | BULEAN::BANKS | A prozac a day keeps the mailman at bay | Mon Dec 02 1996 13:27 | 8 |
| 20.6866 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 02 1996 13:29 | 35 |
| 20.6870 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 02 1996 13:31 | 19 |
| 20.6871 | ego elephantiasis ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Mon Dec 02 1996 13:41 | 5 |
| 20.6872 | | BULEAN::BANKS | A prozac a day keeps the mailman at bay | Mon Dec 02 1996 13:41 | 4 |
| 20.6873 | | EVMS::MORONEY | The Thing in the Basement. | Mon Dec 02 1996 14:48 | 5 |
| 20.6874 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Dec 02 1996 15:04 | 8 |
| 20.6875 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Dec 02 1996 15:33 | 3 |
| 20.6876 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:00 | 1 |
| 20.6877 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:02 | 3 |
| 20.6878 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:03 | 1 |
| 20.6879 | | BUSY::SLAB | ch-ch-ch-ch-ha-ha-ha-ha | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:06 | 3 |
| 20.6880 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:12 | 6 |
| 20.6881 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:16 | 11 |
| 20.6882 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:20 | 5 |
| 20.6883 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:24 | 15 |
| 20.6884 | | BUSY::SLAB | A cross upon her bedroom wall ... | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:47 | 3 |
| 20.6885 | Baptism is only "generally" necessary for salvation | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:53 | 6 |
| 20.6886 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:56 | 5 |
| 20.6887 | | BUSY::SLAB | A cross upon her bedroom wall ... | Mon Dec 02 1996 16:59 | 7 |
| 20.6888 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Dec 02 1996 17:01 | 13 |
| 20.6889 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 17:04 | 12 |
| 20.6890 | Speculation and local teaching are not Catholic doctrine | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 17:06 | 11 |
| 20.6891 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Dec 02 1996 17:14 | 4 |
| 20.6892 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Dec 02 1996 18:39 | 12 |
| 20.6893 | The unborn child also possesses original sin. Reread .6889 | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 18:42 | 9 |
| 20.6894 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Dec 02 1996 18:47 | 3 |
| 20.6895 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | grindleproot hanglebungedy | Mon Dec 02 1996 18:47 | 1 |
| 20.6896 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Dec 02 1996 18:49 | 1 |
| 20.6897 | :-) :-) :-) | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Mon Dec 02 1996 18:50 | 4 |
| 20.6898 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 18:53 | 12 |
| 20.6899 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 19:06 | 19 |
| 20.6900 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Dec 02 1996 19:15 | 22 |
| 20.6901 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Dec 02 1996 19:16 | 4 |
| 20.6902 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Mon Dec 02 1996 19:17 | 3 |
| 20.6903 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Mon Dec 02 1996 19:55 | 10 |
| 20.6904 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Dec 02 1996 20:06 | 4 |
| 20.6905 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Dec 02 1996 20:09 | 9 |
| 20.6906 | | CLUSTA::MAIEWSKI | Braves, 1914 1957 1995 WS Champs | Mon Dec 02 1996 20:19 | 8 |
| 20.6907 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Mon Dec 02 1996 20:24 | 4 |
| 20.6908 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Dec 02 1996 20:25 | 11 |
| 20.6909 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Dec 02 1996 20:26 | 69 |
| 20.6910 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 20:53 | 42 |
| 20.6911 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 21:07 | 58 |
| 20.6912 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 02 1996 21:22 | 41 |
| 20.6913 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Dec 02 1996 22:40 | 15 |
| 20.6914 | To find out what the official teaching is | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Dec 03 1996 13:05 | 6 |
| 20.6915 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Tue Dec 03 1996 15:15 | 4 |
| 20.6916 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Dec 03 1996 16:24 | 1 |
| 20.6917 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Dec 07 1996 02:16 | 62 |
| 20.6918 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Dec 09 1996 17:22 | 9 |
| 20.6919 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Dec 09 1996 17:28 | 1 |
| 20.6920 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Dec 09 1996 18:03 | 6 |
| 20.6921 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Dec 09 1996 20:46 | 50 |
| 20.6922 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Mon Dec 09 1996 20:48 | 4 |
| 20.6923 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Dec 09 1996 23:39 | 6 |
| 20.6924 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Dec 10 1996 09:19 | 4 |
| 20.6925 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Tue Dec 10 1996 13:51 | 10 |
| 20.6926 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Dec 17 1996 17:04 | 9 |
| 20.6927 | | BUSY::SLAB | Erin go braghless | Tue Dec 17 1996 17:09 | 4 |
| 20.6928 | re: .6927 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Dec 17 1996 17:42 | 4 |
| 20.6929 | 1st degree murder is too extreme | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Tue Dec 17 1996 17:50 | 18 |
| 20.6930 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Tue Dec 17 1996 17:54 | 3 |
| 20.6931 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Dec 17 1996 20:10 | 7 |
| 20.6932 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Dec 17 1996 21:13 | 7 |
| 20.6933 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Dec 17 1996 21:26 | 51 |
| 20.6934 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Tue Dec 17 1996 22:20 | 13 |
| 20.6935 | | BIGHOG::PERCIVAL | I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO | Tue Dec 17 1996 22:39 | 10 |
| 20.6936 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Dec 18 1996 00:38 | 6 |
| 20.6937 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Dec 18 1996 02:48 | 4 |
| 20.6938 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Dec 18 1996 09:18 | 8 |
| 20.6939 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Wed Dec 18 1996 10:31 | 4 |
| 20.6940 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Wed Dec 18 1996 10:45 | 1 |
| 20.6941 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Dec 18 1996 11:01 | 4 |
| 20.6942 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Dec 18 1996 11:36 | 10 |
| 20.6943 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Dec 18 1996 11:37 | 5 |
| 20.6944 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Dec 18 1996 12:04 | 13 |
| 20.6945 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Dec 18 1996 12:16 | 10 |
| 20.6946 | practical choice | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Dec 18 1996 12:33 | 6 |
| 20.6947 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Dec 18 1996 12:34 | 4 |
| 20.6948 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Wed Dec 18 1996 12:43 | 2 |
| 20.6949 | | BUSY::SLAB | Go Go Gophers watch them go go go! | Wed Dec 18 1996 13:17 | 5 |
| 20.6950 | re: .6936 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Dec 18 1996 15:41 | 9 |
| 20.6951 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Wed Dec 18 1996 15:42 | 4 |
| 20.6952 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Wed Dec 18 1996 15:43 | 4 |
| 20.6953 | | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Dec 18 1996 15:47 | 15 |
| 20.6954 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Dec 18 1996 15:59 | 7 |
| 20.6955 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Dec 18 1996 16:10 | 4 |
| 20.6956 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Wed Dec 18 1996 16:11 | 6 |
| 20.6957 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Wed Dec 18 1996 16:29 | 2 |
| 20.6958 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Dec 18 1996 16:47 | 14 |
| 20.6959 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Wed Dec 18 1996 16:48 | 7 |
| 20.6960 | ...and 1 count of *annoying* the victim... | MPGS::WOOLNER | Your dinner is in the supermarket | Wed Dec 18 1996 17:09 | 12 |
| 20.6961 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Dec 18 1996 17:22 | 6 |
| 20.6962 | only one "count"... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Dec 18 1996 17:29 | 8 |
| 20.6963 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Wed Dec 18 1996 17:34 | 5 |
| 20.6964 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Dec 18 1996 17:34 | 6 |
| 20.6965 | | BUSY::SLAB | ch-ch-ch-ch-ha-ha-ha-ha | Wed Dec 18 1996 18:17 | 11 |
| 20.6966 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Wed Dec 18 1996 19:41 | 2 |
| 20.6967 | | BUSY::SLAB | A Momentary Lapse of Reason | Wed Dec 18 1996 19:46 | 5 |
| 20.6968 | re: .6965 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Dec 18 1996 21:06 | 12 |
| 20.6969 | re: .6961 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Dec 18 1996 21:11 | 10 |
| 20.6970 | re: .6966 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Wed Dec 18 1996 21:17 | 9 |
| 20.6971 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Dec 18 1996 21:55 | 8 |
| 20.6972 | must be in Kaliph... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Dec 19 1996 11:32 | 4 |
| 20.6973 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 19 1996 11:44 | 48 |
| 20.6974 | how will we ever know ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Dec 19 1996 11:48 | 7 |
| 20.6975 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Dec 19 1996 11:56 | 7 |
| 20.6976 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 19 1996 11:58 | 11 |
| 20.6977 | re: .6976 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 19 1996 15:25 | 19 |
| 20.6978 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Thu Dec 19 1996 15:26 | 1 |
| 20.6979 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Thu Dec 19 1996 15:31 | 2 |
| 20.6980 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 19 1996 15:37 | 12 |
| 20.6981 | "Unfettered" is the operative adjective | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:00 | 35 |
| 20.6982 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:02 | 1 |
| 20.6983 | we are animals, exactly | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:22 | 8 |
| 20.6984 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:24 | 1 |
| 20.6985 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:47 | 15 |
| 20.6986 | Just say no to contraception | POMPY::LESLIE | | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:50 | 1 |
| 20.6987 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:51 | 3 |
| 20.6988 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:51 | 1 |
| 20.6989 | Sex solely for procreation devalues | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:54 | 7 |
| 20.6990 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Thu Dec 19 1996 16:56 | 6 |
| 20.6991 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:00 | 3 |
| 20.6992 | Is this the US RCC or the Pope's RCC? | POMPY::LESLIE | | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:02 | 20 |
| 20.6993 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:03 | 1 |
| 20.6994 | we are indistinguishable | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:06 | 15 |
| 20.6995 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:12 | 4 |
| 20.6996 | Unitive + Procreative aspects are inseparable | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:26 | 14 |
| 20.6997 | re: .6982 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:33 | 33 |
| 20.7000 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:40 | 6 |
| 20.7001 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:41 | 9 |
| 20.7002 | re: .7001 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:46 | 15 |
| 20.7003 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:51 | 6 |
| 20.7004 | One good idea from BC | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Dec 19 1996 17:51 | 15 |
| 20.7005 | | MELODY::WOOLNER | Your dinner is in the supermarket | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:01 | 8 |
| 20.7006 | re: .6980 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:05 | 42 |
| 20.7007 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:06 | 6 |
| 20.7008 | Mebbe I don't understand foster care? | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:10 | 2 |
| 20.7009 | | MELODY::WOOLNER | Your dinner is in the supermarket | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:11 | 4 |
| 20.7010 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:15 | 6 |
| 20.7011 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:16 | 8 |
| 20.7012 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:18 | 12 |
| 20.7013 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:23 | 10 |
| 20.7014 | | BUSY::SLAB | And one of us is left to carry on. | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:24 | 8 |
| 20.7015 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Dec 19 1996 18:37 | 6 |
| 20.7016 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:15 | 12 |
| 20.7017 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:29 | 1 |
| 20.7018 | re: .7007 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:30 | 25 |
| 20.7019 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:38 | 15 |
| 20.7020 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:39 | 14 |
| 20.7021 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | God and sinners, reconciled | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:41 | 4 |
| 20.7022 | Silly, but... | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:43 | 1 |
| 20.7023 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | God and sinners, reconciled | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:44 | 4 |
| 20.7024 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:44 | 5 |
| 20.7025 | | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:48 | 7 |
| 20.7026 | re: .7019 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 19 1996 19:59 | 40 |
| 20.7027 | No respect! | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Thu Dec 19 1996 20:00 | 3 |
| 20.7028 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 19 1996 20:30 | 38 |
| 20.7029 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Thu Dec 19 1996 20:40 | 15 |
| 20.7030 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Thu Dec 19 1996 21:01 | 9 |
| 20.7031 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Thu Dec 19 1996 21:02 | 7 |
| 20.7032 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Thu Dec 19 1996 21:15 | 5 |
| 20.7033 | .7028 | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Thu Dec 19 1996 22:04 | 82 |
| 20.7034 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Dec 19 1996 22:15 | 9 |
| 20.7035 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Thu Dec 19 1996 22:23 | 15 |
| 20.7036 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Dec 20 1996 02:47 | 7 |
| 20.7037 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Fri Dec 20 1996 08:59 | 51 |
| 20.7038 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Dec 20 1996 09:36 | 3 |
| 20.7039 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | God and sinners, reconciled | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:13 | 6 |
| 20.7040 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:18 | 21 |
| 20.7041 | DUH! | SMARTT::JENNISON | God and sinners, reconciled | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:21 | 9 |
| 20.7042 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:30 | 1 |
| 20.7043 | | KERNEL::FREKES | Like a thief in the night | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:34 | 36 |
| 20.7044 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:37 | 4 |
| 20.7045 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:39 | 20 |
| 20.7046 | women are too busy filing there nails | KERNEL::FREKES | Like a thief in the night | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:42 | 4 |
| 20.7047 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:44 | 34 |
| 20.7048 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:46 | 4 |
| 20.7049 | You still live in the past but talk like it is the present | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:46 | 8 |
| 20.7050 | no half measures... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:51 | 4 |
| 20.7051 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 20 1996 12:54 | 3 |
| 20.7052 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:01 | 4 |
| 20.7053 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:04 | 6 |
| 20.7054 | | KERNEL::FREKES | Like a thief in the night | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:05 | 5 |
| 20.7055 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:05 | 6 |
| 20.7056 | | KERNEL::FREKES | Like a thief in the night | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:07 | 1 |
| 20.7057 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:07 | 2 |
| 20.7058 | The issue is irresponsible men/women & teenage pregnancies | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:09 | 14 |
| 20.7059 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:35 | 12 |
| 20.7060 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:46 | 5 |
| 20.7061 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:49 | 1 |
| 20.7062 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:53 | 2 |
| 20.7063 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:55 | 6 |
| 20.7064 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:57 | 2 |
| 20.7065 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Dec 20 1996 13:59 | 5 |
| 20.7066 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Fri Dec 20 1996 14:01 | 7 |
| 20.7067 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Fri Dec 20 1996 14:07 | 22 |
| 20.7068 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Fri Dec 20 1996 14:10 | 9 |
| 20.7069 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Dec 20 1996 14:22 | 3 |
| 20.7070 | without even knowing it | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Dec 20 1996 14:38 | 7 |
| 20.7071 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Be A Victor..Not a Victim! | Fri Dec 20 1996 14:55 | 8 |
| 20.7072 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Fri Dec 20 1996 15:01 | 1 |
| 20.7073 | lets be pro-active not re-active | KERNEL::FREKES | Like a thief in the night | Fri Dec 20 1996 15:01 | 7 |
| 20.7074 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Dec 20 1996 15:12 | 5 |
| 20.7075 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Dec 20 1996 15:34 | 2 |
| 20.7076 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Fri Dec 20 1996 15:34 | 4 |
| 20.7077 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Fri Dec 20 1996 16:00 | 5 |
| 20.7078 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Dec 20 1996 16:17 | 10 |
| 20.7079 | \ | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Fri Dec 20 1996 16:23 | 5 |
| 20.7080 | | DECWET::MPETERSON | Max Overhead | Fri Dec 20 1996 16:50 | 71 |
| 20.7081 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Dec 20 1996 17:02 | 1 |
| 20.7082 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Dec 20 1996 17:04 | 4 |
| 20.7083 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Fri Dec 20 1996 17:31 | 9 |
| 20.7084 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Dec 20 1996 20:40 | 115 |
| 20.7085 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Dec 20 1996 20:56 | 10 |
| 20.7086 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Dec 20 1996 21:06 | 5 |
| 20.7087 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Dec 23 1996 10:00 | 1 |
| 20.7088 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Dec 23 1996 10:14 | 1 |
| 20.7089 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Dec 23 1996 13:21 | 10 |
| 20.7090 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Dec 23 1996 14:06 | 24 |
| 20.7091 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Dec 23 1996 15:08 | 15 |
| 20.7092 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Dec 23 1996 15:19 | 9 |
| 20.7093 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Mon Dec 23 1996 15:20 | 4 |
| 20.7094 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Dec 23 1996 15:48 | 6 |
| 20.7095 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Mon Dec 23 1996 16:04 | 4 |
| 20.7096 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Dec 23 1996 16:05 | 22 |
| 20.7097 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Dec 23 1996 16:07 | 5 |
| 20.7098 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Dec 23 1996 16:10 | 8 |
| 20.7099 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Mon Dec 23 1996 16:16 | 4 |
| 20.7100 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Dec 23 1996 16:25 | 2 |
| 20.7101 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Dec 23 1996 16:25 | 7 |
| 20.7102 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 23 1996 16:54 | 28 |
| 20.7103 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 23 1996 17:08 | 18 |
| 20.7104 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Mon Dec 23 1996 17:29 | 8 |
| 20.7105 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Dec 23 1996 18:51 | 13 |
| 20.7106 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Dec 23 1996 19:05 | 31 |
| 20.7107 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Dec 23 1996 19:22 | 6 |
| 20.7108 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Dec 23 1996 19:40 | 20 |
| 20.7109 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Mon Dec 23 1996 19:57 | 30 |
| 20.7110 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Dec 23 1996 20:01 | 9 |
| 20.7111 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 23 1996 20:24 | 26 |
| 20.7112 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Dec 23 1996 20:35 | 16 |
| 20.7113 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Dec 23 1996 20:55 | 10 |
| 20.7115 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Tue Dec 24 1996 12:08 | 9 |
| 20.7116 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Dec 24 1996 12:15 | 26 |
| 20.7117 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Dec 24 1996 13:46 | 15 |
| 20.7118 | | BUSY::SLAB | Exit light ... enter night | Tue Dec 24 1996 13:46 | 9 |
| 20.7119 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Dec 24 1996 14:22 | 25 |
| 20.7120 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Dec 24 1996 14:43 | 40 |
| 20.7121 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Dec 24 1996 15:10 | 33 |
| 20.7122 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Dec 24 1996 15:50 | 26 |
| 20.7123 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Dec 24 1996 16:04 | 22 |
| 20.7124 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Dec 24 1996 16:04 | 22 |
| 20.7125 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Tue Dec 24 1996 16:07 | 29 |
| 20.7126 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Dec 24 1996 16:09 | 1 |
| 20.7127 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Dec 24 1996 16:18 | 19 |
| 20.7128 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Dec 24 1996 16:21 | 28 |
| 20.7129 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Dec 24 1996 16:23 | 16 |
| 20.7130 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Dec 24 1996 16:37 | 33 |
| 20.7131 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Dec 24 1996 16:55 | 27 |
| 20.7132 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Dec 24 1996 16:58 | 7 |
| 20.7133 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Dec 24 1996 17:29 | 5 |
| 20.7134 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Dec 25 1996 05:20 | 52 |
| 20.7135 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 26 1996 11:50 | 16 |
| 20.7136 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 26 1996 12:03 | 20 |
| 20.7137 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 26 1996 12:16 | 16 |
| 20.7138 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Thu Dec 26 1996 12:18 | 5 |
| 20.7139 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 26 1996 12:18 | 29 |
| 20.7140 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Thu Dec 26 1996 12:31 | 7 |
| 20.7141 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 26 1996 12:33 | 14 |
| 20.7142 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Thu Dec 26 1996 12:35 | 8 |
| 20.7143 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 26 1996 13:29 | 23 |
| 20.7144 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 26 1996 13:31 | 16 |
| 20.7145 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Dec 26 1996 13:32 | 9 |
| 20.7146 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Dec 26 1996 13:55 | 19 |
| 20.7147 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Thu Dec 26 1996 14:00 | 8 |
| 20.7148 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Dec 26 1996 14:06 | 18 |
| 20.7149 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 26 1996 15:00 | 36 |
| 20.7150 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Dec 26 1996 15:22 | 28 |
| 20.7151 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 26 1996 15:34 | 39 |
| 20.7152 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Dec 26 1996 16:21 | 28 |
| 20.7153 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Thu Dec 26 1996 16:28 | 19 |
| 20.7154 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 26 1996 16:37 | 20 |
| 20.7155 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 26 1996 16:41 | 26 |
| 20.7156 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 26 1996 16:47 | 39 |
| 20.7157 | Do you really want to punish people for 'choosing life'? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Dec 26 1996 16:53 | 19 |
| 20.7158 | ... | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Thu Dec 26 1996 17:07 | 24 |
| 20.7159 | ... | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Thu Dec 26 1996 17:14 | 10 |
| 20.7160 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Dec 26 1996 17:54 | 28 |
| 20.7161 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Thu Dec 26 1996 18:17 | 38 |
| 20.7162 | | BUSY::SLAB | Basket Case | Thu Dec 26 1996 18:23 | 6 |
| 20.7163 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Thu Dec 26 1996 18:24 | 3 |
| 20.7164 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Thu Dec 26 1996 18:25 | 2 |
| 20.7165 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Thu Dec 26 1996 18:27 | 12 |
| 20.7166 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 26 1996 19:32 | 8 |
| 20.7167 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Dec 26 1996 19:43 | 7 |
| 20.7168 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Dec 26 1996 19:48 | 15 |
| 20.7169 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Dec 26 1996 21:25 | 17 |
| 20.7170 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Dec 26 1996 22:23 | 66 |
| 20.7171 | and I doubt that you care :-( | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Fri Dec 27 1996 11:29 | 6 |
| 20.7172 | exactly 204 reasons. :-) | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Dec 27 1996 11:38 | 1 |
| 20.7173 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Dec 27 1996 13:13 | 13 |
| 20.7174 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Dec 27 1996 13:20 | 17 |
| 20.7175 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Dec 27 1996 13:36 | 40 |
| 20.7176 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Dec 27 1996 15:02 | 49 |
| 20.7177 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 27 1996 15:11 | 7 |
| 20.7178 | | BUSY::SLAB | Catch you later!! | Fri Dec 27 1996 15:13 | 3 |
| 20.7179 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Dec 27 1996 16:04 | 14 |
| 20.7180 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Dec 27 1996 17:20 | 53 |
| 20.7181 | | BUSY::SLAB | Cracker | Fri Dec 27 1996 17:30 | 7 |
| 20.7182 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Dec 27 1996 17:32 | 3 |
| 20.7183 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Fri Dec 27 1996 17:41 | 2 |
| 20.7185 | I've missed you and the 'Box, Meg! | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Dec 27 1996 17:43 | 10 |
| 20.7186 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Fri Dec 27 1996 17:43 | 6 |
| 20.7187 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Dec 27 1996 18:11 | 35 |
| 20.7188 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Dec 27 1996 18:40 | 16 |
| 20.7189 | Society benefits when folks have other chances to support thmslvs... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Dec 27 1996 18:49 | 16 |
| 20.7190 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Dec 27 1996 19:05 | 13 |
| 20.7191 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Fri Dec 27 1996 19:07 | 3 |
| 20.7192 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Dec 27 1996 19:11 | 6 |
| 20.7193 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Fri Dec 27 1996 19:14 | 3 |
| 20.7194 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Dec 27 1996 20:50 | 24 |
| 20.7195 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Dec 27 1996 21:04 | 7 |
| 20.7196 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Sat Dec 28 1996 11:08 | 10 |
| 20.7197 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Dec 28 1996 14:13 | 17 |
| 20.7198 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Sat Dec 28 1996 14:49 | 4 |
| 20.7199 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 30 1996 12:00 | 36 |
| 20.7200 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 30 1996 12:05 | 25 |
| 20.7201 | Hmmm... | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Mon Dec 30 1996 13:25 | 36 |
| 20.7202 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | bang bang you're dead | Mon Dec 30 1996 13:50 | 8 |
| 20.7203 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 30 1996 13:59 | 30 |
| 20.7204 | Ooops.... | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Mon Dec 30 1996 14:13 | 46 |
| 20.7205 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Mon Dec 30 1996 14:19 | 28 |
| 20.7206 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 30 1996 14:25 | 19 |
| 20.7207 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Mon Dec 30 1996 14:34 | 18 |
| 20.7208 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 14:43 | 27 |
| 20.7209 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 14:50 | 12 |
| 20.7210 | The world revolves around me ?? | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Mon Dec 30 1996 15:07 | 8 |
| 20.7211 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 15:11 | 5 |
| 20.7212 | on the down side, you are not alone :-< | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Mon Dec 30 1996 15:38 | 10 |
| 20.7213 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 30 1996 16:12 | 22 |
| 20.7214 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Dec 30 1996 16:20 | 26 |
| 20.7215 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 16:38 | 6 |
| 20.7216 | | BUSY::SLAB | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Mon Dec 30 1996 16:40 | 3 |
| 20.7217 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 16:44 | 10 |
| 20.7218 | Hi.. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Dec 30 1996 16:47 | 39 |
| 20.7219 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 16:47 | 6 |
| 20.7220 | | BUSY::SLAB | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Mon Dec 30 1996 16:49 | 7 |
| 20.7221 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Mon Dec 30 1996 16:57 | 2 |
| 20.7222 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:08 | 25 |
| 20.7223 | | BUSY::SLAB | Duster :== idiot driver magnet | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:13 | 4 |
| 20.7224 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:17 | 8 |
| 20.7225 | | BUSY::SLAB | Enjoy what you do | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:20 | 6 |
| 20.7226 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:20 | 3 |
| 20.7227 | | BUSY::SLAB | Enjoy what you do | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:23 | 4 |
| 20.7228 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:24 | 3 |
| 20.7229 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:27 | 19 |
| 20.7230 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:35 | 4 |
| 20.7231 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:40 | 7 |
| 20.7232 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:43 | 36 |
| 20.7233 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:45 | 2 |
| 20.7234 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:46 | 6 |
| 20.7235 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:51 | 4 |
| 20.7236 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:52 | 3 |
| 20.7237 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:52 | 7 |
| 20.7238 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:55 | 3 |
| 20.7239 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:56 | 11 |
| 20.7240 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:57 | 13 |
| 20.7241 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Mon Dec 30 1996 17:59 | 9 |
| 20.7242 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:13 | 28 |
| 20.7243 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:15 | 6 |
| 20.7244 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:17 | 14 |
| 20.7245 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:19 | 4 |
| 20.7246 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:20 | 6 |
| 20.7247 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:23 | 4 |
| 20.7248 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:24 | 2 |
| 20.7249 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:25 | 4 |
| 20.7250 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:26 | 5 |
| 20.7251 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:26 | 4 |
| 20.7252 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | urban camper | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:27 | 3 |
| 20.7253 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:28 | 5 |
| 20.7254 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:30 | 6 |
| 20.7255 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:32 | 15 |
| 20.7256 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:33 | 4 |
| 20.7257 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:33 | 2 |
| 20.7258 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:35 | 3 |
| 20.7259 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:42 | 12 |
| 20.7260 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:43 | 3 |
| 20.7261 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:43 | 1 |
| 20.7262 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:47 | 2 |
| 20.7263 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:50 | 1 |
| 20.7264 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:50 | 6 |
| 20.7265 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:52 | 2 |
| 20.7266 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:53 | 4 |
| 20.7267 | | BUSY::SLAB | Erin go braghless | Mon Dec 30 1996 18:53 | 5 |
| 20.7268 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Dec 30 1996 19:08 | 1 |
| 20.7269 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | bang bang you're dead | Mon Dec 30 1996 20:16 | 1 |
| 20.7270 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Dec 31 1996 01:47 | 4 |
| 20.7271 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Dec 31 1996 11:44 | 1 |
| 20.7272 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Tue Dec 31 1996 11:52 | 2 |
| 20.7273 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Dec 31 1996 12:37 | 3 |
| 20.7274 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Dec 31 1996 12:39 | 4 |
| 20.7275 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Dec 31 1996 12:43 | 8 |
| 20.7276 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Dec 31 1996 13:12 | 1 |
| 20.7277 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Dec 31 1996 13:43 | 9 |
| 20.7278 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Tue Dec 31 1996 13:50 | 6 |
| 20.7279 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Dec 31 1996 13:52 | 6 |
| 20.7280 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | bang bang you're dead | Tue Dec 31 1996 13:55 | 5 |
| 20.7281 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:01 | 3 |
| 20.7282 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | bang bang you're dead | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:17 | 1 |
| 20.7283 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:21 | 3 |
| 20.7284 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:22 | 1 |
| 20.7285 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:23 | 3 |
| 20.7286 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:30 | 127 |
| 20.7287 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | bang bang you're dead | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:30 | 1 |
| 20.7288 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:35 | 2 |
| 20.7289 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | bang bang you're dead | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:38 | 1 |
| 20.7290 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:39 | 1 |
| 20.7291 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Dec 31 1996 14:47 | 1 |
| 20.7292 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Dec 31 1996 16:16 | 5 |
| 20.7293 | | BUSY::SLAB | Good Heavens,Commander,what DID you do? | Tue Dec 31 1996 16:23 | 3 |
| 20.7294 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Dec 31 1996 16:25 | 31 |
| 20.7295 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Dec 31 1996 16:28 | 7 |
| 20.7296 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | bang bang you're dead | Tue Dec 31 1996 17:14 | 1 |
| 20.7297 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Dec 31 1996 18:30 | 7 |
| 20.7298 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Dec 31 1996 18:32 | 5 |
| 20.7299 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Thu Jan 02 1997 12:26 | 6 |
| 20.7300 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Thu Jan 02 1997 13:08 | 5 |
| 20.7301 | | BUSY::SLAB | Basket Case | Thu Jan 02 1997 14:46 | 6 |
| 20.7302 | | GOJIRA::JESSOP | | Thu Jan 02 1997 14:58 | 3 |
| 20.7303 | | BUSY::SLAB | Be gone - you have no powers here | Thu Jan 02 1997 15:00 | 3 |
| 20.7304 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Jan 06 1997 13:40 | 15 |
| 20.7305 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Jan 06 1997 13:43 | 4 |
| 20.7306 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Jan 06 1997 13:48 | 4 |
| 20.7307 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Jan 09 1997 10:27 | 49 |
| 20.7308 | | POMPY::LESLIE | | Thu Jan 09 1997 10:51 | 1 |
| 20.7309 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Jan 09 1997 12:07 | 11 |
| 20.7310 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jan 09 1997 12:08 | 1 |
| 20.7311 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 09 1997 12:09 | 1 |
| 20.7312 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Thu Jan 09 1997 12:23 | 3 |
| 20.7313 | The proof of the reply is in your pudding... | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Jan 09 1997 12:32 | 1 |
| 20.7314 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Thu Jan 09 1997 12:34 | 3 |
| 20.7315 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Thu Jan 09 1997 13:14 | 3 |
| 20.7316 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jan 09 1997 13:16 | 1 |
| 20.7317 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Thu Jan 09 1997 13:19 | 3 |
| 20.7318 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Thu Jan 09 1997 13:41 | 5 |
| 20.7319 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 09 1997 13:46 | 1 |
| 20.7320 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Thu Jan 09 1997 13:54 | 2 |
| 20.7321 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Thu Jan 09 1997 15:39 | 1 |
| 20.7322 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Thu Jan 09 1997 16:25 | 1 |
| 20.7323 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 20 1997 12:32 | 14 |
| 20.7324 | | AXPBIZ::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Jan 20 1997 15:49 | 15 |
| 20.7325 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 17:32 | 6 |
| 20.7326 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Jan 22 1997 17:35 | 5 |
| 20.7327 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jan 22 1997 17:40 | 6 |
| 20.7328 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:00 | 9 |
| 20.7329 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:12 | 6 |
| 20.7330 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:14 | 5 |
| 20.7331 | | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:18 | 22 |
| 20.7332 | concur mit hare b | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:22 | 4 |
| 20.7333 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:25 | 6 |
| 20.7334 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:26 | 8 |
| 20.7335 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:27 | 5 |
| 20.7337 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:29 | 1 |
| 20.7336 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:29 | 7 |
| 20.7338 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:35 | 5 |
| 20.7339 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:40 | 4 |
| 20.7340 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:44 | 8 |
| 20.7341 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:45 | 12 |
| 20.7342 | | MPGS::WOOLNER | Your dinner is in the supermarket | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:46 | 5 |
| 20.7343 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:46 | 7 |
| 20.7344 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:47 | 1 |
| 20.7345 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:48 | 6 |
| 20.7346 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:49 | 5 |
| 20.7347 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:51 | 3 |
| 20.7348 | mystery revealed | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:52 | 4 |
| 20.7349 | light dawns | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jan 22 1997 18:54 | 4 |
| 20.7350 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 19:52 | 11 |
| 20.7351 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 19:54 | 4 |
| 20.7352 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Jan 22 1997 19:55 | 3 |
| 20.7353 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jan 22 1997 19:56 | 6 |
| 20.7354 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 19:57 | 1 |
| 20.7355 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Wed Jan 22 1997 19:58 | 9 |
| 20.7356 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:00 | 1 |
| 20.7357 | RE: .7355 | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:00 | 3 |
| 20.7358 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:01 | 13 |
| 20.7359 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:02 | 7 |
| 20.7360 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:02 | 4 |
| 20.7361 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:05 | 15 |
| 20.7362 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:07 | 4 |
| 20.7363 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:09 | 6 |
| 20.7364 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:12 | 9 |
| 20.7365 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:15 | 7 |
| 20.7366 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:27 | 29 |
| 20.7367 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:34 | 6 |
| 20.7368 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 22 1997 20:59 | 29 |
| 20.7369 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jan 22 1997 21:43 | 10 |
| 20.7370 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Jan 22 1997 22:32 | 6 |
| 20.7371 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Jan 23 1997 09:33 | 3 |
| 20.7372 | an impressive display of pattern recognition | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Jan 23 1997 09:57 | 4 |
| 20.7373 | another useless modernism | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Jan 23 1997 11:33 | 16 |
| 20.7374 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Thu Jan 23 1997 11:43 | 3 |
| 20.7375 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jan 23 1997 11:47 | 14 |
| 20.7376 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Thu Jan 23 1997 11:56 | 7 |
| 20.7377 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Jan 23 1997 12:02 | 48 |
| 20.7378 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Thu Jan 23 1997 12:22 | 12 |
| 20.7379 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Thu Jan 23 1997 12:25 | 11 |
| 20.7380 | | SMART2::JENNISON | God and sinners, reconciled | Thu Jan 23 1997 12:37 | 19 |
| 20.7381 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 23 1997 12:37 | 1 |
| 20.7382 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | mouth responsibility | Thu Jan 23 1997 12:42 | 13 |
| 20.7383 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Jan 23 1997 12:44 | 12 |
| 20.7384 | | SMART2::JENNISON | God and sinners, reconciled | Thu Jan 23 1997 14:47 | 17 |
| 20.7385 | can't != won't | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Jan 23 1997 15:31 | 4 |
| 20.7386 | | SMART2::JENNISON | God and sinners, reconciled | Thu Jan 23 1997 15:42 | 7 |
| 20.7387 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Jan 23 1997 16:04 | 3 |
| 20.7388 | | SMART2::JENNISON | God and sinners, reconciled | Thu Jan 23 1997 16:07 | 8 |
| 20.7390 | | SMART2::JENNISON | God and sinners, reconciled | Thu Jan 23 1997 16:14 | 12 |
| 20.7389 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Jan 23 1997 16:16 | 7 |
| 20.7391 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 23 1997 16:19 | 2 |
| 20.7392 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Jan 23 1997 16:39 | 13 |
| 20.7393 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Jan 23 1997 17:05 | 9 |
| 20.7394 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 24 1997 13:23 | 22 |
| Z This is an incredibly cruel thing to lay on a child. I hope you
Z NEVER say this to his face.
No Deb...I would never lay such a statement on a young child...even a
deviant 13 year old. Let's just say that any relationship with a
foundation of money is destined for destruction. Michael unfortunately
was the catalyst that brought the relationship of the parents to
fruition. Unfortunately, Michael was a creation of the parents
ineptness.
Now Deb, you may think it is incredibly cruel for me to speak the
sobering truth about a young kid in trouble. But think about this for
a second. It appears the pro choice side typically makes a kid like
this the pro choice poster child...a kid who is intent on deviance,
unhappy, dysfunctional (for Di). A child in this state would have been
better off had his existence been terminated while in utero. This is
what is inferred in this file quite a bit.
So before I am labeled the cruel one here, consider for a moment the
degree of cruelty put forth by many of us in a very casual way.
-Jack
|
| 20.7395 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 24 1997 13:25 | 9 |
| Just out of curiosity...
How many of you don't believe there is a contingent of young parents
out there who wouldn't be willing to have a mentally handicapped
child...not for the reasons of life and death but because it is an
inconvenience on their lifestyle or their vain appearance amongst their
peers?
|
| 20.7396 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Fri Jan 24 1997 13:29 | 14 |
| jack-
other than the fact that michael's parents did a lousy job of raising
him, what does this situation have in common with the position you took
that led to all this; that is to say, you came in stomping and
hollering about the lack of tolerance for less-than-perfect babies,
babies afflicted with sb, down syndrome, etc. you chastised us all
(or all pro-choice persons) for placing lesser value on such a child.
people counteract with how it's not for them to judge others when we
don't have the understanding/capablity of understanding just how much
is involved with such a disabled child and you start comparing this
with michael. michael is not disabled, is he? or am i missing
something here? nor do i see anyone here claiming mike would have
been better off not born. i need more tab.
|
| 20.7397 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 24 1997 13:39 | 24 |
| Jack,
It is the business of the parents, the health care providers and the
parents' diety on what kind of child a person is willing or able to
raise. It is not mine.
I won't argue with you, since many "broken" babies wind up in foster
care and group homes with no one willing or able to take them into
their families. Parents, birth or adoptive, who can make a choice
sometimes do. That is their business, not mine, not yours, not the
busy-body's down the street. Having known people who have chosen to
abort when faced with a fatal genetic twist in their fetus, I know that
their decision was not a snap, spur of the moment, choice, anymore than
it was an easy decision for a friend to terminate an ectopic pregnancy
that would have killed her, as well as the fetus, if it were allowed to
continue.
Leave people to make their own choices, just as you have. You can work
to make what you consider your choice more attractive than another's
but until you walk their path, don't presume to make their decisions.
meg
|
| 20.7398 | so what | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Jan 24 1997 13:41 | 17 |
|
Yeah, Jack. What are you asking ? Are there parents who abort
any defective child ? Yes, heck, there's people out there who
want EXACTLY one boy and one girl and will keep aborting the second
until they get the opposite gender. It exists - it comes with abortion
on demand, Roe v. Wade, etc. It is, in the USA, nobody's choice but
the mother. Nobody's. There are many people like Covert and yourself,
who disagree with this and tried to get it overturned, by electing enough
people who agree with you to get a constitutional amendment, or, less
reasonably, sympathetic judges appointed. While in some very pro-choice
places like Louisiana, the effort has succeeded, overall it's a failure,
because there are ALSO many people who like the present policy just fine.
Constitutional changes require supermajorities, and you don't have one.
In fact, in this state, you have no majority at all, and both political
parties are pro-choice (just as both are pro-life in Louisiana).
bb
|
| 20.7399 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Fri Jan 24 1997 14:16 | 19 |
|
Jack,
I usually stay out of this note because of it's high
controversy and the topic can be a very emotional one.
HOWEVER, I am pro choice. And it's not for the reasons you
think. My reasons are very simple. It's my body and I'll
do damned well what I please with it.. NO ONE has the right
to take that away from me. Not you, not my doctors and not
the government.
I also agree with everyone else. Until you've walked in the
shoes of someone who has been faced with the decision of
keeping a possibly severely deformed/sickly child, you have
NO idea how they feel.
Back to RO status for this note.......
|
| 20.7400 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 24 1997 14:40 | 24 |
| Judy:
Z HOWEVER, I am pro choice. And it's not for the reasons you
Z think. My reasons are very simple. It's my body and I'll
Z do damned well what I please with it.. NO ONE has the right
Z to take that away from me. Not you, not my doctors and not
Z the government.
Judy, just one thing before you go back to RO. Your reasons are very
simple but also inconsistent. The fact of the matter is you DON'T have
the right to do with your body as you please. You only think you do
because of the propoganda you've been fed with the last twenty years.
Remember JJ, laws are only a codification of ideologies. For example,
no vasectomies in NH without the consent of the spouse. You do realize
deep down that your ability to run your body as you please is limited
to our codified ideology and your conscience.
Therefore, if the conscience of the law is reprobate, then we can only
rely upon our natural instincts to determine what is honorable and what
is dishonorable. I find the "it's my body" argument to be lacking in
critical thought. Too simplistic.
-Jack
|
| 20.7401 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 24 1997 14:44 | 2 |
| Jack mentioning that something is too simplistic... is he looking in a mirror?
|
| 20.7402 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Jan 24 1997 14:50 | 5 |
| /I find the "it's my body" argument to be lacking in
/critical thought. Too simplistic.
good for you, jack. jj doesn't. and there it is.
|
| 20.7403 | don't make too much of "legal"... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:05 | 14 |
|
By the way, Jack. There are ALSO people who find various things which
are common practice in the USA repulsive. I number among them. The mere
fact that something is legal is no guarantee it isn't stupid, disgusting,
ugly, dangerous, or harmful to others. Nor is it the case that our
civilization could survive if everybody did stupid, legal things at once.
If somebody is doing a perfectly legal, really disgusting thing, you have
the right, nay, the moral duty, to point out the disgusting nature of
their action in the strongest possible language to everybody who will
listen. That is America. If you don't like abortion, keep saying so,
and pay absolutely no attention to attempts to silence you.
bb
|
| 20.7404 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:05 | 12 |
| .7399
The argument that one is pro-choice because it is their body and they
have the right to do whatever they want, etc, etc, is just about
wholely without merit.
There are so many existing restrictions regarding what one can an can
not do with one's body that this argument has no value whatsoever. I
do, however, always get a bit of a chuckle out of that argument. As
soon as the other restrictions are addressed, the argument rapidly
falls apart.
|
| 20.7405 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:09 | 9 |
| > Having known people who have chosen to
> abort when faced with a fatal genetic twist in their fetus, I know that
> their decision was not a snap, spur of the moment, choice, anymore than
> it was an easy decision for a friend to terminate an ectopic pregnancy
> that would have killed her, as well as the fetus, if it were allowed to
> continue.
Huh? Terminating an ectopic pregnancy may be a _sad_ decision, but I don't
see that it's not an _easy_ decision.
|
| 20.7406 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:12 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 20.7404 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> wholely without merit.
wholly
|
| 20.7407 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:14 | 11 |
| Jack,
It is her body, not yours, not someone else's and you do not have a
right to tell her what she can do with it. I am willing to bet if some
man challenged the NH law on vasectomies, it would also be nullified
under currently accepted practice that a person has a right to
determine their own medical care, as long as they are competant or have
enough cash. The spousal notification and consent law in Pennsylvania
was ruled out by SCOTUS for this reason, among others.
meg
|
| 20.7408 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:20 | 10 |
| Terminating a fatally flawed and dangerous pregnancy for someone who
believes strongly that all embryos and fetuses are human life was not
an easy decision, especially given the lengths that she and her partner
had gone through to concieve. It was definitely the right thing to do
for all concerned, including her living child and husband, but
deliberate action to terminate a life for this person was a most
difficult, as well as sad thing to do. YMMV, as you weren't in her
shoes, anymore than I was.
meg
|
| 20.7409 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:23 | 62 |
| Glen, thanks for your well thought out response.
Tine:
Z you came in stomping and
Z hollering about the lack of tolerance for less-than-perfect babies,
Z babies afflicted with sb, down syndrome, etc. you chastised us all
Z (or all pro-choice persons) for placing lesser value on such a
Z child.
Let's go back to memory lane....
From .7325
X Question: Why are so many well abled parents bigoted and prejudiced
X against children with Spina Bifeda and Downs Syndrome?
From .7335
X I submit to you that an amnio can be a tool of degradation of human
X value and those who cowar in fear to the results are no more than
X eugenic mongers in disguise!
Our first stab of anamosity....
X WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" 5 lines
X 22-JAN-1997 15:35
X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X >I submit to you that an amnio can be a tool of degradation of
X >human
X >value and those who cowar in fear to the results are no more than
X >eugenic mongers in disguise!
X GFY.
From my .7340
X GFM....Moi????????
X
X I believe it is a perfectly plausible point. Judging from the mamby
X pamby society we live in, it is perfectly obvious there is a percentage
X of people out there who are incapable of making a cogent objective
X decision like this.
Ahhh....here's the bone of contention....
My .7351
X So back to the question.
X Why are pro choicers in general bigoted toward the mentally
X handicapped?
Tine, you should know by now that I don't stomp or holler! :-) It is
certainly true I am baiting people but the focus on the discussion is
more centered on ethics rather than legalities or rights.
X WHERE in the WORLD did you get this STUPID idea.
So as you can see Tine, twas not I who did the stomping and hollering!
-Jack
|
| 20.7410 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:25 | 4 |
| ok jack. never mind my description. what the heck does your nephew's
situation have to do with your original question????
|
| 20.7411 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:26 | 6 |
| /The mere fact that something is legal is no guarantee
/it isn't stupid, disgusting, ugly, dangerous, or harmful
/to others.
yeah, jack. take professional football, for instance.
|
| 20.7412 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:28 | 2 |
| What the position of the RC Church on ectopic pregnancies? What's the position
of the various pro-life groups?
|
| 20.7413 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:33 | 20 |
| Tine:
I initially brought nephew up here...
Z Why Oph?! I think it's a perfectly legitimate question. In regard to
Z Colin's answer on behavior...so what? I have a nephew who pretty
Z much fits the bill and I've spent every holiday with the kid since he
Z was three. I don't like it that much but this is mainly because he was
Z created by the parents...which pisses me off because it could have
Z been avoided.
Tine, Michael is the perfect poster child for a child with deviant
behavior. Had him pegged since I met him ten years ago. The reason I
brought him up was because of people aborting for fear they would have
an uncontrollable kid. My reply was, so what...uncontrollable kids are
a dime a dozen nowadays. Why should the determination of existence be
based on such a faulty reason like that??? One would have to default
to the inconvenience excuse.
-Jack
|
| 20.7414 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:48 | 5 |
| jack,
uncontrollable is a lot different than severly handicapped. severly
handicapped, you don't have a lot of choice. you raise a brat, well
then, you can only fault yourself, no?
|
| 20.7415 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:56 | 1 |
| let's see if jack groks this fine distinction.
|
| 20.7416 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Fri Jan 24 1997 15:57 | 1 |
| I wonder if he'll understand it too!
|
| 20.7417 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:00 | 5 |
| > you raise a brat, well
> then, you can only fault yourself, no?
And since Jack admits in .7413 that he brought up his nephew, it's
Jack's fault the kid's a brat.
|
| 20.7418 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:01 | 39 |
| Jack,
Your nephew may be out of control, but I don't see you saying it was
because of a chromosonal anomaly. sound from earlier statements that
your sister or SIL and her partner in making this kid were and are out
of control, and from some of your statements in other strings, you did
nothing but ask someone incapable of discipliniong their child to
discipline them, rather than take matters into your own hands when he
was around.
In case you missed my notes, not all people are financially, physically
or emotionally capable of coping with a child with chromosonal
anomolies, particularly those which are also fatal. You and michelle
got lucky in this regard and presume to say what others who are not so
lucky should do if faced with a decision you have never had to make.
As for Mark's GFY and probably others who have been more quiet about
this. there are reasons other than abortion for having Chromosonal
anomalies found earlier. for instance, with SP, depending on how
severe, a planned c-section in a hospital specializing in treating SP
babies may give a child a better chance at survival and even walking.
A child who has some of the more serious DS defects definitely can
benefit by being born in a hospital with an experienced infant cardiac
and thoracic surgery team, a small, backwoods hosptial birth may doom
the child to death in hours, or may separate a recovering woman and the
child by several hundred miles during a critical bonding period.
Arranging to give birth at the proper center when there are known
problems helps to prevent deaths, abuse and may well foster bonding and
breastfeeding.
I know of three people who have had prenatal testing for these exact
reasons. They had and have no plans to abort a less than perfect child,
but also want to be able to do their best for same to give their
children the best shot at life. YMOV's but these people are not all
"yuppie scum" trying for the perfect baby. And so what if there are
others who feel differently? it is their business and their pain, not
yours.
meg
|
| 20.7419 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:02 | 1 |
| Oh, and excuse the dyslexia, I meant SB, spinal bifida.
|
| 20.7420 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:09 | 5 |
| spina bifida. chromosomal. nnttm.
BTW, supplemental folic acid before pregnancy and in early pregnancy
dramatically reduces its incidence. And I'm pretty sure it's not
chromosomal.
|
| 20.7421 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:15 | 12 |
| Gerald
SP is not chromosonal, Down Sydrome is. both are detectable with
amnio, although SB is usually confirmed with a high resolution
ultrasound. SB is detected in an amnio by an elevation of cells
related to spinal fluid. Folic acid does reduce the number of
children afflicted with SB, although it hasn't completely eliminated
it. Detection of SB is critical in many cases so that the infant can
receive treatment immediately on birth, especially if it is severe
enough to leave most of the nueral tube open.
meg
|
| 20.7422 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:27 | 9 |
|
re: Jack
I find the "it's my body" argument to be lacking in
critical thought. Too simplistic.
>> good for you. I don't.
|
| 20.7423 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:45 | 1 |
| Regurgitating. No need to thank me (or /john).
|
| 20.7424 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:45 | 7 |
| The "it's my body" argument fails utterly in the case of abortion.
It's not just your body, and in fact, the process of abortion itself
is mainly about the body of the unborn to be aborted.
There are other critial areas where this argument fails, but they have
all been covered at one time or another... just like this particular
snippet I'm regurgataing for the Nth time.
|
| 20.7425 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:50 | 1 |
| Wow, Gerald is psychic!
|
| 20.7426 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:53 | 4 |
|
To each his (or her) own.
|
| 20.7427 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Jan 24 1997 16:56 | 3 |
| /The "it's my body" argument fails utterly in the case of abortion.
so says you. to others it doesn't.
|
| 20.7428 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 24 1997 17:14 | 12 |
| JJ:
And I respect your right to disagree with me. You may be PO'd at me
now but I'm gratified to know that I will have been part of the mind
changing process for you in 5 to 10 years...
Per usual, ethical choices are subjective. I'm still glad I brought it
up although I am even more unpopular than I've ever been. As BB said,
legalities don't determine the merit of an act (paraphrased). I think
the average citizen has had their conscience seered.
-Jack
|
| 20.7429 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Jan 24 1997 17:17 | 1 |
| really, down with professional football.
|
| 20.7430 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 24 1997 17:22 | 21 |
| As far as I'm concerned, it is permissible to terminate a pregnancy (of which
an ectopic one is an example) when there is absolutely no possibility at all
that the pregnancy will result in anything but the death of at least the child
if not the mother.
As long as there is hope (which is never the case with ectopic pregnancies
as far as I know) that the pathology can be successfully treated, treatment
should be attempted. If as a result of that treatment, the child is lost,
then that is not "abortion." If there is no hope for the child, see the
first paragraph.
If there is hope for the child but significantly less so for the mother,
then the mother has the choice of when to end the risk that she would
sacrifice her life for her child (just as she would have this choice if she
were trying to rescue her child from the undertow at the beach).
Note that less than 3% of the 1.5 million annual U.S. abortions involve any
real pathology of the child or mother (other than our national pathology
which has allowed abortion to become so prevalent).
/john
|
| 20.7431 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 24 1997 17:25 | 10 |
| Steve and jack,
As long as the baby requires life support functions, including dumping
its waste into another's body it is the person whose body is being
cohabited to make the choice. Niether I nor anyone else shoudl make a
decision that involves health except the person involved in conjunction
with her health care provbider and her beliefs.
Now when you can come up with a life support system for a fetus that is
not a woman, you may have a point.
|
| 20.7432 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Jan 24 1997 17:27 | 8 |
| > <<< Note 20.7428 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
> I think
> the average citizen has had their conscience seered.
Holds in the juices better that way.
|
| 20.7433 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jan 24 1997 17:28 | 1 |
| <deglazed eyes>
|
| 20.7434 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Fri Jan 24 1997 17:46 | 15 |
|
now but I'm gratified to know that I will have been part of the mind
changing process for you in 5 to 10 years...
>> and how do you *know* this Jack? Do you have psychic powers
>> that allow you to see into the future? Are you saying that
>> just because I haven't experienced motherhood yet that my
>> current feelings and beliefs are invalid? And that if such
>> a time should come that I *do* become a mother, my current
>> feelings and beliefs will be eradicated and I'll come around
>> to your way of thinking? You *know* this?
>> Don't hold your breath. And just for the record, I'm not
>> PO'd at you. I just violently disagree with you and your
>> attitude towards pro-choicers.
|
| 20.7435 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Jan 24 1997 17:54 | 5 |
| /Now when you can come up with a life support system for a fetus
/that is not a woman
oh dreadful, dreadful day.
|
| 20.7436 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 24 1997 18:18 | 14 |
| JJ:
As Winston Churchill once said (paraphrased)...
-----------
It would be an embarrassment to be a communist at age twenty, only to
remain a communist at age thirty.
-----------
I won't hold my breath but I'm not going to be phoney about it. I
hope you do eventually develop convictions like mine because I believe
our society is going down the crapper. It's only natural I would want
you to change your opinion.
-Jack
|
| 20.7437 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Jan 24 1997 18:24 | 1 |
| i was expecting a hitler quote. i'm disappointed.
|
| 20.7438 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Fri Jan 24 1997 18:45 | 61 |
| I am a very expected mother to be, and I'm very prochoice.
Steve or Jack, have you actually read the biological books on
pregnancy. I gather you haven't. A child is born is a great book that
discusses many things, one of which is that the embryo is not actually
anything but tissue. The nerve cells haven't even formed until around
the 4 mth. that's 16 ish weeks. The fact that the cells resemble a
human, send all of you anti choice people railing. READ a book on
pregnancy. It's a wonderful thing, FOR ME>Maybe not everyone feels this
way. And sorry but, not being of the female persuasion, I can't imagine
you know the feeling.
If you actually get into the scientific information, the heart
beat that you see is actually a heart beat, yes, around 8 weeks, yet,
the brain is not quite formed, what is formed is the brain stem.
This is the same thing that exist in patients that are dead, brain dead,
but the mechanism in the brain stem called "involuntary" keeps their heart
beating. I watched a family die for years because the hospital their
father was in, wouldn't release the life support because "his heart and
breathing" were still working.No not really, it appeared that way.
I'm in my 6th month. The books are telling me that now is when the
brain starts to function and completes it development until birth. The
mear fact that a bunch of cells form together because of their genetic
makeup, is a grand thing. But to become a parent and a caregiver, well,
frankly, It is very overwhelming. I can't imagine someone not
emotionally ready to do this ever entering this with the wonderful glow
that we all associate with pregnancy. This was a very wanted child,
unplanned, but wanted. It hasn't been easy adjusting to the change, but
life moves on and so shall we. We will have to adapt won't we, well,
there are some people who just have not made that path in life yet. So
sorry, but yes, this is my body, no matter what you think is moving
inside of me, this is MY body, I can vouch for that. My shoe size went
up, that's part of my body. No one elses. my waist has disappeared,
would you like to tell me who's body that is?? My hormones are playing
terrible tricks on me, my body has completely changed..no one elses.
This isn't for you or anyone else to tell me I should be enjoying.
Cause frankly, I have no desire to experience anymore natural stuff for
the rest of the duration. I have no desire to birth this child with my
eyes open. I would just as soon get a c-section and get it over with.
It sounds perfect for me. I have no more desire to feel pain, then I do
to tell someone else they must endure what I am doing. I'm sure they
didn't just come up with LABOR off the top of their heads, this must
give you a clue as to how difficult it is to separate the mother and
child until birth!!!!
So, less you walk a mile in my shoes(which are bigger now I might add),
you can't make a judgement on my actions.
Oh and you can flame on, but I haven't changed my view. I would support
a friend if her decision was to abort. I have as a matter of fact.
Twice. It wasn't easy for them and the last thing they needed was
another judge and jury battling the ones in their heads.
Read a book before you start with all your anti choice regulations that
you have to have on your agenda's. They are quite a bit more
informative and less bias. They point to the facts, not the fiction.
just my honest and very pregnant opinion
|
| 20.7439 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Fri Jan 24 1997 18:49 | 4 |
|
Jim, I expect that you'll have all those spelling errors cor-
rected very soon.
|
| 20.7440 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Fri Jan 24 1997 19:22 | 13 |
| It would be an embarrassment to be a communist at age twenty, only to
remain a communist at age thirty.
>> jeez Jack, this is a stretch, even for you! Comparing
>> my pro-choice feelings with communism. And the world
>> is "going down the crapper" for many many other reasons
>> than a woman's legal right to abortion.
>> Murder, domestic violence, drug abuse, government corruption
>> are destroying our wonderful world much quicker than we
>> horrible women who feel that only *we* have a right to decide
>> what's done with our bodies.
|
| 20.7441 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Fri Jan 24 1997 19:25 | 6 |
|
Oh and Jack...... you didn't say you'd hope I would change
my opinion. You stated that you know I will........ big
difference.
|
| 20.7443 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 24 1997 19:29 | 14 |
| .7438
And who told you you should be enjoying the changes? Not me. I'm not
saying anything but what is obvious, it isn't JUST your body, therefore
the "it's my body" argument does not hold water.
Besides, as mentioned previously, there are many things you cannot do
with/to your body legally.
I'm glad your baby is a wanted baby, though, congrats on your future
arrival.
-steve
|
| 20.7444 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Fri Jan 24 1997 19:31 | 3 |
|
Steve, you're forgetting the all-important assault issue.
|
| 20.7445 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Fri Jan 24 1997 19:34 | 7 |
|
> now but I'm gratified to know that I will have been part of the mind
> changing process for you in 5 to 10 years...
Jack. Really. Your perceived importance in our evolving
mind/emotional/spiritual/moral/whatever development according
to your personal standard is greatly overestimated.
|
| 20.7446 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 24 1997 19:34 | 1 |
| Oh, yeah... I forgot about that one.
|
| 20.7447 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Jan 24 1997 19:36 | 2 |
| steve's young. hopefully he'll gain a more mature
perspective on life in years to come.
|
| 20.7442 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Jan 24 1997 19:40 | 4 |
|
JJ appears to be living in some sort of mirror image universe
right now.
|
| 20.7448 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 24 1997 20:35 | 16 |
| Z Read a book before you start with all your anti choice regulations that
Z you have to have on your agenda's. They are quite a bit more
Z informative and less bias. They point to the facts, not the
Z fiction.
First of all, I don't have any anti choice regulations. This
discussion is based on ethical choices...much in line with other
choices we have to make. What I strongly hope is to see a paradigm
shift in our society. Abortion is looked upon in a way too blase in our
society. You are making the assumption that each young lady in our
society have uniformly soul searched their true feelings over
abortion...this simply isn;t the case. Our society has alot of young,
impressionable, immature individuals who are too young to reason things
out.
-Jack
|
| 20.7449 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Jan 24 1997 20:57 | 22 |
| Well, pregnancy carries a lot of changess and responsibilities with it.
so what? I have heard, ad nauseum, that abortion is a wrenching
experience, both physically and emotionally. Sex also has the same
effects. the simple difference, in almost all cases except rape, sex
was voluntarily accepted and so were the consequences of that.
In addition, if abortion is such a terrible decision and has life-long
impacts why would any rational human being, who supposedly cares about
everyone else, would support a position that a little kid can have a
surgical procedure with all of the consequences that are put forward to
prove that abortion isn't a simple decision, without demanding that the
parent(s) be involved.
I jave heard the statements that a person has stayed up nights and
worried about the life they snuffed out for years and years afterward.
Well if this was traumatic for an adult, what does it do to a 13 or 14
year old. Particularly when there is no parent involved to help and
support them through such an experience.
The hypocracy of the "kill a baby at any time since it's my body crowd"
knows no limits.
|
| 20.7450 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Jan 24 1997 21:11 | 22 |
| Z I have heard, ad nauseum, that abortion is a wrenching
Z experience, both physically and emotionally.
Bingo...the sheer disingenuous tone of this line. Not that it isn't
wrenching...I'm sure it is, but for different reasons.
I believe the core of that wrenching is a guilty conscience...no not
because of the prolifers out there with the picket signs. I think
there is a natural inclination of the act and what is involved in the
process. One will wail and cry over the choice they made...but if they
really felt it was a wrenching decision because of the nature of
results, I believe the human spirit is strong enough to eschew such a
practice.
Where is the source of the pain??? Well of course...it is in the
conscience. The act is committed by potential parent and doctor, but
the vehicle of the act is provided by society.
Question...Why do some pro choicers gasp in horror when their view is
looked upon negatively...as if somebody crossed the line of etiguette
(sp)? Tsk Tsk Tsk...never discuss religion, politics or
abortion....tsk tsk tsk....
|
| 20.7451 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 24 1997 22:13 | 37 |
| jack,
You are really losing it today. we have been discussing abortion,
religion, politcs, wome who have babies so the state will support them,
and women who won't because they have no support systems.
You are the one who has made the statement that anyone who gets an
amnio is doing it so they can flush "bad results." You are the one who
presumes to know what others may feel, and you make judgements about
them based only on your small experience of the world.
I have been a mother for 23 years, would have more kids if my body, my
finances and the environment could handle it, and am still strongly
pro-choice. I even enjoyed labor and giving birth. I believe the best
person to make decisions is the one who is in a given situation, not me
unless it is me, not you, not my mother, sister, brother, and not the
former boxer I see on Saturdays picketing the local clinic with his
priest.
The best way to work if you want to end abortions in all but a small
percentage of cases is not to ban it, pan it, or blow up clinics.
Instead work to make an environment where every conception is a wanted
conception, every child has a support system, and every pregnancy is
looked at as a joy, rather than some being "consequences" (read
punishment) for immoral behavior. If every scared, poor, pregnant
person knew they had a firm support plan in place, I bet you would see
the abortion rate plummet. Instead, I fear the very words many on the
"pro-life" side speak are contributing to the problem, by making
pregnancy somehow sinful, punishment from god(dess), looking down on
some children because of the circumstances of their births, convincing
people like my young neighbor that her birth was supposed be extremely
painful because of her "sin." It was a sin to choose life? The person
who said this never would have had the opportunity if she had quietly
aborted, instead of choosing to be responsible enough to raise two kids
when her contraception failed and the fathers bailed.
meg
|
| 20.7452 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Sat Jan 25 1997 00:19 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.7429 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "ready to begin again" >>>
| really, down with professional football.
Bonnie, is that because everytime Jack tries to punt it gets blocked???
|
| 20.7453 | | HOTLNE::BURT | | Sat Jan 25 1997 12:22 | 13 |
| no one has the right to end a life, one may choose to end a life, but no one has
that right. while i totally disagree with abortion and get tired of the whiners
crying about "my body", i have to contend with the fact that abortion is here
to stay until we can teach everyone about responsible sex, eliminate sexual
violence (rape, incest, etc) and insure one only has a baby when they are ready
for it.
defects? and one wants to abort? why get pregnant (oh! irresponsible sexual
activity) if one is worried about defects and then decide if they want to
abort? the same tests done during pregnancy can be done before to determine
how much of a chance either partner has towards creating an "imperfect" human;
then they can decide if they want to take the chance by creating a new life;
testing afterwards is just more irresponsible sexual activity justification.
|
| 20.7454 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Jan 27 1997 11:30 | 10 |
| Not all fatal defects are genetic, in fact a large number come from
other things, including viruses, exposure to chemicals, and just plain
aging eggs and sperm. Now, am I to understand you believe no woman
over 35 and no man over 50 should engage in sex until they are
sterilized? Are you saying that no woman who hasn't had or been
innoculated against chicken pox, rubella, fifth's disease,
coxsakie..... should engage in sex? My three kids wouldn'tthank you
for that.
meg
|
| 20.7455 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Mon Jan 27 1997 12:16 | 10 |
| -2
Well, that's pretty stupid, saying that prenatal testing is the only
way deal with defects. What if you would like to know what the defect
is so that you may better understand your child when it arrives, gather
a support group, hell, maybe even see if there is some hope of curing
the defect. Getting tested isn't a response to genetic or environmental
defects. What if, oh my, the parents want to be better
informed..obviously not an avenue YOU would venture toward.
|
| 20.7456 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Jan 27 1997 12:41 | 47 |
| Z The best way to work if you want to end abortions in all but a small
Z percentage of cases is not to ban it, pan it, or blow up clinics.
Well, I'm with you there. In my view, blowing up clinics is just as
violent an act. The end doesn't justify the means. Also, it is
counterproductive.
Z Instead work to make an environment where every conception is a wanted
Z conception, every child has a support system, and every pregnancy is
Z looked at as a joy, rather than some being "consequences" (read
Z punishment) for immoral behavior.
This sounds like something Elders would say. I don't believe every
conception a wanted conception is realistic. It seems to me like the
majority of unwanted conceptions become wanted in time, wouldn't you
say this is the case from your experience? Also, I don't see unwanted
pregnancies as a punishment. I see them as an end result of an action
that is not expedient in the long run. By our standards today, ten of
the twelve tribes of Israel are named after illegitamate children.
Children can be a blessing also.
Z If every scared, poor, pregnant
Z person knew they had a firm support plan in place, I bet you would
Z see the abortion rate plummet. Instead, I fear the very words many on
Z the "pro-life" side speak are contributing to the problem, by making
Z pregnancy somehow sinful, punishment from god(dess), looking down
Z on some children because of the circumstances of their births,
Z convincing people like my young neighbor that her birth was supposed be
Z extremely painful because of her "sin." It was a sin to choose life?
Well, I agree with you here. You're making a very good case for the
negative of some of the prolifers out there.
Still, I can't see why you would lay that kind of trip on prolifers.
Furthermore, I think you will find the guilt that is unfairly placed
upon children is from society at large, not just prolifers. Keep in
mind there is a large contingent of people out there who don't have a
passion one way or the other, but because of their upbringing or what
have you, hold strong opinions about the strength of the family unit...
that being children born and raised in a two parent family.
Also, in all the reasonable points you just brought up, you never seem
to address the integrity of abortion as an act. Do you believe in it's
essence...not the legalities or the necessities of it, but the nature
of the act is inherently wrong?
-Jack
|
| 20.7457 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Jan 27 1997 12:43 | 12 |
| Once again the same junk about society providing a support system for
the the pregnancy is being trotted out. there is a perfect support
system in placve right now that gets ignored by all of the pro-choicers
who use this argument. It's called personal responsibility for your
actions and a strong society that identifies and encourages strong
personal morals.
It seems as though there are some who want to ban all discussions of
morality and values, except in private, and then demand that society
has a responsibility for the consequences of ignoring the very
foundation that could prevent the problem from the beginning.
|
| 20.7458 | Where is Janet Reno? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 27 1997 12:54 | 6 |
| Will the pro-abortion-rights protesters who painted the outlines of
bodies on the courtyard of St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco be
charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinics and Religious Sites
Act with defacing Church property?
/john
|
| 20.7459 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Jan 27 1997 12:56 | 1 |
| Unlikely.
|
| 20.7460 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Jan 27 1997 13:02 | 34 |
| jack,
The integrity of an abortion lies only in the people involved, not what
I think a given person should do in a specific circumstance, or even
what I would do faced with the same set of circumstances. I believe
people are sll different, and different people know exactly what they
can and can't deal with when it comes down to an unplanned and unwanted
conception.
I do know that anyone who attempts to make pregnancy a punishment is
contributing to the problem, be they pro-life or pro-choice.
Rocush,
Are you saying that all babies born into circumstances you don't
approve of should be allowed to starve, their parental units scorned
and refused enough support to make a viable start to the life they are
carrying? If so, I see you as part of the problem and a contributor to
abortion, rather than a real opponent. A healthy baby takes more than
just carrying a baby to term, even if you consider the human body to be
merely an incubator. The human egg does not carry enough nutrition to
bring a viable baby into the world, just as it doesn't in other
placental mammals. The siege of Kiev produced a massive drop in viable
pregnancies and a large surge in spontaneous abortions, pre-term
deliveries and still births before women were starved enough to lose
the ability to concieve. Is this what you propose for women and their
precious fetuses you have professed to care about? Of course thos
infants who did survive with poor maternal nutrition didn't really beat
the odds either. Starvling infants don't grow into productive adults.
Of course, if you believe children concieved in a bad circumstance will
never be productive and should be a punishment and example to the rest
of society, I would guess this would be a good thing, yes?
meg
|
| 20.7461 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Jan 27 1997 13:09 | 5 |
| John,
if they are caught, they most likely will be prosecuted. I believe
theyhave been using this law in a pretty even-handed way, though I am
sure your mileage varies.
|
| 20.7462 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Jan 27 1997 13:33 | 10 |
| Z The integrity of an abortion lies only in the people involved, not what
Z I think a given person should do in a specific circumstance, or
Z even what I would do faced with the same set of circumstances.
I think this is too convenient an answer. There are many things in
society we are called to take social responsibility for. A few of them
you have mentioned in here. Why should this injustice be any more
proprietary than any other kind of abuse?
-Jack
|
| 20.7463 | Caught? How about starting by filing some charges? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 27 1997 13:44 | 13 |
| > if they are caught, they most likely will be prosecuted
There's a picture on page 3 of today's Boston Globe showing at least three
groups of people doing the painting.
Caption: "At an abortion rights protest yesterday outside St. Mary's
Cathedral in San Francisco, Ray Lipin draws an outline of John Viola
to dramatize deaths at abortion clinics."
Looks like all that has to happen is Janet Reno needs to issue an arrest
warrant.
/john
|
| 20.7464 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Jan 27 1997 13:45 | 18 |
| Jack,
I can't make reproductive or other health choices for you, and I bet
you would find it pretty darned immoral if I could decide these things.
I am sure you believe these are between you, your exemplary exemtion
and your Dr. (and lately your insurance, unless you have unlimited
dollars.) I don't presume to make those choices for others, although
I do have opinions about them at times.
John,
In the past month One clinic has been firebombed, and then bombed a
second time (Tulsa) and another clinic bombed in such a way to attempt
to guarantee injury and loss of life. I do hope Reno and all also
manage to find these people and prosecute them to the full extent of
the clinic and church access laws and I believe you will support this,
just as I support finding and prosecuting people who vandalized the
church.
|
| 20.7465 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 27 1997 13:50 | 8 |
| re .7464 I do indeed support that.
But I suspect there will be no legal action taken in San Francisco
against Ray Lipin and his friends.
Only one side of FACE has been enforced so far.
/john
|
| 20.7466 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Jan 27 1997 13:52 | 4 |
| John,
I believe they are and have used FACE in the church arsons the past
year.
|
| 20.7467 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Jan 27 1997 14:35 | 24 |
| Re .7458:
> Will the pro-abortion-rights protesters who painted the outlines of
> bodies on the courtyard of St. Mary's Cathedral in San Francisco be
> charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinics and Religious Sites Act
> with defacing Church property?
Has the church requested charges be filed?
How does the Act prohibit drawing on the courtyard?
Does drawing on the courtyard interfere with access to the site?
Was the drawing done with water-soluable chalk or with something
permanent?
Does the federal government have jurisdiction?
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.7468 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Jan 27 1997 16:04 | 17 |
| .7460
You keep putting forward arguments that ignore the initial issue. If
you are unable, for any reason, to have and raise a baby then it is
your personal responsibility to insure that you do not become pregnant.
I realize this is a radical and unreasonable expectation, but it sure
seems a better idea than doing whatever one wants and then killing a
baby. I certainly agree that many people are not in a position to have
a family, but it is their responsibility to make sure that a new human
being does not result from their activities.
Merely killing a baby because someone does not want to make the
decision to conduct themselves in such a fashion as to make the choice
of killing a baby unnecessary, is a rather sorry indictment of our
society.
|
| 20.7469 | re .7467 The crime is against the state; Reno can press charges | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 27 1997 16:11 | 31 |
| Federal Law:
Whoever --
"(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility,
or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive
health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property
of a place of religious worship,
shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil
remedies provided in subsection (c), ...
"(b) PENALTIES. -- Whoever violates this section shall --
"(1) in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this
title [not more than $100,000], or imprisoned not more than one year,
or both;
and
"(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior
conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this
title [not more than $250,000], or imprisoned not more than 3 years,
or both;
except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical
obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of
imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first
offense; and the fine shall be not more than $25,000 and the length of
imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent
offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment
shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any
term of years or for life.
|
| 20.7470 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Jan 27 1997 16:31 | 6 |
| Meg:
What your really asking is for society to take the onus and play
interference for individual's stupidity.
-Jack
|
| 20.7471 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Jan 27 1997 17:48 | 19 |
| If society takes the attitude of punishing (or stigmatizing) those
who get pregnant when they can't afford to raise the child, it makes
abortion all the more attractive as an alternative (since the woman's
privacy is preserved.)
It may feel good to carry out the threat of trashing those who have
the gall to engage in sex when they aren't prepared to bring a child
into the world - it only serves to make legalized abortion all the
more important to those who are unwilling to have their lives trashed
for a legal, private consented act of bonding with another human being.
If you want to encourage people to have abortions by threatening to
trash them viciously if they choose NOT to abort, be responsible enough
to own up to your actions in doing so.
It makes no sense to ask people to do something ('choose life') and
then hit them with a societal baseball bat when they do it. The next
ones to face this decision will surely know about your punishment when
they make their decisions in this situation.
|
| 20.7472 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Jan 27 1997 18:01 | 9 |
| Suzanne:
What your saying makes perfectly good sense. It doesn't erase the fact
that we as young adults do stupid things....that's just a given.
However, trashing a young person for making a mistake isn't productive
at all. I do however believe a societal stigma needs to be made.
Becoming Prego is not cool!
-Jack
|
| 20.7473 | "Please do as I ask, so I can stomp on you for it. Thanks!" | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Jan 27 1997 18:05 | 7 |
| No one knows a person is 'prego' unless they 'choose life', though.
Otherwise, no one else ever needs to know.
It would be pretty stupid to 'choose life' (when the person would
rather abort) when it's clear that those who are arguing for 'life'
are prepared to punch out their virtual lights for choosing it.
|
| 20.7474 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Jan 27 1997 18:10 | 20 |
| .7471
You seem to think that a society is impotent to change people's
behavior. I believe that people will respond to societal pressure and
acceptance.
You start from the supposed given that young people are going to get
pregnant in exactly the same numbers whether society takes a stand
against it or not. I tend to thin that the numbers will drop
dramatically if people would start to take a public stand for what is
good and what is bad. right now, your attitudes have presented people
with an appearance that personal behaviors have no consequences and no
one has any ability to say what is right or wrong.
when you are willing to address some reasonable restrictions on
abortion, particularly parental involvement and late term abortions for
convenience, then other alternatives can be explored. As long as you
contend that no mention of values, morals, standards, self-control can
be entered into the public environment, then no progress iwll be made.
|
| 20.7475 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Jan 27 1997 18:25 | 10 |
|
..but then we get into the "who defines what is good and what is bad"
and "what is bad for you is not bad for me" loop.
Jim
|
| 20.7476 | In our society, the moral codes are more important than lives... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Jan 27 1997 18:26 | 29 |
| Oh, I do think society can change people's behavior - but not by
telling people that it's bad to have sex and they'll be punished
if they're caught pregnant (which can only happen if they choose
not to have abortions.)
When people are responding to the strong human desire to engage
in sexual bonding with others, threats like these don't have much
impact. Most people don't expect to get pregnant (which is why
such pregnancies are called 'unplanned.')
The people making the decisions on whether or not to have abortions
are those who are already pregnant. Expecting them to turn back the
clock and get un-pregnant isn't going to work. If you want them to
'choose life', give them a better reason for doing so than the promise
to kick their butts if they do.
The only societal argument I've seen work (to limit the number of
unplanned pregnancies, and subsequently the number of abortions
per capita) is from the society which places no moral judgment on sex
at all but merely asks people to protect themselves from pregnancy
and diseases. In this one society, teenagers tend not to have sex
AT ALL until they're older (because being responsible with birth
control, etc., is a hassle and not nearly as much fun when no one
particularly cares if they do it as long as they're safe about it.)
In this country, we look at their success and say, "Gee, let's do
precisely the opposite!!" (because it would be so horrifying to refrain
from making moral judgments about sex that the moral judgments against
sex are far more important themselves than saving the lives of fetuses.)
|
| 20.7477 | Which is more important - stopping sex or stopping pregnancy? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Jan 27 1997 18:41 | 16 |
| If you guys could end 90% of the abortions in this country by
saying, "Fine - have all the sex you want to have, just make
sure (whether you are a man or a woman) to protect yourselves
at all times, even if the other person is already using his/her
own protection against pregnancy and disease" ....
Would you do it? Or is it more important to promote your idea
of sexual morality?
If everyone in this country suddenly had 10 times more sex (in
and out of wedlock) than they're having now but the unplanned
pregnancy and abortion rates per capita were reduced by 90% or
so - I'd be thrilled to see these rates down!! I'd consider it
a great, great improvement over the current abortion situation.
Would you?
|
| 20.7478 | Exactly _what_ do you propose to change? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 27 1997 18:47 | 1 |
| Isn't that what we _have_ been saying for the past thirty years?
|
| 20.7479 | Our society treats sex like a dirty, thrilling little secret... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Jan 27 1997 18:50 | 2 |
| No, it isn't what our society has been saying for the past thirty years.
|
| 20.7480 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Jan 27 1997 18:52 | 2 |
| It's the message on all the billboards, in all the magazines, on all the TV
shows, and in all the movies.
|
| 20.7481 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Mon Jan 27 1997 19:11 | 29 |
| Re: .7471
The problem of being unmarried and pregnant isn't the only dichotomy expounded
by moralists who appear to promote forced abstinence from sexual relations as
an "effective method of stemming the abortion tide. They seem to not
understand that human nature is in itself moral. An example is how it has
been found that sexual feelings begin long before puberty. As noted by
Havelock Ellis, Freud, and Kinsey, very young children and even babies two
and three months old have sexual experiences (both through self-stimulation
and through handling, caring, and fondling by parents). Valid sensuous and
sexual pleasures can be experienced between child and parent, especially
between mother and child during nursing or nude cuddling. While such pleasures
are loving, healthy, and beneficial, those pleasurable values for both the
child and parent are often inhibited by guilt, such as incest fears and
religious taboos foisted upon them by self-proclaimed "moral" activists.
While I'm in this topic let me say that non-marital sexual relations are a
valid form of human need fulfillment and can provide a full range of sexual
values. Serious non-marital sexual affairs offer important life-lifting values
while avoiding the sacrifice of happiness that dominates closed marriages
based on duty and sacrifice rather than honesty and values. Also, non-marital
sexual relationships generally allow more time and freedom for
self-development and career advancement, which in turn, provides increasing
values, happiness, and strength to the relationship.
Most valid, growing romantic-love/ sexual relationships can and do lead to
marriage, usually a flourishing, lasting marriage, as I can testify from
experience.
|
| 20.7482 | Treating sex as dirty and bad makes it more exciting to many... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Jan 27 1997 19:23 | 8 |
| RE: .7480
> It's the message on all the billboards, in all the magazines, on all
> the TV shows, and in all the movies.
These messages are of the sex-is-a-dirty-thrilling-little-secret
variety, which is precisely the opposite of what I've been describing.
|
| 20.7483 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Jan 27 1997 19:28 | 9 |
|
Guess you don't watch much TV, eh? All one had to do was see the ads
for future FOX programs last night to see what the message is.
Jim
|
| 20.7484 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Jan 27 1997 19:36 | 8 |
| Do you think would FOX would spend so much money luring people
to their shows with promises of 'SEX' if they weren't portraying
it as a dirty, thrilling little secret?
If sex were portrayed as natural in this country, we'd have laundry
commercials featuring full frontal nudity (as people wait for their
clothes to finish washing), etc.
|
| 20.7485 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Jan 27 1997 19:42 | 4 |
|
<waves white flag>
|
| 20.7486 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jan 27 1997 19:44 | 6 |
| > If sex were portrayed as natural in this country, we'd have laundry
> commercials featuring full frontal nudity (as people wait for their
> clothes to finish washing), etc.
Only, if like ::FREKES, you're out of clean clothes. Presumably even he
wore clothes to pop over to 'is mum's.
|
| 20.7487 | Some countries have casual nude commercials between kid cartoons... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Jan 27 1997 19:48 | 8 |
| Other commercials would feature full frontal nudity as natural,
if our society weren't so hung up on sex.
Other cultures have ordinary commercials with full frontal nudity
without people going berserk over them. This is a far different
attitude than ours.
Our society couldn't possibly handle it.
|
| 20.7488 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Mon Jan 27 1997 19:49 | 8 |
|
There seems to be a plethora of goody-goody types in this country
who are doing more harm than good by sheltering youngsters from
anything even remotely resembling sex and/or education of same.
All/most of the other countries aren't as uptight as we are.
|
| 20.7489 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Jan 27 1997 19:49 | 1 |
| filthy!
|
| 20.7490 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Jan 27 1997 20:00 | 21 |
| I have yet to see a program where the guy says, "I am glad you are
using contraception, can you help me with this condom so we are both
protected?"
Rocush, unless you are willing to support people in a pregnancy and
afterwards you are contributing to people deciding to abort. I know
for myself, I did not hop into the sack with anyone intending to create
an unplanned pregnancy, and I don't know anyone who has. Once one has
occured then one has the choice of continuing the pregnancy or not.
since abortion is one of the oldest surgical procedures, it seems that
no matter how you attempt to sanction sex, people will have it, and
occaisionally babies occur. I was reading a book on reproductive
health from 1969. The author estimated 1 million spontaneous abortions
and 2 million elective abortions in the years he was researching the
book. As this was well before RvW, it would appear illegal abortions
didn't do much to stem the tide of unwanted pregnancies and "illicit
sex." Knowing about my grandmothers, my great aunt, and others in and
out of the family, prior to the 1930's people took care of these
matyters in fairly high numbers even then.
meg
|
| 20.7491 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Jan 27 1997 20:15 | 24 |
| Z There seems to be a plethora of goody-goody types in this country
Z who are doing more harm than good by sheltering youngsters from
Z anything even remotely resembling sex and/or education of same.
Slab:
You will find most of the goody goody types have no problem educating
their children on sex. I believe it is a process that should begin at
the early years and as they become mature enough to understand, go to
the next plateau.
What you will find in cases like myself, which is by the way the
majority of the "goody goodies", is sheltering our children away from
vile people like the National Education Association as well as
reproductive groups like Planned Parenthood and other state sponsored
organizations. You will find there is a high degree of distrust for
organizations with an agenda...like the few I mentioned....which is
really a shame because their inept marketing abilities put a degree of
shame on the honorable things they do. It only takes one rotten apple
to spread the cancer throughout.
You think...for one minute...that I would entrust a child...the most
precious resource we have to somebody I didn't know or trust in matters
like this?? Noooooooo No No No No.........I dun think so!
|
| 20.7492 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Mon Jan 27 1997 20:17 | 10 |
|
RE: .7491
Jack, it's parents like you that write letters to the CEO's of
major corporations [sponsors/networks] when your sensitivity
meter gets pegged by an off-color remark or revealing dress on
an actress [or Dennis Rodman] at an awards show.
Foreign countries have no problem with stuff like that.
|
| 20.7493 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Jan 27 1997 20:26 | 3 |
| As a bona-fide foreign person I wish to state that we do have some
standards regarding nudity y'know. The last thing I want on my telly
is cavorting nekkid people selling strawberry yoghourt at all hours.
|
| 20.7494 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Jan 27 1997 20:36 | 8 |
| Jack, keep in mind that some don't wish to put the fates of their
precious children in the hands of those who would wish to impose
stigmas on some of these children for the purpose of promoting a
particular flavor of morality in our society.
All those you may wish to punish are somebodys' children...
|
| 20.7495 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Mon Jan 27 1997 20:44 | 8 |
|
>The last thing I want on my telly
>is cavorting nekkid people selling strawberry yoghourt at all hours.
Let me guess ... you want to limit the time period to 6PM to 7AM
so you don't have to miss any of it, right?
|
| 20.7496 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Jan 27 1997 20:56 | 13 |
| Z Jack, keep in mind that some don't wish to put the fates of their
Z precious children in the hands of those who would wish to impose
Z stigmas on some of these children for the purpose of promoting a
Z particular flavor of morality in our society.
Suzanne, this may very well be the case and I would respect a parents
right to defer their children from the influences of people such as
myself.
One big difference though. I still have to pay for public education
regardles of whether I despise it or not.
-Jack
|
| 20.7497 | Goal? or process? | SMURF::PBECK | Paul Beck | Mon Jan 27 1997 21:17 | 10 |
| The question I thought Suzanne was asking was something like -- if
by SAYING such-and-such (regardless of whether it's what we've been
saying or not) you could CAUSE the unwanted pregnancy and abortion
rates to drop by 90%, would that be good enough? Part of the
scenario is the end result: the rates fall.
The fact that you may believe this has already been done is
irrelevant to the thought experiment. Is the result (fewer
abortions) the goal, or is the process (a particular view of
morality) to goal?
|
| 20.7498 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Jan 27 1997 22:56 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.7496 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| One big difference though. I still have to pay for public education
| regardles of whether I despise it or not.
I luv how you drag these things in, Jack. I'll tell ya what.... have
churches pay the same taxes as anyone else. Then we'll talk about the public
school system. Cuz then I will know you want things done evenly....
|
| 20.7499 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Jan 28 1997 00:57 | 15 |
| .7494
Why is it that those who who support the killing of babies try to
make the argument that they are just trying to protect their precious
children from those horrible people that believe a strong moral code
and self-respect can go further than any abortion clinic in providing a
healthy society. These same people that are so afraid of moral
instruction have no problem condemning their precious children to
potentially life-threatening medical procedures and psychological
trauma.
Most children know where babvies come from and how to prevent them.
Additional education will do nothing to change a basic "I don't care
attitude".
|
| 20.7500 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Jan 28 1997 01:12 | 13 |
|
> I luv how you drag these things in, Jack. I'll tell ya what.... have
>churches pay the same taxes as anyone else. Then we'll talk about the public
>school system. Cuz then I will know you want things done evenly....
Oop...did you forget about that wall of separation between Church and
state?
Jim
|
| 20.7501 | Your moral code is more precious to you than lives, Rocush... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Jan 28 1997 01:27 | 28 |
| RE: .7499 Rocush
> Why is it that those who who support the killing of babies try to
> make the argument that they are just trying to protect their precious
> children from those horrible people that believe a strong moral code
> and self-respect can go further than any abortion clinic in providing a
> healthy society.
Those of you who would rather women (not to mention their fetuses)
die rather than abandon your efforts to shove one moral code down
our societal throats aren't making society any healthier.
> These same people that are so afraid of moral instruction have no
> problem condemning their precious children to potentially
> life-threatening medical procedures and psychological trauma.
So, the people who get pregnant out of wedlock aren't the ones to
blame after all, eh? Now you're after their parents. Why not go
one step farther and blame unwed mothers' grandparents?
> Most children know where babvies come from and how to prevent them.
> Additional education will do nothing to change a basic "I don't care
> attitude".
So, these children aren't terribly precious to you. Thanks for letting
us know. If you care so little for these children, what hell do you
plan to rain down on *their* children (in case they agree to 'choose
life' outside of wedlock?)
|
| 20.7502 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Jan 28 1997 02:28 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.7500 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>
| Oop...did you forget about that wall of separation between Church and state?
Make em pay!
|
| 20.7503 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Jan 28 1997 12:02 | 21 |
| Rocush, I get a couple of impressions about you regarding life, and I
would like to clarify what I understand your beliefs to be before we
continue.
1. Is it true you believe a fetus is more important than the life it
lives after birth?
2. Is it true you consider starving born infants and children who were
born out of your narrow moral guideline to be a moral thing and way way
to prevent future immoral behaviors by example?
3. Is it true you would rather kill women and leave other children
parentless to further your moral goals.
4. Is it true you don't believe that good prenatal nutrition will save
you money, and even if it did you don't believe in feeding the very
fetuses you don't want aborted?
Just curious
meg
|
| 20.7504 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Jan 28 1997 12:22 | 8 |
| .7484
Where are you coming up with the "secret" part of your pet phrase?
These shows leave very little to the imagination.
There's little these days on TV or billboards that suggest anything
"secret" about sex. The suggestion is that you should be doing it,
too. It's "normal" to have sex with as many people as you want.
|
| 20.7505 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Jan 28 1997 12:29 | 3 |
| .7503
Oh my, no slant THERE.
|
| 20.7506 | | SMART2::JENNISON | God and sinners, reconciled | Tue Jan 28 1997 12:29 | 6 |
|
Meg, you forgot one:
5) Is it true you beat your wife ?
|
| 20.7507 | piling on... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Tue Jan 28 1997 12:31 | 7 |
|
Can I play, too ?
Rocush, is it true you only want to throw poor people on the streets,
to finance tax breaks for the rich ?
bb
|
| 20.7508 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Jan 28 1997 12:33 | 23 |
| Z The fact that you may believe this has already been done is
Z irrelevant to the thought experiment.
The short answer is that ity wouldn't make any difference. The
majority of young women abort for convenience over stigma.
Glen:
Again, you choose to bite the hand that feeds you. My theory, which I
believe is solidly found, is that your real passion for taxing churches
is because of Focus on the Family, Robertson's church, and others who
hold an anti gay agenda. This is all politics to you and the message
I'm getting from you is you are so obsessed with your own agenda that
you would sell your own mother if it would help the cause. Is this not
correct Glen?
Keep in mind Glen that for every 1 big bad power church like the ones
you malign and so despise, there are countless thousands who live
impoverished because they are ministering the gospel of Christ locally
and giving much of what they have to take care of all the ills that
secular humanism you so richly embrace perpetuates upon society.
-Jack
|
| 20.7509 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jan 28 1997 12:39 | 4 |
| > ... for the purpose of promoting a
> particular flavor of morality in our society.
Strawberry?
|
| 20.7510 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Jan 28 1997 12:48 | 31 |
| | <<< Note 20.7508 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| Again, you choose to bite the hand that feeds you. My theory, which I
| believe is solidly found, is that your real passion for taxing churches
| is because of Focus on the Family, Robertson's church, and others who
| hold an anti gay agenda.
GANT! Wrong.... thanks for playing! Jack, it is based on just what I
said. You don't want to have your money go to public schools. I want everyone
to not get away with not paying taxes. We both aren't going to get what we
want. But I have felt this way long before I came out. But thanks for sharing.
| you would sell your own mother if it would help the cause.
Sell my mom? Ho ho! This is too funny. Jack.... please give me an
example or two that led you to believe I would do the above. I'm VERY
interested in hearing this!
| Keep in mind Glen that for every 1 big bad power church like the ones
| you malign and so despise, there are countless thousands who live
| impoverished because they are ministering the gospel of Christ locally
| and giving much of what they have to take care of all the ills that
| secular humanism you so richly embrace perpetuates upon society.
Jack.... apply the same thing above to public schools. Do YOU see the
picture yet?
Glen
|
| 20.7511 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Jan 28 1997 13:02 | 15 |
| Z GANT! Wrong.... thanks for playing! Jack, it is based on just what I
Z said. You don't want to have your money go to public schools. I want
Z everyone
Z to not get away with not paying taxes. We both aren't going to get what
Z we want. But I have felt this way long before I came out.
Okay Glen...let's look at this for a minute. First of all, define
church. Are you speaking of religious institutions alone, or are you
also including every non profit organization that exists today. For
example, since Blue Cross is non profit, are you willing for all senior
citizens to have their Medex payements go up $200.00 a month? Are you
willing to bring to possible closure local Planned Parenthood agencies,
Red Cross agencies, etc?
-Jack
|
| 20.7512 | It's about what matters more in all this... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Jan 28 1997 13:35 | 18 |
| RE: .7508 Jack
>> The fact that you may believe this has already been done is
>> irrelevant to the thought experiment.
> The short answer is that ity wouldn't make any difference. The
> majority of young women abort for convenience over stigma.
The thought experiment is not about what pregnant women think - it's
about what some folks here want most...
If you could reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions per capita
by 90% by telling people it was ok to have as much sex as they wanted
as long as they protected themselves from pregnancies and diseases
- would this be too high a price to pay?
Which matters more? Almost solving these problems completely *or* the
moral position about sex?
|
| 20.7513 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Jan 28 1997 14:08 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.7511 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| define church. Are you speaking of religious institutions alone, or are you
| also including every non profit organization that exists today.
Jack... what part of church did you not understand? Religious orgs.
|
| 20.7514 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Jan 28 1997 14:30 | 19 |
| Re .7469:
> -< re .7467 The crime is against the state; Reno can press charges >-
The state still needs a complainant. Without the church, the
government can't even prove the people were on the property without
permission.
> (3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility,
Water-soluble chalk does not damage concrete. You haven't addressed
that or the issue of jurisdiction.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.7515 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Jan 28 1997 15:01 | 9 |
| Glen...
Nooooooo no no no no.....this simply will not do. If you are going to
penalize religious institutions, then let's spread the chit evenly and
tax ACT UP, Queer Nation, The Boys/Girl Scouts....everybody. No my
friend, you want a socialistic government, let's go all the way on this
one.
-Jack
|
| 20.7516 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Jan 28 1997 15:10 | 14 |
| My Questions to Rocush are genuine. It seems he has stated that he
doesn't want to pay for kids, but doesn't want them aborted. If the
people involved to not currently have the wherewithal to finance their
kids, I still want to know if starving them, institutionalizing them,
or what plan he has especially if he manages to add another 1.3 million
kids/year to the equation, while denying help to these and others who
are born and need that first boost.
An old cultural thing that I believe the ancient Chinese believed was
if you saved a persons life, you are responsible for that. Somehow I
don't see Rocush, or Jack or a couple of others who would end abortion
today offering to take this responsibility on.
meg
|
| 20.7517 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Jan 28 1997 16:16 | 6 |
| If society actually pushed the responsibility that Rocush is talking
about, I doubt there would be 1.3 million kids/year to add to the
equation. You seem to start your argument with the reasoning that
current abortion numbers are static.
-steve
|
| 20.7518 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Jan 28 1997 16:44 | 21 |
| Steve, if I tell you to do something and it's not part of your
personal moral code, will you do it simply because I make a point
of pushing it?
It seems that those who want most to push a moral code believe
that it's this simple. Tell people to follow it, and they can't
help but obey (even if it doesn't make sense and/or even if it
amounts to asking people not to engage in legal consenting acts
that are important and meaningful to some people) - right?
Our species doesn't work that way...
If you confirm to people that they can still engage in the important
and meaningful consenting acts without being harmed (by unplanned
pregnancies and diseases) - and if you do so in a non-judgmental
way - in at least one country, it's worked to reduce the unplanned
pregnancy and abortion rate per capita to 1/10th our rate.
Simply pushing one particular moral code which does not make sense
onto an unwilling society is what some people want more than anything
in the world. Our society will never go along with it, though.
|
| 20.7519 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Jan 28 1997 16:54 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.7515 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| Nooooooo no no no no.....this simply will not do. If you are going to
| penalize religious institutions, then let's spread the chit evenly and
| tax ACT UP, Queer Nation, The Boys/Girl Scouts....everybody. No my
| friend, you want a socialistic government, let's go all the way on this
| one.
ACT-UP? Now I know why you asked. Sure, go ahead. Tax them double if ya
want!
|
| 20.7520 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Jan 28 1997 17:39 | 26 |
| Rocush and others. the information I have is that abortion was common
before RvW, there are arguements on how common, but common enough that
women died, and fetuses were still aborted. (my figures vary from 1 in
5 women to an approximated 2 million/year, depending on whether I used
Kinsey (1 in 5 women in the US) or Rueban who approximated 2
million/year in 1969. Other people like to figure this as a lower
number, but given the state of contraception in the country at that
time, it wouldn't surpise me to find the actual rate of theraputic
abortions (legal or illegal) to have been even higher.
One of the BIG reasons women I have counseled have stated for having an
abortion is no way to support a(nother) baby, no support from family or
friends, fear of losing the living they are providing to the existing
family. this is standard throughout the world, according to a friend
involved in women's health in Japan, who works with groups throughout
Asia.
Obviously if abortion (meaning unplanned pregnancies, meaning in some
minds irresponsible behavior) has been around for millenia, frowning at
pregnancies you don't approve of, and refusing to support women and
kids is not going to reduce the number of abortions. Working to make
"choosing life" IMO is the way to reduce them, if better contraception
and more responsible men are not going to be in the picture anytime
soon.
meg
|
| 20.7521 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Jan 28 1997 17:50 | 78 |
| > Steve, if I tell you to do something and it's not part of your
> personal moral code, will you do it simply because I make a point
> of pushing it?
Of course I wouldn't, but then I have a very firm moral foundation to
work with. You seem to be of the opinion that most everyone in this
country has a firm moral foundation - the only difference is that their
morality is simply "different" (I've replaced the word 'personal' with
'different').
From my perspective, it seems that most Americans really have no FIRM
moral foundation. Their moral leanings seem all too dictated by the
whims of society and current politics. When society/politics decided that
traditional morality was no longer en vogue', guess what happened? This
'middle of the road' bunch went with it. Most were simply swept along for
the ride due to the fact that they themselves were never given any moral
foundation to begin with. The "default" morality is set by society and
what it pushes via media/teachings/law/etc.
If society got serious about altering behaviors that it knows are
unhealthy, then it is my educated guess that such a change in societal
attitude would sweep things in the opposite direction (to what has been
pushed over the last 30-40 years).
> It seems that those who want most to push a moral code believe
> that it's this simple. Tell people to follow it, and they can't
> help but obey (even if it doesn't make sense and/or even if it
> amounts to asking people not to engage in legal consenting acts
> that are important and meaningful to some people) - right?
> Our species doesn't work that way...
I disagree. For those who really have no solid moral foundation can be
swayed by societal pressure. Granted, going in a more conservative
direction is harder, but that is only because the push goes against
what we WANT. Everyone wants to be able to do what they wish, and have
no guilt or consequences from their actions. They fight back when they
are told that what they do is not right (then usually use some bogus
argument like 'what is right for you may not be right for me', which
when looked at intelligently, it too generic an argument to be useful).
> If you confirm to people that they can still engage in the important
> and meaningful consenting acts without being harmed (by unplanned
> pregnancies and diseases) - and if you do so in a non-judgmental
> way - in at least one country, it's worked to reduce the unplanned
> pregnancy and abortion rate per capita to 1/10th our rate.
But there's the catch... such acts, when performed outside of a
committed relationship (and I'm not saying marriage, but that's the
ideal), can and do have consequences beyond the obvious (abortion,
diseases). Don't get me wrong, I'm not planning on
telling anyone what they can and cannot do, I'm simply stating that
abortion and disease is only a small product of sleeping around.
Sex is important and meaningful, no doubt. However, when misused, it
can be very detrimental to the mental, physical and spiritual
well-being. I know no one wants to hear this, but it is true.
So for me, I cannot in good conscience, promote such an idea that sex
outside of a committed relationship is a good idea. There is much more
to consider in this equation. You seem to want to loosen further an already
unraveling moral foundation, suggesting that this will fix things. You
won't even consider allowing society to set its own behavioral
guidelines. This country cannot support and validify everyone's
personal moral choices, this is part of the problem.
> Simply pushing one particular moral code which does not make sense
What moral code is being pushed? What does not make sense about this
moral code?
> onto an unwilling society is what some people want more than anything
> in the world. Our society will never go along with it, though.
Of course we won't. We have broken the chains of self-restraint and
have finally reached a point where our collective consciences are
numb. And we like to be numb... no nasty conscience to bother us when
we do things we like doing (even if what we do is wrong).
|
| 20.7522 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Jan 28 1997 18:32 | 81 |
| RE: .7521 Steve Leech
> Of course I wouldn't, but then I have a very firm moral foundation to
> work with. You seem to be of the opinion that most everyone in this
> country has a firm moral foundation - the only difference is that their
> morality is simply "different" (I've replaced the word 'personal' with
> 'different').
So, unless people happen to have YOUR moral code, they have none at all
- right? No wonder you believe that all you have to do is to tell
people what moral code to adopt...
> From my perspective, it seems that most Americans really have no FIRM
> moral foundation. Their moral leanings seem all too dictated by the
> whims of society and current politics. When society/politics decided
> that traditional morality was no longer en vogue', guess what happened?
> This 'middle of the road' bunch went with it. Most were simply swept
> along for the ride due to the fact that they themselves were never given
> any moral foundation to begin with. The "default" morality is set by
> society and what it pushes via media/teachings/law/etc.
Steve, the traditional morality was hypocritical - although our society
said one thing, people did quite another in secret.
Even in Colonial times, sex prior to marriage was extremely common in
this country (as evidenced by the number of months which elapsed after
marriages when many first children were born.)
The big change was that the hypocrisy ended (and people were much more
open about doing what they were already doing anyway.)
> If society got serious about altering behaviors that it knows are
> unhealthy, then it is my educated guess that such a change in societal
> attitude would sweep things in the opposite direction (to what has been
> pushed over the last 30-40 years).
Our society does not have the ability to inflict mind control on its
citizens.
It may be fun to think of everyone different from you as being some
automaton with no ability to govern morality except by dictate from
society, but it simply isn't true.
> I disagree. For those who really have no solid moral foundation can be
> swayed by societal pressure.
Again, you define 'solid moral foundation' as YOURS (otherwise, people
have none.) Kinda self-serving, don't you think?
> So for me, I cannot in good conscience, promote such an idea that sex
> outside of a committed relationship is a good idea. There is much more
> to consider in this equation.
Can you accept the idea that it's none of your business what others do
in the privacy of their adult, consenting lives?
> You seem to want to loosen further an already unraveling moral
> foundation, suggesting that this will fix things. You won't even
> consider allowing society to set its own behavioral guidelines.
> This country cannot support and validify everyone's personal moral
> choices, this is part of the problem.
Society does not have the power to make private sexual choices for
its citizens. Nor would most of us WANT society to do so.
> What moral code is being pushed? What does not make sense about this
> moral code?
The moral code is the one you are trying to push. It does not make
sense because it seeks to PUNISH those who do as this code requests
(which is truly nuts.)
> Of course we won't. We have broken the chains of self-restraint and
> have finally reached a point where our collective consciences are
> numb. And we like to be numb... no nasty conscience to bother us when
> we do things we like doing (even if what we do is wrong).
Speak for yourself.
It may make you absolutely nuts to think of people out there somewhere
doing sexual things that upset you horribly - but it's your own hangup.
|
| 20.7523 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Jan 28 1997 18:45 | 12 |
| It's ironic that those who seek a healthier society try to do so
by obsessing about the sexual activities of others...
Sorta like the irony of groups which claim to focus on the family
being totally obsessed (in all their literature and their public
work) with their fight against homosexuality.
At what point does our society become 'healthy' by focusing on
imagining what others may be doing between the sheets within
their own lives?
It's really, really strange...
|
| 20.7524 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Tue Jan 28 1997 18:48 | 1 |
| it's the curse of the puritans.
|
| 20.7525 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Jan 28 1997 18:51 | 1 |
| Suzanne is actually a lovely person.
|
| 20.7526 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Jan 28 1997 18:54 | 14 |
|
> It's ironic that those who seek a healthier society try to do so
> by obsessing about the sexual activities of others...
Good grief, Suzanne..why the obsession with what you perceive as
other people's obsessions? That's all you've talked about for
2 days..
> It's really, really strange...
You've got that right..
|
| 20.7527 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Tue Jan 28 1997 18:55 | 3 |
|
Sho' got that right.
|
| 20.7528 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Jan 28 1997 19:04 | 8 |
| RE: .7526 Jim Henderson
> Good grief, Suzanne..why the obsession with what you perceive as
> other people's obsessions? That's all you've talked about for
> 2 days..
Hit a nerve, eh? :>
|
| 20.7529 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Jan 28 1997 19:18 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.7528 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
| Hit a nerve, eh? :>
FILTHY!
|
| 20.7530 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Jan 28 1997 19:23 | 2 |
|
Nothing a quick shower wouldn't fix :-)
|
| 20.7531 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159 | Tue Jan 28 1997 19:25 | 2 |
|
Note 835.* cries out for an abortion, if'n any moderator be interested.
|
| 20.7532 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Tue Jan 28 1997 20:58 | 8 |
| >it's the curse of the puritans.
Actually the Puritans were much less hung up on sex then the religious
right of today. Their society showed increased economic activity, they
rejected the Church's unnatural treatment of women, and sex. They accepted
the normality of sex and pleasure. Women's rights greatly improved under
Puritanism. Women could divorce. They gained property and inheritance
rights and marriage became a civil contract.
|
| 20.7533 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Jan 28 1997 22:21 | 21 |
| .7501
Apparently you have a very serious problem reading for content as
opposed to what you would like to believe someone wrote.
I did not condemn the parents. Quite the contrary, I was stating that
parents have been removed as a factor since the pro choice crowd don't
think parents needs to be informerd before their dughter undergoes a
potentially life threatening procedure. Please refer to the statistics
on how many women still die from "safe, legal" abortions today. This
should be done to a 13 year old girl without her parents knowing.
Nice.
Also, your last part was equally wrong. The "I don't care attitude"
was on the part of those who have all of the education and knowledge
they need to keep from getting themselves or others pregnant. More
eduction will not change their attitiude.
Please get my note correct, or at least idenitfy the fact that you
don't really care what I write beforte you respond to one of my notes.
|
| 20.7534 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Jan 28 1997 22:34 | 18 |
| .7503
I really struggled with exactly how to respond to your note. Instead
of my initial reaction, let me merely say that your are completely
incorrect in your statements.
I can think of nothing I have said, taken in context, that would
support your entry.
Let me pose a question to you.
Do you believe that is appropriate to present an ideal that identifies
sexual activity as the final culmination of a commited relationship.
That thought, care and counsel should be used when considering giving
yourself and your most precious gift to someone else. That the results
of your decision have consequences that affect many people and will
probably exist long after a particular moment in time.
|
| 20.7535 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 00:19 | 55 |
| RE: .7533 Rocush
> Apparently you have a very serious problem reading for content as
> opposed to what you would like to believe someone wrote.
Rocush, you can't slither your way out of what you wrote this easily.
Nice try, though.
> I did not condemn the parents.
You sure as hell DID condemn the parents:
"These same people that are so afraid of moral instruction have no
problem condemning their precious children to potentially
**********************************
life-threatening medical procedures and psychological trauma."
[This was in response to my note which stated:
"Keep in mind that some don't wish to put the fates of their
precious children in the hands of those who would wish to impose
stigmas on some of these children for the purpose of promoting a
particular flavor of morality in our society.
"All those you may wish to punish are somebodys' children..."]
Suddenly, the children of these parents didn't 'get themselves pregnant'
(enough to warrant your precious stigmas) - their parents *condemned* them
to this fate (which makes it their parents' fault on your planet.)
> Please refer to the statistics on how many women still die from "safe,
> legal" abortions today. This should be done to a 13 year old girl
> without her parents knowing. Nice.
Legal abortions are still far safer than childbirth. Yet, you want
to put an 11 year old girl through the risks of childbirth (not to
mention the pain) with her kicking and screaming against her will.
Nice, indeed.
> Also, your last part was equally wrong. The "I don't care attitude"
> was on the part of those who have all of the education and knowledge
> they need to keep from getting themselves or others pregnant. More
> eduction will not change their attitiude.
So you want to punish these other parents' "precious children" (and their
offspring which you demand be born into a world where you can rain more
hell down upon them as well) instead.
> Please get my note correct, or at least idenitfy the fact that you
> don't really care what I write beforte you respond to one of my notes.
Rocush, as long as you keep shooting yourself in the foot with your
notes like this, someone is going to notice the blood on your shoes.
Learn to take responsibility for your mistakes, Rocush.
|
| 20.7536 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Jan 29 1997 02:14 | 53 |
| re: .7521
I happen to think that I have a pretty darn good moral code,
thanks, and I know from experience that it is vastly different
from yours. Rather than being the product of "societal pressure"
and "political whims" it is the product of my experiences, my
perceptions of the world around me, and my desire to treat others
the way I would like to be treated. I'm comfortable with it,
I can look myself in the mirror every day, and I sleep well
at night. I don't plan on changing, even if the republicans
win the next election :-). I'm pro-choice. I believe families
come in all shapes, sizes and genders. I believe strong committed
relationships don't need licenses, blessings or consist of a man and
a woman to be successful. I don't believe the pain in my life
is there because I'm sinful, or that the good is there because I
am holy.
As a child, I remember singing a hymn whose chorus went,
"And they'll know we are Christians by our love". I don't
recall it saying that people will know our religious beliefs
by how much whining we do about how awful everyone else is.
People who are downtrodden are, for the most part, pretty
aware that they've hit bottom. They need help, they need
compassion, they need a hand. They don't need people prancing
by telling them repeatedly exactly how worthless they are.
To the best of my knowledge you do not uplift the poor by
whacking them over the head with their poverty. That would
seem a bit counterproductive.
It is sad to me that you see every person on welfare as someone
who is taking advantage of you. It is sad to me that you see
every single woman with an unplanned pregnancy as a whore.
It is sad to me that you see every woman who has had an
abortion as a murderer, because nothing could be further
from the truth.
Abortion is a nice, neat conservative political issue.
It's got everything you need to get support. Good & evil
can be so clear, so defined. The solution is so simple,
and you can make people think they can achieve it. Poverty
is a bit messier. Abused and starving children, hmm, can't
really wipe that out. Third world children, full of disease,
starving, uneducated, well that's even tougher. Even Jesus
said, "The poor you will always have with you." Genocide?
Political and religious terrorism? War? Much murkier waters.
Solving those problems takes much more work. But abortion
is such an easy issue. And it's so tempting to take the easy
way out....even when there is so much more wrong with the world.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.7537 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Jan 29 1997 12:15 | 28 |
| .7535
All of your distortions and mistakes do not add up to me shooting
myself in the foot. You insist on saying that I said something I
didn't. You apparently have grasped the Democrats concept of telling
the BIG LIE over and over again hoping someone will believe you.
I will only address your first point since the rest are equally as
wrong, but I'm not going to waste more time proving it to you.
I was not talking about the parents. I was talking about YOU and
people like you. Also I was not talking about pregnancy, I was talking
about abortions. You used the term precious children, I repeated to
make a point. You believe that no restrictions should exist on
abortions, including the requirements that they be informed and consent
to a medical procedure on their child.
If they believe it is best for their child to carry the baby to term,
that is their decision. If they believe it is best to abort the baby
that is also their decision. In your arrogance you believe that the
parents should not have any say in the matter. Remember these children
belong to their parents, not the state. Or are you saying that the
communist system of taking control of children is better than having
parents responsible for their children.
Your poor attempts at misstatements are beginning to get quite
tiresome.
|
| 20.7538 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 29 1997 12:58 | 6 |
| Suzanne:
I have to agree with Al to the point that the pro choice activists
omitting parents from the decisionmaking process is reprehensible!
-Jack
|
| 20.7539 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Wed Jan 29 1997 13:05 | 16 |
| re: .7538
Ok, Jack, what if the child wishes to be baptised or go to
church. Should the parents be asked for permission first
or should the child be allowed to attend services behind
their back? Lest you think this is frivilous, remember
that many people consider religious beliefs to be a highly
personal decision.
Also, there have been cases where the parents religious
beliefs were in direct conflict with their child's need
for medical care, and the courts did NOT uphold the
parents right to make final decisions on their children's
care.
|
| 20.7540 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Jan 29 1997 13:11 | 101 |
| re: .7522
| > Of course I wouldn't, but then I have a very firm moral foundation to
| > work with. You seem to be of the opinion that most everyone in this
| > country has a firm moral foundation - the only difference is that their
| > morality is simply "different" (I've replaced the word 'personal' with
| > 'different').
> So, unless people happen to have YOUR moral code, they have none at all
> - right? No wonder you believe that all you have to do is to tell
> people what moral code to adopt...
Wrong. I suggest you read for comprehension, rather than reading for
ammunition.
> Steve, the traditional morality was hypocritical - although our society
> said one thing, people did quite another in secret.
Your statement above is incorrect. Perhaps there were some *people*
who were hypocrites, but the traditional morality of this nation was
not hypocritical. Apparently, you fail to see the distinction, which
most certainly shows in your continued attacks against traditional
morality.
> Even in Colonial times, sex prior to marriage was extremely common in
> this country (as evidenced by the number of months which elapsed after
> marriages when many first children were born.)
Irrelevant... and an unprovable assertion to boot. It happened, to be
sure. The problem you are going to have with this line of argument is
the fact that such a thing was not viewed as acceptable moral
behavior, as it is today.
> The big change was that the hypocrisy ended (and people were much more
> open about doing what they were already doing anyway.)
No, the big change was in the moral fabric of society. What was once
believed to be immoral is no longer viewed at such.
> Our society does not have the ability to inflict mind control on its
> citizens.
This is a non-sequitur.
> It may be fun to think of everyone different from you as being some
> automaton with no ability to govern morality except by dictate from
> society, but it simply isn't true.
This is just plain silly... and off the subject at hand. You have yet
to show that you have any comprehension of what I'm talking about.
> Again, you define 'solid moral foundation' as YOURS (otherwise, people
> have none.) Kinda self-serving, don't you think?
I suggest you read what I said again. I didn't define anything.
| > So for me, I cannot in good conscience, promote such an idea that sex
| > outside of a committed relationship is a good idea. There is much more
| > to consider in this equation.
> Can you accept the idea that it's none of your business what others do
> in the privacy of their adult, consenting lives?
What does this have to do with what I wrote above?
> Society does not have the power to make private sexual choices for
> its citizens. Nor would most of us WANT society to do so.
Who said anything about society making choices for the individual?
Not me.
> The moral code is the one you are trying to push.
Well, here's the problem. You are on the wrong topic of discussion.
> It does not make sense because it seeks to PUNISH those who do as this
> code requests (which is truly nuts.)
And even if we were discussing my moral code, you don't seem too well
equipped to discuss it. Your statement above has nothing to do with my
moral code, nor with the discussion at hand.
| > Of course we won't. We have broken the chains of self-restraint and
| > have finally reached a point where our collective consciences are
| > numb. And we like to be numb... no nasty conscience to bother us when
| > we do things we like doing (even if what we do is wrong).
> Speak for yourself.
Oooh, I hit a nerve, eh? I love it when I speak in generalities and
some folk take it personal. I find such responses quite interesting.
> It may make you absolutely nuts to think of people out there somewhere
> doing sexual things that upset you horribly - but it's your own hangup.
I'm afraid to even ask where this little tirade came from. It's quite
amusing, though. It shows you have no understanding whatsoever of my
previous post.
-steve
|
| 20.7541 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Jan 29 1997 13:26 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.7538 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| I have to agree with Al to the point that the pro choice activists
| omitting parents from the decisionmaking process is reprehensible!
Jack.... did you have your kids baptised? If so, did you consult the
kids first or did you make that decision on your own? Why not let the parents
make the decision on abortion?
|
| 20.7542 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Jan 29 1997 13:31 | 29 |
| Jack,
A friends granddaughter died because of her parents beliefs. I don't
want to see this happen again to anyone. Parental consent is great for
kids who have open loving parents, but lousy for those who don't.
OBTW, if you think parents should be able to force a child to carry to
term, do you also agree that the parents should be able to force a
termination of a pregnancy if they believe that is in the best
interests of their child as well?
Rocush, I fail to see any love or willingness to love children once
they are born in any of your statements. All I see is concern for a
fetus, but not even enough to see to it that that fetus's life-support
system has the nourishment, support, and medical care that could give
it half a chance at a decent life. (Oh and save all of us a batch of
money in neonatal care, intervention, therapy, special ed.....)
I have not seen any statements from you that say you believe post-born
fetuses should receive support in nutrition, education, or whatever to
give them a chance in life, no matter what the circumstances of their
beginnings.
I do see a willingness to punish adults for making choices you don't
approve of and the side effect of that is punishing port-born fetuses,
and their futures as well.
Is this what you truly believe?
meg
|
| 20.7543 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Jan 29 1997 13:46 | 82 |
| re: .7536
Oh, goody. Another person who has taken personal my very general
ramblings. But hey, if the shoe fits I suppose you can put it on if you
like. 8^)
> I happen to think that I have a pretty darn good moral code,
> thanks,
I'm very pleased to hear this. When did I tell you that you didn't?
> and I know from experience that it is vastly different
> from yours.
Probably not as different - as a whole- as you think, but this is
irrelevant.
> Rather than being the product of "societal pressure"
> and "political whims" it is the product of my experiences, my
> perceptions of the world around me, and my desire to treat others
> the way I would like to be treated.
Who said you were a product of societal pressure of political whim?
Though I think most folks would be absolutely amazed at how much of their
moral outlook is affected by what society deems acceptable, my
point was a generic one - certainly not specific to anyone in this
conference.
> I'm comfortable with it,
> I can look myself in the mirror every day, and I sleep well
> at night.
This sounds as if you are getting mildly defensive. There is no need
for this, I assure you. I'm glad you are comfortable with yourself,
really.
> It is sad to me that you see every person on welfare as someone
> who is taking advantage of you.
This is incorrect, and also quite irrelevant to the note your are
supposedly responding to (you know, .7521, remember?). Frankly, I
can't remember mentioning welfare in my note, nor even how I veiw
people on welfare.
> It is sad to me that you see
> every single woman with an unplanned pregnancy as a whore.
Eh? <look of confusion>
What are you talking about?
> It is sad to me that you see every woman who has had an
> abortion as a murderer, because nothing could be further
> from the truth.
Frankly, I never said how I personally felt about any woman who has had an
abortion... in any note, and certainly not in .7521. I think both you
and Susan need to take classes in reading comprehension. You both seem
to repond to whatever I post with your view of what I think and feel
on a variety of subjects. It's bad enough that you are both quite wrong
in your representation of my views, but now you have to misrepresent
these views off topic. It makes discussing the issues at hand very
difficult, yes it does.
> Abortion is a nice, neat conservative political issue.
It is? Hmmm... fodder for the "things I didn't know" topic, to be
sure.
> It's got everything you need to get support. Good & evil
> can be so clear, so defined. The solution is so simple,
> and you can make people think they can achieve it.
In actuality, the solution (for 98% of abortions) *is* simple.
Implementation of this solution is impossible, however, as it is all
about personal behavioral choices. This greatly complicates any attempt at
implementing a social solution to this problem - whether legal or
otherwise.
-steve
|
| 20.7544 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Wed Jan 29 1997 13:48 | 3 |
|
Who's "Susan"?
|
| 20.7545 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 29 1997 14:42 | 31 |
| Z Jack.... did you have your kids baptised? If so, did you consult the
Z kids first or did you make that decision on your own? Why not let the
Z parents make the decision on abortion?
Glen, I'm not sure if this is a good parallel. The short answer is
that I allow them to make that decision on their own. However, once
they became a believer in Jesus Christ, I took the onus upon myself to
instruct them on the acts of obedience of a believer. Baptism is the
first ordinance of a believer and it is I who instilled this belief in
them. A parent is typically the central figure of a child's
development and ability.
Glen, there are three great institutions that we are stewards of. The
first is the family, the second is the church, and the third is the
government. We may have an opinion of each of these...good or
bad, but I believe that we are subject to each one of these in one
way or another. Were my child to express an interest in Zen Buddhism
or another faith, my response would be more or less, "Son, you do what
your heart leads you to do...once you leave the house after high school
graduation. We're leaving for church in ten minutes...make sure you
don't keep me or your mother waiting." Glen....finished, done.
Comprende?
Now if my thirteen year old daughter was brought to an abortion clinic
without my knowledge or the knowledge of her mother, you can be assured
that I would take any legal action possible against the perpetrators.
Why? Because whoever chose to take this liberty usurped my authority
as a parent...this is absolutely wrong in my book and I believe this is
a sin against the authority of the family unit.
-Jack
|
| 20.7546 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 14:58 | 9 |
| Steve, try a different line than the one about 'reading comprehension'
for the next 10 years or so.
You borrowed it from Ann Broomhead (in Womannotes), and you don't hold
the remotest candle to her intelligence or wit when she used this
term. It just sounds hollow when you use it.
Surely you can come up with some witty barb of your own after all these
years of trying...
|
| 20.7547 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:33 | 44 |
| RE: .7537 Rocush
> I was not talking about the parents. I was talking about YOU and
> people like you.
When you discuss people and *THEIR CHILDREN*, you're talking about
parents (even if your bulb is too dim to realize it.)
> Also I was not talking about pregnancy, I was talking about abortions.
> You used the term precious children, I repeated to make a point.
As you know, I'm sure, my term 'precious children' referred to the ones
pregnant out of wedlock (thus subject to your hellfire and damnation.)
> You believe that no restrictions should exist on abortions, including
> the requirements that they be informed and consent to a medical
> procedure on their child.
Provide an exact quote where I've stated these beliefs. I'll wait
until hell freezes over for your compliance.
> If they believe it is best for their child to carry the baby to term,
> that is their decision. If they believe it is best to abort the baby
> that is also their decision.
So, you support abortion rights if pregnant women's parents agree to
it. Interesting!
> In your arrogance you believe that the parents should not have any
> say in the matter. Remember these children belong to their parents,
> not the state.
**NO STATE** is allowed to decide that a girl/woman must have an
abortion. So the idea of the state making such a decision is another
case of you shooting yourself in the foot. (I hope you have a decent
shoe collection.)
My view is that if a teenage girl would sooner risk death by an illegal
abortion than tell her parents about her pregnancy, it's better to give
her the option of a far, far, far safer legal procedure.
If the parents aren't close enough to their child to be trusted with
the news of her pregnancy, it's their own fault. She shouldn't die
out of fear of getting closer to them.
|
| 20.7548 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:37 | 4 |
|
Popcorn, anyone?
|
| 20.7549 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:39 | 4 |
|
No, thanks. I can't eat it without butter, and you know what
fatty foods do to my waist line.
|
| 20.7550 | tip o' the day | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:40 | 9 |
|
Bring some of that "I can't believe it's not butter" spray..tastes good
on popcorn, *and* it's lower in fat!
Jim
|
| 20.7551 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:41 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.7545 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| Glen, I'm not sure if this is a good parallel. The short answer is
| that I allow them to make that decision on their own. However, once
| they became a believer in Jesus Christ, I took the onus upon myself to
| instruct them on the acts of obedience of a believer.
Jack, that's cool. How old were they when they made this decision?
|
| 20.7552 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:42 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.7549 by BUSY::SLAB "As you wish" >>>
| No, thanks. I can't eat it without butter, and you know what
| fatty foods do to my waist line.
Gives you one? :-)
|
| 20.7553 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:42 | 9 |
|
I'm not sure what the connection is between being baptised and having
an abortion, but that's prolly just me.
Jim
|
| 20.7554 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:43 | 7 |
| Well, Greg was five. Andrew and Audrey aren't there quite yet.
If Gregory didn't fully understand what the ordinance of baptism was, I
wouldn't have rushed him into it. So although it's the first
ordinance, it isn't necessarily expedient to push it!
-Jack
|
| 20.7555 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:43 | 4 |
| Z I'm not sure what the connection is between being baptised and having
Z an abortion, but that's prolly just me.
Jim, remember, it's Glen and me!! :-)
|
| 20.7556 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:56 | 2 |
|
I'm dying for an apple juice.
|
| 20.7557 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 29 1997 15:59 | 4 |
|
There's a great comeback to be entered here, but I'm having
trouble with the wording.
|
| 20.7558 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Jan 29 1997 16:02 | 2 |
|
settled for orange juice instead. it's not just for breakfast anymore.
|
| 20.7559 | | HOTLNE::BURT | | Wed Jan 29 1997 16:44 | 23 |
| oh please! yes, defects aren't only genetic, but who better than the potential
creators of a new human life would know if they've been exposed to tobacco,
alcohol, chemicals, wild viruses, etc that could cause a defect? duh! yeah,
testing won't show that if you continue to drink that you'll going to have a
baby with AFS, but there's enough hard evidence out there that says you just
might. no test that shows one to be AIDS free will insure that if they continue
to have unportected sex that thier baby might be born with AIDS, but there's
lots of hard evidence out there to say otherwise. no test says that if you
continue to smoke crack, etc that your baby will be born with the addiction,
but there's a damn lot of evidence out there that says it just might happen.
tests show genetic potential for having a young person that you just may not be
financially ready to undertake; going on the whim that there might be a cure
some day should get flushed until such a cure exists.
responsible sex, open discussions, knowing what your lifestyle (and it's
ramifications on future generations) is like and we'll eventually end abortion.
bleeping femi-nazis, bleeding whiny libs, and horny sons-o-b****es need not
apply to my form educating my children on sexual responsibility.
Rocush: you say it better than i do... (and the rest of you out there i agree
with)
|
| 20.7560 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:07 | 4 |
| .7544
You know who I'm talking about. So I can't spell names either, what's
new. 8^)
|
| 20.7561 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:12 | 3 |
| Yeah Steve, we all know that, but when you have been corrected several
times on a name, one has to wonder how much is unconsious poor spelling
and how much is intentional.
|
| 20.7562 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:22 | 2 |
|
was that chele? if so, welcome back aussie!
|
| 20.7563 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:23 | 1 |
| I didn't see the word vegemite, so I doubt it was Chele.
|
| 20.7564 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:24 | 3 |
|
HOTLNE is in Hudson, anyhoo.
|
| 20.7565 | welcome back to the box, Suzanne... 8^) | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:29 | 24 |
| .7546
Excuse me? NOW what are you going on about. What does Ann Broomhead
have to do with this discussion... or with my use of the one phrase used
most to address your notes? I've been using 'read for comprehension' long
before I first peeked into =wn= , not that this non-sequitur makes any
difference whatsoever.
I must admit, it is quite fun to watch you flounder around like a fish
out of water. It's pretty tough when your lack of comprehension is
easily seen by others... even tougher when it is pointed out by someone
who is so low of the wit and intelligence scale. Ho HO!
Oh, but what do I know... I'm not nearly as smart as Ann, nor as witty.
Of course, I'm not sure where that leaves you, since I'm picking your
entries apart with little effort.
Are we having fun yet? I can trade barbs with you all day, but this
really isn't getting us anywhere, is it? I'm still awaiting for you to
address my .7521... what was posted, that is, not what you decide to
read into it.
-steve
|
| 20.7566 | I don't remember being corrected on her name several times... | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:31 | 5 |
| .7561
I'll never tell. 8^)
Gimme a break... it's not like she's been around lately.
|
| 20.7567 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:32 | 5 |
|
I see. So you forget people's names if they're not around all the
time?
|
| 20.7568 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:32 | 5 |
|
RE: .7561
Must be that reading comprehension problem of his.
|
| 20.7569 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:54 | 4 |
| .7567
No, I remembered her name... I just spelled it wrong. If she had been
around, well, I probably would have spelt it correktlie.
|
| 20.7570 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:55 | 3 |
|
Whatever you say, Steph.
|
| 20.7571 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:55 | 1 |
| sure stephe.
|
| 20.7572 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:56 | 1 |
| <-- That's BUGMAN to you, toots. 8^)
|
| 20.7573 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Jan 29 1997 17:59 | 1 |
| buggerman?
|
| 20.7574 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Jan 29 1997 18:06 | 3 |
|
gee, debra, sue me. i have no idea where these nodes are located.
and debra, i at least spell your name right.
|
| 20.7575 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Wed Jan 29 1997 18:07 | 5 |
|
That's true, Mr.Batti's.
8^)
|
| 20.7576 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 19:03 | 33 |
| RE: .7565 Stephe Leech
> I must admit, it is quite fun to watch you flounder around like a fish
> out of water. It's pretty tough when your lack of comprehension is
> easily seen by others... even tougher when it is pointed out by someone
> who is so low of the wit and intelligence scale. Ho HO!
Your 'reading comprehension' stuff is most easily translated as
"I disagree with you, but I'll be damned if I can do anything other
than recite my favorite mantras at you - so you're stuck with this
hijacked phrase yet again. Not to worry, though. I say it to
everyone who disagrees with me."
Find another phrase to use (although I agree that Ann Broomhead had
a wonderful turn of phrase and you'll never come close to matching it.)
> Oh, but what do I know... I'm not nearly as smart as Ann, nor as witty.
> Of course, I'm not sure where that leaves you, since I'm picking your
> entries apart with little effort.
If you could pick apart my entries, you wouldn't need to resort to
tossing hollow accusations at me. It's what you do, though. It's
all you do.
> Are we having fun yet? I can trade barbs with you all day, but this
> really isn't getting us anywhere, is it? I'm still awaiting for you to
> address my .7521... what was posted, that is, not what you decide to
> read into it.
You have absolutely no support for a claim that most people do not have
a firm moral foundation (whereas you supposedly do.)
It's meaningless, self-serving garbage. Just thought you'd like to know.
|
| 20.7577 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 19:25 | 24 |
| When my son was 11 years old, he found a wallet stuffed with money
(in the lobby of a condo he was visiting with my parents in Hawaii.)
He turned the wallet in to Security, leaving his name and phone
number. The wallet contained someone's mortgage payment - it was
well over $1000. It must have seemed like a million dollars to an
11 year old. My son got a $50 reward for returning the wallet, and
he was thrilled beyond belief to have the $50 (he hadn't expected
any sort of reward.)
A couple of months later, I took him to buy a Slurpee at a 7-11 in
Denver. He was coming out of the store counting the change in his
hand. Suddenly, he went back into the store and stood in line again
for 10 minutes.
When he came out of the store, I asked him why he went back inside.
He told me that the clerk had given him a QUARTER TOO MUCH in change,
so he stood back in line to return the extra quarter to the clerk.
I certainly consider this to be a firm moral foundation for a child
(even though he most definitely was not religious.) He believed that
it was the right thing to do to return money that belonged to someone
else, whether it was a lot of money or a single coin.
Morality isn't only about a person's views on sex.
|
| 20.7578 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Jan 29 1997 19:27 | 2 |
|
don't they have 7-11's a little bit closer to your home?
|
| 20.7579 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 19:29 | 3 |
|
Yes. :>
|
| 20.7580 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 29 1997 19:44 | 4 |
|
Suzanne wanted to rob a convenience store where she wouldn't be
easily recognized.
|
| 20.7581 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Jan 29 1997 19:49 | 1 |
| and her son gave back all the money she got!
|
| 20.7582 | I had big plans for that quarter... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 19:50 | 3 |
|
Yeah. :>
|
| 20.7583 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jan 29 1997 19:56 | 10 |
|
____ _ _ _ _ ___ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ___
|__| |\ | |\ | |__] |__/ | | | | |\/| |__| |___ |__| | \ ????
| | | \| | \| |__] | \ |__| |__| | | | | |___ | | |__/ ????
|
| 20.7584 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Jan 29 1997 20:37 | 19 |
| Z You have absolutely no support for a claim that most people do not
Z have a firm moral foundation (whereas you supposedly do.)
Z It's meaningless, self-serving garbage. Just thought you'd like to
Z know.
Suzanne:
A child does not have to be trained to be deceitful. It is a natural
inclination. Children are hopefully getting quality practices
reinforced by parents with convictions.
Moral foundations have to be built, and they are determined by the
child's influences as well as societies. Slavery was of no moral
stature because the society was corrupt...although they felt they were
perfectly within their rights of the pursuit of happiness (property
rights).
-Jack
|
| 20.7585 | Morality is more than Steve seems to know... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 20:48 | 21 |
| RE: .7584 Jack
>> (Steve...) You have absolutely no support for a claim that most people
>> do not have a firm moral foundation (whereas you supposedly do.)
>> It's meaningless, self-serving garbage. Just thought you'd like to
>> know.
> Moral foundations have to be built, and they are determined by the
> child's influences as well as societies.
Of course. Although I don't remember telling my son that the right
thing to do was to return found money (whether it was over $1000 or
a single quarter) to the owner, he most definitely acquired this as
his moral position.
It's easy for Steve (Stephe) to look at this country and decide that
he is morally superior to most people in our society, but (as I said),
it's just meaningless, self-serving garbage.
Morality is not just about views on sex, anyway.
|
| 20.7586 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 29 1997 20:51 | 3 |
|
[Yes, the penultimate "edit/repost SOAPBOX champ" is back.]
|
| 20.7587 | Requiwwwers vewwwy carefuwwwl concentwwwation... :> | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 20:55 | 3 |
|
You have to watch vewwwy, vewwwy carefuwwwy to see the edits, though.. :>
|
| 20.7588 | | SMURF::PBECK | Paul Beck | Wed Jan 29 1997 21:01 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 20.7586 by BUSY::SLAB "As you wish" >>>
>
>
> [Yes, the penultimate "edit/repost SOAPBOX champ" is back.]
>
Then who is the _ultimate_ repost champ?
|
| 20.7589 | Last on the ascending list of best repost champs... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 21:10 | 4 |
|
The _ultimate_ repost chame is someone who is just slightly better
at it than I am. :> (But not by much...)
|
| 20.7590 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 29 1997 21:21 | 6 |
|
RE: .7588
Binder. Suzanne was gone for awhile, and he pulled ahead by a
bit.
|
| 20.7591 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Wed Jan 29 1997 21:22 | 8 |
|
RE: .7589
>The _ultimate_ repost chame is someone who is just slightly better
-
'p', Suzanne. 8^)
|
| 20.7592 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Wed Jan 29 1997 21:22 | 9 |
| >He believed that it was the right thing to do to return money that
>belonged to someone else, whether it was a lot of money or a single coin.
He's just trying to fool us into thinking that he isn't depraved like
the rest of us nasty humans. :-)
Honesty is natural in young children. It isn't until the pre-programmed
adults start filling their heads with fear and mysticism that they turn
to the dark side of the force.
|
| 20.7593 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 21:44 | 5 |
|
Thanks, Shawn... (See? I didn't repost for this one!!!) :>
My Repost Notes Support Group must be helping ...
|
| 20.7594 | | SMURF::PBECK | Paul Beck | Wed Jan 29 1997 21:54 | 1 |
| ... or else your Ronco AutoReposter is in the shop ...
|
| 20.7595 | Can't trust any of these service places anymore. :> | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Jan 29 1997 22:59 | 2 |
| Doggone it, Paul, I asked them not to call you about that... :<
|
| 20.7596 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Thu Jan 30 1997 11:29 | 5 |
| .7577
Still clueless about my .7521 I see. Keep working on it, and I'm sure
you'll figure it out sooner or later. Then again, maybe not. I won't
be holding my breath, that's for sure.
|
| 20.7597 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Thu Jan 30 1997 11:38 | 17 |
| .7585
> It's easy for Steve (Stephe) to look at this country and decide that
> he is morally superior to most people in our society, but (as I said),
> it's just meaningless, self-serving garbage.
Ho HO! Nice little twist here, Suzanne. Never said this at all. I
would turn my favorite phrase here, but asking you to read for
comprehension is a lost cause.
> Morality is not just about views on sex, anyway.
You keep bringing this up, yet no one is saying that morality IS just
about sex.
-steve
|
| 20.7598 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Thu Jan 30 1997 11:39 | 3 |
| .7592
You haven't been around many children, have you? 8^)
|
| 20.7599 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Thu Jan 30 1997 11:45 | 5 |
|
> Morality isn't only about a person's views on sex.
<desperately trying to establish the relevance of your son's actions
to a discussion about sexual morality and abortion>
|
| 20.7600 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Thu Jan 30 1997 11:49 | 11 |
| perhaps it's time for a new note:
morals, who has 'em, who doesn't.
or maybe
taking bets: xians vs. lions
or
oh, what's that silly peewee herman phrase?
|
| 20.7601 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Thu Jan 30 1997 11:55 | 2 |
|
i have the morals of a snake.
|
| 20.7602 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Jan 30 1997 12:00 | 6 |
| Battis, you mean you will eat anything you can expand your jaws around?
Steve, I have raise three children and I agree that the younguns are
honest until they learn deciet, or the need for it from others.
meg
|
| 20.7603 | deceit is a mere strategem, after all | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Jan 30 1997 12:18 | 13 |
|
If I recall, this was an old debate in Athens v. Sparta. The Spartans
trained their children in deceit specifically. When the war came, they
both practiced deceptions. The Spartans eventually won, although that
was more due to Athens overreaching in Sicily.
I'm on the fence. It strikes me what very bad liars today's teens are.
It's as if they lack the ability to see how easily the parents see right
through them. I think my generation had much more skillful liars.
Where will we get the salesmen of tomorrow ?
bb
|
| 20.7604 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Thu Jan 30 1997 12:19 | 2 |
|
bb, you really have a cynical view of society as a whole.
|
| 20.7605 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Jan 30 1997 13:48 | 7 |
| liars of today = salesmen of tomorrow?
perhaps a few. I think by far the larger number of them become lawyers
and politicians. We seem to suffer an extravagant oversupply of those,
so a future dearth would be welcome.
DougO
|
| 20.7606 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jan 30 1997 13:55 | 19 |
| .7535
Since you refuse to read what I write, but rather put your own words
into my stattements, I will not waste my time further in pointing out
your errors.
This is the last reference I will make to your inaccuracies regarding
my statment.
You claim I "sure as hell did condemn" the parents and them proceeded
to quote my statemnt regarding people, I never said parents, condemn
their children...... You somehow twist that statement into my
condemning the parents.
This is really getting tiring correcting your misstatements of my words
and taking portions out of context. this latest effort on your part
was really the last straw as it was so blatantly incorrect even you
should be able to recognize it.
|
| 20.7607 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jan 30 1997 14:03 | 23 |
| .7542
Once again you have made an assumption of my beliefs without anything
to back them up. I also notice that you neglected to reply to my
question. I guess that speaks for itself in your basic position.
As far as your latest inaccuracy is concerned, I have never, as far as
I can remember, ever made any comments about pre- or post- natal care.
the majority of my statements have been directed toward reducing teen
pregnancies and abortions over all.
I believe cultural attitudes as reflected by many in this conference
have provided an environment that encourages teen pregnancies and the
resultant need to consider abortion.
Nothing is infallible, but the results of the last 30 years has led to
a serious problem and the answer is more of the same. I fail to see
the intelligence in that approach. Particularly when you couple it
with a refusal to try anything else that may be much more successful.
Please respond to what I write, not what you would like to believe I
think.
|
| 20.7608 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Jan 30 1997 14:24 | 30 |
| Rocush,
So how will you address the needs of people with problem pregnancies?
(the majority are not teens, although most women having abortions are
under 25, according to Guttmacher studies.)
Also if the last 30 years have failed, how do you explain the drop in
pregnancies and abortions over the last 5 years, before welfare deform
came into play?
How do you explain millenia of abortions and problem pregnancies? Or do
you conveniently believe that all past generations were also encouraged
to be "promiscuous?" Unwanted pregnancies and abortions occur even in
the most fundamentalist parts of the world, especially since a problem
pregnancy can result in death by stoning, a real "sanction" against
out-of-wedlock sex.
Now, if you do away with legal, safe abortions, do away with support
for pregnancies that occur outside of your moral grounds, and remove
any support structure for women and children in this position, how do
you propose to end abortions, or are you just planning on killing women
AND children?
You still haven't answered a single question, and you still haven't
proposed a solution that will result in reducing the number of
abortions in this country.
meg
|
| 20.7609 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Thu Jan 30 1997 15:23 | 13 |
| Z You still haven't answered a single question, and you still haven't
Z proposed a solution that will result in reducing the number of
Z abortions in this country.
Meg, I think we would probably get the same answer from you if I asked,
"Meg, how are we as a country going to better evangelize the world into
Christianity?" My guess is you would say that this is a church issue,
not a national issue.
As callous as it sounds, and I'm sure it does, why do you put the onus
of responsibility on society...why do you always do that?
-Jack
|
| 20.7610 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jan 30 1997 15:27 | 23 |
| .7608
I hate to answer a question with a question, but since you haven't
answered my last question, I feel a bit better. Also, the following
figures are from memory, so I don't have a handy reference, but it can
be found it necessary.
A few months ago there was an article in the paper about the change in
out of wedlock births comparing, I believe, 1950 with 1990. The figure
for 1950 was 10% for white women and, I believe 30% for
African-American women. the corresponding figure for the latest period
was over 40% for whites and over 60% for African-Americans.
Something was at work in the earlier period that kept the figures low
that is not present today. Now I suppose you could make the assumption
that the illegal abortion rate was 300% higher than it is today, but
that requires a logical leap that I do not believe is appropriate.
You also start from the supposed given that we are dealing with
"problem pregnancies" and how do you deal with them. I think the
starting point is how do you prevent the pregancy, problem or not, in
the first place.
|
| 20.7611 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Jan 30 1997 15:54 | 45 |
| Rocush,
Marriage in the '50's by teen parents didn't really pay off either. It
led to the unacceptably high divorce rate in the '60's and the
continuation of same today. Also in 195X a highschool dropout could
make enough money to support a family, albeit on the lower income end
to start, but try to find those same jobs in todays market. They don't
exist in large parts of the country and unskilled and low-skilled labor
has been more drastically downsized and more permantly than high tech
jobs. Those jobs have been exported and the remainining low skill jobs
in the country don't pay the rent on an efficiency apartment, even with
two incomes in some locations.
My view of welfare reform is that we do need to end the full-time cycle
of dependance, but not at the expense of post-born fetuses. doing that
will only guarantee another generation which is poorly equiped to
manage in the world, and you and I will continue to pay and pay and
pay. It is obvious to me, and to other people who have counselled
pregnant women in difficult circumstances, (including the Council of
Catholic Bishops) that ripping out the support structure without a
valid replacement will not lead to more responsible behavior and may
well increase the number of abortions performed in this country.
So what is your design of a support structure? Encouraging poorly
equipped teens to marry, so they can be miserable for a few years and
then divorce (leading to possibly even worse equipped single parents in
dire straits) doesn't make sense to me. Bringing back the heavy
industry that supported families with few or no skills? Good luck,
somehow I don't see that occuring in a world where companies move
manufacturing to the cheapest labor pools available.
Training women to be secretaries in a world where the demand for
administrative assistants has been shrinking almost as fast as the
demand for low skilled workers? Oh and not supplying support for
childcare demands, putting at risk another large group of post-born
fetuses. Strikes me as a good way to encourage responsible behavior.
Outlawing coat hangers, oxygen hoses, catheters or any other device
that could be used for an abortion, as well as abortion? Hasn't worked
for millenia, abortion is one of the oldest surgical procedures, and
one of the simplest to do outside of tooth extractions. The only
problem is post procedure infections uterine/bowel fistulas,
bladder/uterine fistulas, infertility and death.
meg
|
| 20.7612 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jan 30 1997 16:15 | 16 |
| .7611
I take exception, once again, to your premise. the high divorce rates
are more related to the no-fault rules than the fact that young people
got married. Also, the relative jobs/skill relationship still exist.
The drop outs in the 50s didn't move into high paying jobs. They
started at menial jobs and moved up or stayed there and did the best
they could. The same applies today, with the difference that a whole
lot more people shoudl understand the consequences of not getting an
education.
You still insist on racing to the status that people are going to get
pregnant at the same rates no matter waht anyone does. I disagree and
the statistics support me. In the 50s people apparently understood
what they needed to do and behaved accordingly.
|
| 20.7613 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Thu Jan 30 1997 16:21 | 2 |
| RU486 should be available in the US later on
this year.
|
| 20.7614 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Thu Jan 30 1997 16:23 | 1 |
| I thought it was already available but that you just couldn't get any.
|
| 20.7615 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Thu Jan 30 1997 16:25 | 3 |
| .7614
quite.
|
| 20.7616 | NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | BRAT::CURRAN | | Thu Jan 30 1997 16:50 | 11 |
| yEAH, Rocush
people did know what to do in the 50's, women stayed at home barefoot
and pregnant, you got married when you "had to" and the cost of living
was comprable to the wages paid...just like today!! And NO ONE got
pregnant and NO ONE had abortions and NO ONE went away to boarding
schools to hide the shame of a pregnancy. Yeah, those people in the
50's, they knew exactly what they were doing!!!
|
| 20.7617 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Thu Jan 30 1997 16:55 | 1 |
| RU486....that kind of works like a rat poison doesn't it?
|
| 20.7618 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Jan 30 1997 17:05 | 8 |
| .7616
wow, a whole lot of assumptions in that response. Since this
apparently is just your opinion, I iwll file it with the rest of
opinions that need to be considered as opinions, not facts.
Thanks for your opinion.
|
| 20.7619 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Thu Jan 30 1997 17:10 | 4 |
| .7617
no jack, that would kill the woman. wouldn't want
that to happen, would we now?
|
| 20.7620 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Jan 30 1997 17:11 | 1 |
| Jack's declaring warfarin RU486.
|
| 20.7621 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Jan 30 1997 17:45 | 22 |
| Jack
RU486 is an anti progestin drug. It prevents progetin from having its
usual effects, including maintaining the lining of the uterus in a
proper stte for growing a fetus.
Because of this it has been found to be useful in advanced cases of
breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers, and may have some use for
prostate cancers, if the cancer variety is one that uses progestin as a
growth hormone.
Tomaxafin(sp) is an anti estrogen drug and has been used in the
treatment of reproductive cancers for years. However it is useless in
the case of reproductive cancers that are progestin specific. There
has not been an effective treatment for those cancers. Now it appears
there may be.
No it is not rat poison. Warfarin acts by destroying the vitamin K in
a human to prevent blood clotting, under the trade name of Coumadin.
It is contraindicated for pregnancy or abortions.
meg
|
| 20.7622 | | SMURF::WALTERS | Mr Acker Ilk | Thu Jan 30 1997 20:01 | 14 |
| What I don't understand is that mifepristone (RU486) hardly seems
different from using conventional mega-doses of contraceptive pills.
Ru486 is only usable in the first 9 weeks, and chances are a woman
won't know of a pregnancy for several of those weeks.
If a woman takes 12 contraceptive pills (already legally available)
within 72 hours of unprotected sex it will prevent the fertilized ovum
from implanting. It strikes me that to need RU486, a person makes a
decision to wait for the worse and then has to face the greater
dilemmas of a later abortion. It seems more responsible to use the
pill under any potential risk, rather than wait and use RU486.
|
| 20.7623 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Jan 30 1997 20:13 | 21 |
| Not all sex that results in a conception is unprotected. the pill may
be rendered useless by some antibiotics, tranquilizers or other drugs,
diaphrams have been known to flip out of position after intercourse,
improper use or failure to lubricate a condom correctly can have a
rupture, IUD's can fall out unnoticed or fail. Hell, tubal ligation
has a 5% failure rate and a vasectomy a bit less than 1% failure rate.
People using NFP can have an egg drop out of synch and unnoticed,
particularly as a person gets on towards menopause, or her partner
might be in a "just this once, I promise I will pull out in time" mode.
(Well actually NFP is pretty close to unprotected sex, and withdrawal
is unprotected sex)
RU486 in combination with prostaglandins is not the only abortifacent
in use. Methotrexate in combination with an ulcer drug that begins
with an M is also used by some Dr's for patients who prefer nonsurgical
abortions. I don't hear anyone screaming for a ban on either of these
two medications because some people use them for abortions. Maybe it
is because one to many on the pro-life side has had a deadly illness
that methotrexate can help treat?
meg
|
| 20.7624 | | SMURF::WALTERS | I don't have an ilkling | Thu Jan 30 1997 20:22 | 10 |
| I accept that there can be unknown risks, but my gut feel is that
a significant number of woment suspect that they are at risk from an
unwanted pregnancy within a short time.
I'm pro-choice but it seems that the mega-dose should get as much
publicity as RU486 and should be touted as an alternative. Perhaps
if it was, fewer women would need RU486. It must be psychologically
easier to use something the morning after rather than at four
or more weeks.
|
| 20.7625 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Thu Jan 30 1997 20:23 | 12 |
| Lawyer Appointed for Fetus (Reuters)
A New Jersey judge, weighing the case of a jailed pregnant woman
seeking an abortion, has ruled that the fetus has a right to an
attorney. Superior Court Judge Leonard Arnold appointed a lawyer to
represent the 5-month-old fetus of Sonya Jackson, who is being held in
the Somerset County, New Jersey, jail on drug charges. He also
suggested that the woman would need state permission to end her
pregnancy. Susan Atwood, president of the New Jersey chapter of the
National Organization for Women, said the judge was on shaky legal
ground. The judge appointed an attorney, who has represented
anti-abortion groups, to represent the fetus.
|
| 20.7626 | You can't keep dodging this... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Jan 30 1997 20:53 | 18 |
| Steve, when you claim to have a firm moral foundation and that most
people in this country do not, it's a pretty clear expression of the
claim that you are morally superior to most people in this country.
I know it's tough for you to deal with this, so I'll quote you
directly - thus you won't have to make all sorts of vague disclaimers
and whines about being misunderstood:
"...I have a very firm moral foundation to work with. You seem to
be of the opinion that most everyone in this country has a firm moral
foundation - the only difference is that their morality is simply
"different" (I've replaced the word 'personal' with 'different').
"From my perspective, it seems that most Americans really have no
FIRM moral foundation."
You are quite clearly claiming moral superiority. Deal with it, or
stop doing it.
|
| 20.7627 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Thu Jan 30 1997 20:55 | 3 |
|
Suz... I'm curious.... why did you replace the word you did?
|
| 20.7628 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 31 1997 11:53 | 27 |
| > Steve, when you claim to have a firm moral foundation and that most
> people in this country do not, it's a pretty clear expression of the
> claim that you are morally superior to most people in this country.
Since when does FIRM equate to SUPERIOR? My claim for myself is that I
have a firm moral foundation - FIRM because I have a basis for my
morality that is not subject to personal whim. It has been written
down for nearly 2000 years and has not changed, though society's views
on many moral issues have changed over the years.
The mere fact that society's morality does change - sometimes
drastically - backs my claim in .7521. And please note the purposeful
generalities I used, as well.
> I know it's tough for you to deal with this, so I'll quote you
> directly - thus you won't have to make all sorts of vague disclaimers
> and whines about being misunderstood:
You quote it directly, yet still don't understand what I said. You
insist on interpreting what is said via your negative opinion of me.
Until you check this filter at the door, you are unlikely to understand
anything I post.
-steve
|
| 20.7629 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 31 1997 12:10 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.7628 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| Since when does FIRM equate to SUPERIOR?
When you say firm for yourself, and I think it was most don't have a
firm grip on morality.
|
| 20.7630 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 31 1997 12:29 | 13 |
| .7629
That's your inference. I said nothing of the sort. My case is
made, if you disagree with it, then disprove what I said. You will
have a difficult time proving that society's morality has NOT changed.
Have fun.
Now, to get technical, holding to a firm foundation MAY not be better
than having a more loosely defined morality, in every case. Therefore,
FIRM != SUPERIOR (at least not necessarily).
-steve
|
| 20.7631 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Fri Jan 31 1997 12:41 | 11 |
| Steve,
One question, Have you ever had your personal morality challanged?
as in, well, I need to make a decision, do I stick by what I believe is
right no matter what the consequences. You see, if you've never had
your morality REALLY challanged, you can't make blanket statements that
society has a lower morality than you, maybe a different degree of
morality is a better description.
|
| 20.7632 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Fri Jan 31 1997 13:17 | 6 |
| >You will have a difficult time proving that society's morality has NOT
>changed.
And you would be hard pressed to show that Christianity's morality has
NOT changed as well.
|
| 20.7633 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 31 1997 16:07 | 8 |
| .7631
I didn't say society has a lower morality than I do, so I fail to see
how this line is pertinent to my original points in .7521 (points that
have yet to be addressed).
And yes, I HAVE had my morality challenged, though this is completely
beside the point at hand.
|
| 20.7634 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 31 1997 16:11 | 9 |
| .7632
Nonsense. The morality of Christianity is outlined in the Bible, which
hasn't changed any since the scriptures were compiled into one tome
(and PLEASE let's not get into an innerrancy or interpretation battle
here, as we are far enough off topic already).
Now, the morality of some Christians may indeed have been off target,
but this has little to do with the code (of morality) itself.
|
| 20.7635 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Fri Jan 31 1997 16:29 | 5 |
| >The morality of Christianity is outlined in the Bible, which
>hasn't changed any since the scriptures were compiled into one tome
This premise of the Bible not changing since its inception is without
foundation. Just the King James translation alone changed many tenets.
|
| 20.7636 | You won't be able to | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 31 1997 16:37 | 3 |
| >Just the King James translation alone changed many tenets.
Name one.
|
| 20.7637 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Jan 31 1997 16:42 | 1 |
| It changed lots of letters and words though...
|
| 20.7638 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Jan 31 1997 16:57 | 25 |
| Before we get even further off topic, let's simplify things. Let's
limit the parameters of both Christianity's and society's moral
structure to sexual relations and abortion (which just happened to be
directly related to the topic at hand).
Which one has changed over the last several decades? And let's not
have any more non-sequiturs about some Christians misbehaving.. it
happens, but this has little to do with the moral code itself.
It seems to me that the moral code I adhere to has stayed the same
throughout my lifetime (and well before). In my 30 years, however, I
have seen society's moral structure change quite a bit. Many things
are accepted today that were considered quite immoral previously.
While you are free to argue the good or bad of such changes, it is
undeniable that such changes have come about.
It matters not what you or I think of my moral code; whether it is
superior or inferiorto society's moral structure is irrelevant. The
simple fact is that I do have a FIRM moral code which has remained
unchanged by societal influence (assuming I adhere strictly to it),
while society's moral structure HAS changed - thus it is not FIRM.
My point in .7521 still stands.
-steve
|
| 20.7639 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 31 1997 16:57 | 1 |
| From poisoner to witch
|
| 20.7640 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:00 | 4 |
| re .7639:
I'm assuming you're saying that KJV mistranslates some word which really
means "poisoner" as "witch." Could you cite the verse?
|
| 20.7641 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:13 | 5 |
| |Christians misbehaving.. it
|happens, but this has little to do with the moral code itself.
Now there's a real gem. You expect people to swallow that sort fecal
stir fry?
|
| 20.7642 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:16 | 7 |
|
However, if you want to talk about Jehovah's Witnesses misbehav-
ing, it's got to account for at least 50% of the immorality in
the world.
Apparently.
|
| 20.7643 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:23 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.7633 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| I didn't say society has a lower morality than I do,
If you say you have a firm grip on morality and then state that most of
this country does not, what were you trying to say?
|
| 20.7644 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:24 | 2 |
| How about Nuns Misbehavin'?
|
| 20.7645 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | K=tc^2 | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:33 | 18 |
| re: .7636
You are right John. I spoke emotionally, which I try never to do. I
slapped myself in the head as soon as you called me on it. It is
difficult for me to believe however, that in 2000 years the Christian
moral code has not changed at all, as Steve claims. I could be wrong.
The problem that caused the emotional response is Steve Leech always
taking the "moral" highground. The 'if you don't stand on the same
"moral" ground that I stand on, you are immoral attitude'. I think that
I stand on a firm moral philosophy as well. Yet, unlike Steve I am not
so presumptuous to address others as if they are somehow substandard
and the cause of the world's problems. It is difficult not to take
offense at such pompousness.
Let me ask you John. Do you think that the Church has never changed
any part of it's definition of morality, in the last 2000 years?
|
| 20.7646 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:35 | 6 |
| It used to be immoral to be an actor.
But that was probably at the time when plays were a primary method used
to teach the pagan pantheistic religion.
/john
|
| 20.7647 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:43 | 17 |
| It used to be immoral to:
shoot pool
go to movies
go bowling
play cards
wear make-up
have long hair
have short hair
own a radio
own a television
dance
wear jeans
wear slacks
play on sunday
work on sunday
|
| 20.7648 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:45 | 6 |
| You forgot:
chew gum
kiss boys
read comic books
study biology, particularly evolution theory
|
| 20.7649 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:46 | 1 |
| oh ya! Those are filthy!
|
| 20.7650 | | SALEM::DODA | Apparently a true story.... | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:46 | 6 |
| <<< Note 20.7648 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>
>read comic books
only those damn Archies.
|
| 20.7651 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:46 | 3 |
| You forgot kiss girls,
hth
|
| 20.7652 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:47 | 9 |
| All of those are either
1. still immoral
or
2. distortions of actual teachings
/john
|
| 20.7653 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:56 | 4 |
|
Oh please king of distortions... tell us which are which!
|
| 20.7654 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:57 | 1 |
| There's an actual teaching on chewing gum?
|
| 20.7655 | Meg, who told you that one? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 31 1997 17:59 | 1 |
| There's one of the distortions.
|
| 20.7656 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:00 | 1 |
| OK then, what is it a distortion from?
|
| 20.7657 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:01 | 5 |
|
Not chewing gum, of course.
Unchewed gum is much less distorted than chewed gum.
|
| 20.7658 | Maybe she can tell us more about it | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:02 | 1 |
| From Meg's mouth?
|
| 20.7659 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:02 | 5 |
| Was in the fundie church I was brought up in. Don't ask me how a wad
of chewing gum could make one enticing, but we were told loose girls
who did all the other immoral things chewed gum. Gee I just kissed a
girl, does that make me immoral or my small daughter immoral for
demanding one? She crawled up in my lap and gave me a hug too, Oh my!
|
| 20.7660 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:03 | 3 |
|
Glenn, I think .7659 is your cue.
|
| 20.7661 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:04 | 1 |
| Filthy?
|
| 20.7662 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:05 | 3 |
| No,
she has had a bath recently and so have I.
|
| 20.7663 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:08 | 1 |
| Slab, did I do okay there?
|
| 20.7664 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:10 | 3 |
|
You did just fine, Glenn.
|
| 20.7665 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:10 | 8 |
| Chewing gum per se was never listed as immoral in the guidebook itself or
considered to be so by the Apostolic See.
Condemning a thing as evil in itself (chewing gum, alcohol, sex) when it can
be used in moderation to the glory of God is one of the typical gnostic/fundie
distortions.
/john
|
| 20.7666 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:11 | 1 |
| how does vomit rate for distortion?
|
| 20.7667 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:16 | 4 |
|
Jeepers, Glen...give it a rest, already.
|
| 20.7668 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:18 | 17 |
| When my sisters went to parochial(sp) school years ago..years ago, they
were taught that the following was immoral and not acceptable in their
school, anyone caught would promptly be reprimanaded..with a ruler!
Chewing gum,
kissing a boy (which ever your preference) eek gads!
wearing pants (for a girl)
holding Hands with a member of the opposite "gender"
Wearing lipstick...that was a good one,
smoking and wearing lipstick was a definate no no..
Wearing a skirt above your knee....
so, I guess some of the moral codes have changed a bit...good thing for
some. I don't like wearing my skirts below my knee, but not much above
it either.
|
| 20.7669 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:20 | 5 |
| Glen just needed the tiple 6 snarf without being obvious.
Oh nice, more I am more christian than thou stuff. Really demonstrates
the commonality of this religion among its followers. Some of this is
more fun than watching a Sunnie and Shiite try to find common ground.
|
| 20.7670 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:21 | 2 |
| I would think that wearing a skirt below your knee would create quite a
kerfluffle.
|
| 20.7671 | re .7668 | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:22 | 10 |
| Another distortion.
You were not taught that chewing gum was _immoral_. You, as a child,
were not permitted to chew gum in school because of the mess children
so often make and because of the noise it makes in class.
Examine the others, and you will see that each one of them is either a
similar distortion or a valid prohibition for children.
/john
|
| 20.7672 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:22 | 4 |
|
I didn't even notice that.... Hey Shawn.... who leads the most notes in
the .666 catagory? :-)
|
| 20.7673 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:24 | 7 |
| And I asm sure every school taught morality and what was moral in the
same way.
Frank learned it was moral for a nun to drag a kid across a room by
their ear, but not for another student to do same.
To me they were both assaults and immoral as such
|
| 20.7674 | natch | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:27 | 4 |
|
eschew gum
bb
|
| 20.7675 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:31 | 10 |
| No John, I was told they were taught as I wrote. Please don't assume to
tell me or my sister what was taught. They were "promptly remprimanded"
with "a ruler". They were taught that it was a sin. Period. My sisters
vividly remember what was taught to them, one is even a teacher!
I don't need to examine others, they are not my sisters and didn't have
a conversation with me about it, so it is irrelavant.
|
| 20.7676 | Forbidding the chewing of gum in school is a legitimate rule | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:40 | 8 |
| Baloney.
You misunderstood.
Chewing gum was never a sin. Disobeying legitimate authority, on the
other hand, is.
/john
|
| 20.7677 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:41 | 4 |
|
John knows all. He knows what the teachers told other peoples
reletives.
|
| 20.7678 | | BUSY::SLAB | As you wish | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:41 | 6 |
|
RE: .7672
I don't know, nor do I care to even attempt to write the program
to do that.
|
| 20.7679 | Praise the Lord & pass the Wrigley's? | MPGS::WOOLNER | Your dinner is in the supermarket | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:41 | 2 |
| .7665> Condemning a thing as evil in itself (chewing gum, alcohol, sex)
> when it can be used in moderation to the glory of God
|
| 20.7680 | no hope | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:43 | 4 |
|
And it's Chiclets that are the worst...
bb
|
| 20.7681 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 31 1997 18:45 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.7680 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Champagne Supernova" >>>
| And it's Chiclets that are the worst...
That's what a friend of mine used to say to a mutual friend of ours
about the women he dated who were 18-20.
|
| 20.7682 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Jan 31 1997 20:17 | 7 |
| >> Just the King James translation alone changed many tenets.
>
> Name one.
Thou shalt not do murder => Thou shalt not kill.
DougO
|
| 20.7683 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 31 1997 20:33 | 1 |
| he named one.... cool!
|
| 20.7684 | The Bible can only be understood in the Context of Tradition | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Jan 31 1997 20:56 | 23 |
| That doesn't change anything.
Neither murder nor kill are correct translations of the Hebrew.
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 09:17:04 -0400
From: Sean Engelson <engelson@cs.uchicago.edu>
Subject: R.Ts.`H (the 6th commandment)
Regarding the proper translation of the sixth commandment, I think that
the best translation for the shoresh (word root) R.Ts.`H (as in
"rotsea`h") would be "to kill a human being". This is contrasted with
H.R.G ("laharog") which more generally means to kill. First, it seems
that, in the Torah at least, the latter is used as a default, with the
first used either when the specificity is needed (as in the commandment)
or for stylistic reasons ("yirtsa`h et harotsea`h"). According to this,
the commandment prohibits killing people period. However, in those
cases where we have a separate mandate to kill someone (eg, beth din, or
rodeph) we can apply the principle of `aseh do`heh lo' ta`aseh (a
positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition) to show that the 6th
commandment doesn't apply. Kakh nir'eh li.
-Shlomo-
|
| 20.7685 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Jan 31 1997 22:22 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.7684 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| That doesn't change anything.
| Neither murder nor kill are correct translations of the Hebrew.
So both are wrong? Ho ho!
|
| 20.7686 | I bet their families are glad to know they weren't murdered | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Feb 01 1997 12:50 | 14 |
| Hey, Percival!
I just learned that there were no murders at the Brookline abortion clinics
after all (according to the bullfeathers legal hooey you were feeding us).
Salvi's conviction has been overturned on a legal technicality -- because
he died before his appeal, the conviction was set aside and the charges
were dropped.
So, according to your stupid legal nonsense, no one was murdered after all.
What foolishness!
/john
|
| 20.7687 | Hmmm... | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Sat Feb 01 1997 14:43 | 3 |
| re: "shall not kill a human being"
Why does this sound like Asimov's "The First Law of Robotics"?
|
| 20.7688 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:03 | 16 |
| "You shall not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human
being to come to harm."
Could it be that, unlike many on both sides of today's vicious
arguments about morality, Asimov was using his brain to do something
besides prop up the inside of his skull? His First Law of Robotics is
an elegant combination of the Sixth Commandment and the principle of
"Love Thy Neighbor" as Jesus explained it in the parable of the Good
Samaritan.
But then Asimov was a Russian Jew, and it's possible he was more
interested in living his faith than he was in ramming it down others'
throats, so he cast it in a nonthreatening way. The RR could learn a
bunch from him if they weren't so busy trying to run everyone else's
lives. (Of course they would *never* want to learn from science
fiction, after all, it's nothing but escapist trash.)
|
| 20.7689 | Requires action | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:12 | 7 |
| > "You shall not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human
> being to come to harm."
Sounds like a rather strong call for action (at abortion clinics, for
example).
/john
|
| 20.7690 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:13 | 8 |
| Z The RR could learn a bunch from him if they weren't so busy trying to
Z run everyone else's lives. (Of course they would *never* want to learn
Z from science fiction, after all, it's nothing but escapist trash.
Dick, laws are a codification of ideologies! Your ilk have been
interfering in our lives, or at least my life since the day I was born!
-Jack
|
| 20.7691 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:17 | 5 |
| .7689
The term "human being" is the sticking point, /john, as you very well
know but refuse to accept. When does a fetus become a "human being?"
YMMV.
|
| 20.7692 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:17 | 5 |
| .7690
Jack, if you had any clue as to what my "ilk" is, perhaps we could have
a sensible discussion. But you don't, so we can't. Don't bother
trying.
|
| 20.7693 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:23 | 15 |
| .7676
oH YEAH, I forgot John, your OMNI PRESENT ALSO......so you KNOW what my
sisters were taught in parochial school right??? WRONG, maybe YOU have
misunderstood, what I said was what was taught, what I said was what
was retold to me through my sisters...so once again, chewing gum was
concidered a sin, so were the other host of things that I listed and
more I can't remember because of course...I misunderstood..So john do
you think maybe the catholic churches make up there OWN set of
sins...IT makes me believe that some of them do!!!...WHat I said was
what I said...maybe you should re-read or shut up!!! Cause you weren't
present and accounted for with either my sisters or myself.
mc
|
| 20.7694 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:27 | 9 |
| .7693
What /john told you is correct. If some individuals in your parish or
even at the diocesan level misinterpreted Holy Scripture, that is not
the fault of the Scripture itself, it is - as /john said - DISTORTION.
I challenge you to find ONE clause ANYWHERE in canon law that even
MENTIONS chewing gum. Chewing gum was a "sin" because it demonstrated
a lack of obedience to authority, not because it is a sin.
|
| 20.7695 | | SMART2::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:29 | 5 |
|
Lemme guess, Michele, they made you stop your prozac when
you got pregnant ?
|
| 20.7696 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:33 | 6 |
|
None of us knows what Michelle and/or her sisters were taught.
It's rather presumptuous of John to tell her that she or they
"misunderstood".
|
| 20.7697 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:37 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.7690 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| Dick, laws are a codification of ideologies! Your ilk have been
| interfering in our lives, or at least my life since the day I was born!
Dick has his ilk too! Too cool!
|
| 20.7698 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 03 1997 12:38 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.7694 by SMURF::BINDER "Errabit quicquid errare potest." >>>
| as /john said - DISTORTION.
And nobody knows distortion better than John Covert!
|
| 20.7699 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Feb 03 1997 13:19 | 1 |
| I think I'm going to be ilk.
|
| 20.7700 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Feb 03 1997 13:20 | 3 |
| Same reply by George...
I think Im going tobe ilk :)
|
| 20.7701 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 03 1997 13:37 | 12 |
| .7641
What's so difficult to understand? I'm a Christian. Let's say I rob a
convenience store or something. Am I following the Christian moral
code of conduct? Absolutely not. Does this mean that something is
wrong with the moral code itself? Nope. It only means that I
misbehaved very badly... I strayed from the code I should be following.
Now if you want to get into another aspect of this string, we could
discuss how some Christians set a bad example by not living by the
moral code they claim,;but this is really getting off the topic at
hand.
|
| 20.7702 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 03 1997 13:49 | 25 |
| .7645
Oh good grief, Tom. I was generic in my note. I was not taking any
moral high ground. I've already explained my note more than once, so I
guess some people simply refuse to read it as it was intended.
The funny part of this whole string is that I've basically proven my
point. Societal morality has shifted. All you need do now is look at
which direction and why, and you may garner a clue as to the direction
of my note.
And one more time, for the record - I not once said anything about
anyone's morality being inferior to mine. I said that my moral code is
firm, while society's, in general, is not. I've even said,
specifically, that I make no value judgement in this, and that we can
argue whether such changes are a good or bad thing (or neutral even),
if you like.
Now, can we PLEASE discuss what I actually wrote in .7521, I'm done
explaining and defending it. The fact that it has triggered so much
emoting is very interesting to me, but such responses do tend
to take away from the topic at hand.
-steve
|
| 20.7703 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Mon Feb 03 1997 14:06 | 18 |
| .7694
No john isn't right in this situation. What my sisters were taught is
what I have stated. Whether or not it's in canon law anywhere is not
what I said. I'm telling you it i
s what they were taught. Period. So
both of you must be omni present and accounted for at my sisters school
and during the conversations we had. AM I right, were both of you there
interpreting what the nuns had to say or what my sisters were told or
for that matter, what my parents confered. No, they were told that
chewing gum was cheap and showed that they were "loose". THis was
sinful because they were "thinking" of being loose by chewing gum..,
I didn't make the rule up, some old, fat, celebit nun with no life
decided what SHE thought was a sin and inturn, taught that to her
students....who by the way, KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!!!!
mc
|
| 20.7704 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Mon Feb 03 1997 14:07 | 4 |
| My name is spelled with two "L's" thank you and NO I don't happen to
need prozac, but I do know who does!!!
|
| 20.7705 | | BRAT::CURRAN | | Mon Feb 03 1997 14:08 | 4 |
| .7696
thank you.
|
| 20.7706 | gum = detention after school | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Mon Feb 03 1997 14:10 | 6 |
|
actually, the teachers were gum fascists even where I wuz, which
wasn't catholic...even today, I'm told, punishments for gum are
non-trivial...not sure of why
bb
|
| 20.7707 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Mon Feb 03 1997 14:22 | 2 |
|
silly, gum causes truth decay.
|
| 20.7708 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 03 1997 14:59 | 36 |
| There was a very interesting article in Sunday's paper titled "What
Teenage Girls Say About Pregnancy". Although there were a lot of
statistics some of the comments and the percentages were very
interesting.
Some of the things that struck me were:
7 out of 10 girls believe that unmarried teens should not be sexually
active.
85% of girls said that their friends had significant influence on
whether they were sexually active or not.
57% said movies and 55% said TV influenced them to have sex. 44% said
music had a similar effect.
91% felt their mothers and 76% felt their fathers were very or somewhat
influential in their decision to have sex. There was a summary
statement that said, "If parents instilled morals in a loving way and
wasn't too controlling a teenager will remembe rand not have sex."
There was a lot of other information but what seemd to come through is
that teens are looking for a way to not have sexand have something to
hang on to that will help them in their decision.
This seems to get back, once again, the the issue of teaching and
instilling morals and providing an all-encompassing environment that
supports those morals.
It also raised the question, that if parents are so critical to this,
why are they so poor at it? It may be the same reason that parents are
so reluctant to take a firm stand on drugs. If they did it when they
were young, they feel ill-at-ease advising against it. this would seem
to beg the same question that started the whole sex-ed process. It was
felt that parents were either incapapble or incompetent to adequately
discuss this issue with children so society had to step in and prepare
instructyion for them. Why, in the face of this information, would we
not want to take the same steps to teach morals and conduct that these
kids seem so desparately to want.
|
| 20.7709 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 03 1997 15:03 | 41 |
| RE: .7702 Steve Leech
> The funny part of this whole string is that I've basically proven my
> point. Societal morality has shifted. All you need do now is look at
> which direction and why, and you may garner a clue as to the direction
> of my note.
The funny part is that you seem to think a lot of people will fall
for your claim of having proven your point simply by your stating
that you have. :>
> And one more time, for the record - I not once said anything about
> anyone's morality being inferior to mine. I said that my moral code is
> firm, while society's, in general, is not.
"Society" is not an individual breathing person with morals or choices.
It's a collection of everyone, including you.
If you can make the case that most everyone else's morals are NOT firm
because society's so-called morals aren't firm, than the same thing
can be said about you (since you are as much a part of society as
any other human being within it.)
> I've even said, specifically, that I make no value judgement in this,
> and that we can argue whether such changes are a good or bad thing
> (or neutral even), if you like.
Sure you make a judgment in this. Your claim is that you hold to a
particular set of morals while most other people simply go along with
the popular morals of the day (which is a totally and completely
unsubstantiated claim.) You think you can prove it by saying that
society's morals have changed, but you offer absolutely nothing to
show that most individuals base their morals on whatever's current
at the time.
> Now, can we PLEASE discuss what I actually wrote in .7521, I'm done
> explaining and defending it. The fact that it has triggered so much
> emoting is very interesting to me, but such responses do tend
> to take away from the topic at hand.
Your claim is preposterous, so some people are calling you on it.
|
| 20.7710 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Mon Feb 03 1997 15:17 | 9 |
| .7703
I apologize. In rereading what /john said, I do believe he was
mistaken.
Let the record show, however, that I never said your *sisters*
distorted anything. I said that the concept, invented by whomever and
for whatever reason, that chewing gum was in itself sinful was
distortion.
|
| 20.7711 | | ABACUS::CURRAN | | Mon Feb 03 1997 16:37 | 9 |
| .7710
I'm a reasonable person......I'll take that as a reasonable reply.
Personally, I think that some of the nuns had Their own agenda's to
follow.
mc
|
| 20.7712 | | SMART2::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Mon Feb 03 1997 16:45 | 8 |
|
re .7704
Well, you'd have an easier time convincing me if
you cut down on the run-on sentences, the SHOUTING, and
the exclamation points !!!!!
|
| 20.7713 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Mon Feb 03 1997 16:45 | 4 |
|
.7711
were your nuns, blue?
|
| 20.7714 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 03 1997 17:28 | 1 |
| probably penguins!
|
| 20.7715 | | ABACUS::CURRAN | | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:08 | 7 |
| .7712,
I didn't know I was here to satisfy your english class requirement. The
SHOUTING was very much on purpose. The exclamation points were
obviously taken in the context that I placed them, as exclamation
points!!
|
| 20.7716 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | A.D.I.D.A.S | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:14 | 2 |
| -1 I think you're missing the point which is that you'd have a much
more convincing argument if you didn't seem so obnoxious.
|
| 20.7717 | | SMART2::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:15 | 8 |
|
re .7715
Um, yes, I understand that.
April, I'd use the word "emotional" rather than obnoxious.
|
| 20.7718 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:16 | 3 |
|
Hysterical!
|
| 20.7719 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:17 | 1 |
| out-of-control!
|
| 20.7720 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:17 | 3 |
| Popcorn! Peanuts! Cracka Jacks!
Get your popcorn heah!
|
| 20.7721 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:18 | 3 |
|
Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy hot dog!
|
| 20.7722 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:19 | 1 |
| can't we leave the Archie's out of this????
|
| 20.7723 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:20 | 4 |
|
.7720 speaking of "obnoxious".
|
| 20.7724 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:27 | 1 |
| I can always count on you, Di.
|
| 20.7725 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:28 | 3 |
|
At least up to 20.
|
| 20.7726 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:30 | 5 |
|
.7725 <chuckle>
|
| 20.7727 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:34 | 119 |
| .7709 Suzanne
This is an improvement over your last couple notes aimed at me, at
least, but it still misses the mark. You need to start reading my
notes at face value. There's no sneaky "between the lines" meanings in
any of them, I assure you. I'm not out to prove Christianity's
morality is superior to everyone else's (the only thing I've even said
on this is that I have a firm moral foundation that does not change via
societal whim), nor do I care to make any moral judgements whatsoever.
There are many people who do not share my beliefs that are quite moral.
There are many people who do share my beliefs that do not act morally.
Okay?
> The funny part is that you seem to think a lot of people will fall
> for your claim of having proven your point simply by your stating
> that you have. :>
<smiley noted>
Oh, but I have shown this. Many things have changed. At one point, a
majority of people thought that having an abortion was wrong, today, I
believe this has reversed.
The attempt to legitemize gay relations is another. Society as a whole is
much more sympethetic than it was a few decades ago regarding what was
once - nearly universally - denounced as immoral relations.
Sex out of wedlock is no longer taboo. Oh, it happened before... it's
always happened, but not with the amount of ho-hum acceptance as it
receives now. What was once considered immoral is now not even worth
raising an eyebrow.
> "Society" is not an individual breathing person with morals or choices.
> It's a collection of everyone, including you.
I'm well aware of this. You seem to have missed the point I'm making
by not realizing that society, as a whole, does indeed espouse a
morality via legislation and acceptance/rejection of behaviors in
general. You simply cannot deny that drastic changes have occured in
the last several decades regarding what society, as a whole, deems
acceptable.
> If you can make the case that most everyone else's morals are NOT firm
> because society's so-called morals aren't firm,
Everyone else's? I said nothing of the sort. I'm speaking generally,
regarding trends of acceptance; you are reading it as me vs. everyone else
in America. It is undeniable, however, that many people have been
swayed over a period of time to come to view many behaviors as "okay",
behaviors that was once looked upon as immoral.
> than the same thing
> can be said about you (since you are as much a part of society as
> any other human being within it.)
Perhaps this is true in some instances. The difference is, if I do get
swayed or fall into doing something wrong, I know it is wrong, as I
have a firm moral foundation to guide my behavior. Knowing it is
wrong, I would attempt to modify my behavior; whereas if I didn't know
it was wrong and it was a behavior that I really didn't want to change,
I would make no attempt to change it (and would likely try to
rationalize it as okay if anyone tried to tell me differently).
> I've even said, specifically, that I make no value judgement in this,
> and that we can argue whether such changes are a good or bad thing
> (or neutral even), if you like.
> Sure you make a judgment in this.
Read the above again... I said "value judgement". Not the same thing
at all.
> Your claim is that you hold to a
> particular set of morals while most other people simply go along with
> the popular morals of the day (which is a totally and completely
> unsubstantiated claim.)
I didn't use the word "most", I used the word "many". There is a
difference. You keep trying to twist this into a moral superiority
argument of me vs. everyone else - which is silly. This is not at all
what I'm arguing (if I was arguing this, I'd have definitely made a
"value" judgement already), nor am I trying to compare myself with
anyone else.
> You think you can prove it by saying that
> society's morals have changed, but you offer absolutely nothing to
> show that most individuals base their morals on whatever's current
> at the time.
If you've been paying attention, you'd see the connection. The fact that
behaviors have changed dramatically (in numbers) since legalization of
abortions, since the sexual revolution, since homosexual lifestyle
promotion started in earnest (from out of the closet, to national sympathy)
... all these things show that behaviors ARE changed by politics, laws,
and national sentiment.
If behaviors change so drastically in just a few short decades, then
what does that tell you about Americans? It tells you that changes
from the old system of morality have taken place. Since such changes
HAVE occured, it must mean that the morality of this nation has been
altered in some way.
Once again, I'm not making a value judgement in this string whether
such alterations of social behavior and mentality is good or bad - we
can argue these aspects individually in another string if you like - but
simply that they have taken place. If you can't see this much, then
there is no sense in continuing this discussion.
> Your claim is preposterous, so some people are calling you on it.
If my claim is so preposterous, as you say, then you would have been
able to come up with an argument with a bit of substance. You have yet
to do so. You have done a good job of responding to things you believe
I may have been thinking when I wrote my .7521, but as usual with ESP
noting, you've completely missed the mark on these attempts.
-steve
|
| 20.7728 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:38 | 3 |
| re .7725:
Twenty-one.
|
| 20.7729 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:38 | 1 |
| that's legal in EVERY state!
|
| 20.7730 | | EVMS::MORONEY | UHF Computers | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:40 | 1 |
| If he's counting on Di, he should be able to reach 22.
|
| 20.7731 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Feb 03 1997 18:41 | 1 |
| 110, no sweat.
|
| 20.7732 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:00 | 91 |
| RE: .7727 Steve Leech
> I'm not out to prove Christianity's morality is superior to everyone
> else's ...
Oh really...
> (the only thing I've even said on this is that I have a firm moral
> foundation that does not change via societal whim), nor do I care
> to make any moral judgements whatsoever.
You have absolutely ZERO basis for the claim that most people in this
country *do* have morals which change on a societal whim.
> The attempt to legitemize gay relations is another. Society as a whole is
> much more sympethetic than it was a few decades ago regarding what was
> once - nearly universally - denounced as immoral relations.
So, are you claiming that most people in this country are gay now?
Surely, if your claim that people decide their morals based on
societal whims is true, then most people are now gay (what with
society being much more sympathetic to homosexuality, as you put it.)
> You simply cannot deny that drastic changes have occured in
> the last several decades regarding what society, as a whole, deems
> acceptable.
Regarding something as 'acceptable' and 'doing it' are two different
things.
> It is undeniable, however, that many people have been
> swayed over a period of time to come to view many behaviors as "okay",
> behaviors that was once looked upon as immoral.
Again, viewing something as 'okay' is not the same thing as doing it.
> The difference is, if I do get
> swayed or fall into doing something wrong, I know it is wrong, as I
> have a firm moral foundation to guide my behavior.
Wait a minute - I thought you weren't making judgments about peoples'
morals. Why is something right or wrong based on YOUR moral foundation?
Do you consider your morals to be superior than most peoples' in this
country? (You say no, but you set yourself up as the judge of what's
right and wrong.)
>If you've been paying attention, you'd see the connection. The fact that
>behaviors have changed dramatically (in numbers) since legalization of
>abortions, since the sexual revolution, since homosexual lifestyle
>promotion started in earnest (from out of the closet, to national sympathy)
>... all these things show that behaviors ARE changed by politics, laws,
>and national sentiment.
So, what percentage of our population is gay now? 30% 50% 80%
Why do I get the feeling that you'll say it's something like 2%? :>
> If behaviors change so drastically in just a few short decades, then
> what does that tell you about Americans? It tells you that changes
> from the old system of morality have taken place. Since such changes
> HAVE occured, it must mean that the morality of this nation has been
> altered in some way.
Behaviors haven't changed all that drastically - a lot more behaviors
are out of the closet now, that's all.
> Once again, I'm not making a value judgement in this string whether
> such alterations of social behavior and mentality is good or bad - we
> can argue these aspects individually in another string if you like - but
> simply that they have taken place. If you can't see this much, then
> there is no sense in continuing this discussion.
Your value judgment (which you deny to the death, but you make right
in our faces anyway) is that your moral foundation tells you flat out
what is right and what is wrong. You don't say that it tells you what
you regard as right and wrong (while others' mileage may vary) - you
believe it's quite objective, and you have the answers (which is
evidence of a belief in your own moral superiority.)
> If my claim is so preposterous, as you say, then you would have been
> able to come up with an argument with a bit of substance. You have yet
> to do so. You have done a good job of responding to things you believe
> I may have been thinking when I wrote my .7521, but as usual with ESP
> noting, you've completely missed the mark on these attempts.
Steve, you have no choice but to believe (just as blindly as you
believe in your own moral superiority) that you must be right and
that anyone who disagrees with you is mistaken or downright nuts.
It's the nature of your limitations, and I realize that you are
powerless to do anything about them.
|
| 20.7733 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:07 | 9 |
|
I must say that after years of reading Steve's notes here and
in Womannotes, it's extremely amusing to see him trying to deny
that he thinks his version of morality is superior and trying to
claim that he's not making any value judgments.
Really - it's just amazing. ;>
|
| 20.7734 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:08 | 2 |
| Thanks, Di - you're absolutely right!
|
| 20.7735 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:10 | 3 |
|
someone please pass the jelly?
|
| 20.7736 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:12 | 2 |
| oh, di, obviously you're reading way too much into
stephe's ramblings. agagag.
|
| 20.7737 | No sale. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:14 | 12 |
| By the way, Steve, I think your rationalization about why your
moral code should be promoted is understandable.
If you truly believe that most people engage in behaviors based
on societal whims, then it would seem simple enough to change
everyone to be just like you if only society would agree to promote
*your* precise moral code.
So much for individuality - we could all become Steve Leech clones
if only we'd just agree to let society promote your ideas.
Humans simply do not operate that way.
|
| 20.7738 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:18 | 13 |
| Steve, one other thing - in your .7521, you didn't say that "MANY"
Americans lack a firm moral foundation. You said this about "MOST"
Americans:
"From my perspective, it seems that most Americans really have no FIRM
moral foundation. Their moral leanings seem all too dictated by the
whims of society and current politics."
According to this, "MOST" Americans should be gay now (if your claims
about moral leanings and the acceptability of homosexuality are both
true.)
Are you ready to say that most Americans are gay?
|
| 20.7739 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:19 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.7737 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
| So much for individuality - we could all become Steve Leech clones
| if only we'd just agree to let society promote your ideas.
Then we all would be going gaga over that babe on hercules!
|
| 20.7740 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:20 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.7738 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
| Are you ready to say that most Americans are gay?
wish i could! :-)
|
| 20.7741 | | ABACUS::CURRAN | | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:32 | 8 |
| .7116 & /7715
Gee, maybe it's the two of you that need to loosen up a bit...sorry I
don't use smiley faces in my notes. I've just become acustom to dry
humor in this note...chill out Emotional, Obnoxious....good thing you
two REALLY know me.
|
| 20.7742 | | SMART2::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Mon Feb 03 1997 19:35 | 7 |
|
Michelle, could you tell me where the appropriate
place for a smiley would have been in your note .7693 ?
You are saying that was *NOT* an emotional response ?
|
| 20.7743 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 03 1997 20:44 | 21 |
| .7738 et. al.
I truly is amazing to see how you are able to take a statement out of
context, thereby giving you an erroneous starting point, then proceed
to build an entire argument around your erroneous starting position.
As was pointed out in the article I referenced earlier, 70% of teens
think it is best to wait until marriage to have sex. they find
themselves, because of movies, TV, music, peers and parents inability
to clearly articulate a strong moral code, drifting along with what is,
apparently, socially acceptable behavior. they apparently know what is
the right, or better, thing to do, but feel powerless to actually root
themselves in a particular choice.
This dichotomy is a direct result of a chang ein societal morals and
mores. You and others may think this is a good thing, but kids are the
ones who are paying the price because, unlike Steve, too many people
are afraid or unwilling to speak up for a specific code of conduct. It
may be more restrictive, but can certainly help these kids that are
looking for strength.
|
| 20.7744 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Feb 03 1997 20:55 | 5 |
| whhhaaaattttsamatttttaaaa with kids today?!
why can't they be like we were??!!
perfeck in every way??!!
whhhaaaattttsamatttttaaaa with kids today?!
|
| 20.7745 | Hi Rocush... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 03 1997 21:35 | 67 |
| RE: .7743 Rocush
> It truly is amazing to see how you are able to take a statement out of
> context, thereby giving you an erroneous starting point, then proceed
> to build an entire argument around your erroneous starting position.
So kind of you to drop by to shoot yourself in the foot again, Rocush.
First off, when Steve spoke about "MOST Americans", he said nothing
at all about teenagers or young people. Hate to break it to you,
but "MOST Americans" (his term) are not teenagers.
So Steve still (and forever after) has absolutely ZERO basis for his
claim that MOST Americans base their moral decisions on the whims of
society, as he put it.
> As was pointed out in the article I referenced earlier, 70% of teens
> think it is best to wait until marriage to have sex. they find
> themselves, because of movies, TV, music, peers and parents inability
> to clearly articulate a strong moral code, drifting along with what is,
> apparently, socially acceptable behavior. they apparently know what is
> the right, or better, thing to do, but feel powerless to actually root
> themselves in a particular choice.
If they KNOW what is right and wrong, then they do have a firm moral
foundation which provides this information. These kids simply choose
not to act on it (if these kids are stating their positions accurately.)
Steve was talking about morals actually changing for most Americans
as society's morals change - he said nothing about most Americans not
having the power to do what they think is right.
Again, Steve was talking about MOST Americans - he still has absolutely
nothing to substantiate the idea that adults *or* kids base their morals
on societal whims.
> This dichotomy is a direct result of a chang ein societal morals and
> mores. You and others may think this is a good thing, but kids are the
> ones who are paying the price because, unlike Steve, too many people
> are afraid or unwilling to speak up for a specific code of conduct. It
> may be more restrictive, but can certainly help these kids that are
> looking for strength.
Ironic, isn't it, that in the Netherlands, teenagers are told quite
openly that it's ok for them to have sex as long as they protect
themselves - yet most teens wait until they are adults (and the
unplanned pregnancy and abortion rate per capita is 1/10th the rate
in the United States.)
Something is amiss here. We have U.S. teenagers who will be blasted
to hell and back for teen pregnancy, etc., and when asked about it,
they say it isn't their fault.
If it truly isn't their fault, then why blast the hell out of unwed
mothers? If it's the kids' parents' fault, then why all this nonsense
about letting parents have so much control over their kids' decisions,
etc.?
Bottom line - always, always, always, always, always - is for society
to be encouraged to promote a particular moral code (or the requestors
will blast us all to hell with blame for everything that goes wrong in
this country.)
Sounds like my favorite old bumper sticker:
"Support mental health or I'll kill you."
|
| 20.7746 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 04 1997 11:29 | 26 |
| .7732
Lost cause. You simply refuse to read what I write. I did try,
though.
.7733
I expected better of you, Diane. You are far from reading
comprehension impaired, yet you insist upon reading into my .7521,
based on what moral code I, personally, follow.
What I personally believe to be true, in relation to this particular
string, is irrelevant. I have made no value judgements in this string,
but have merely stated the obvious (which Suzanne continually denies).
A helpful hint to any who wish to discuss what I actually brought up...
my moral code is irrelevant to the discussion.
Oh well, what should I expect? Actually having someone read my note at
face value, without reading my Christianity into everything I say?
I give up. I simply don't have the time nor inclination to continue to
try and bring this string around to the point I was trying to make.
Next rat hole, please...
|
| 20.7747 | one more note... couldn't resist | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 04 1997 11:31 | 4 |
| .7737
And where did I say, within this string, that I was pushing for my
particular moral code to be promoted? (nowhere)
|
| 20.7748 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 04 1997 11:33 | 4 |
| .7738
Okay, I stand corrected. I didn't say what I intended to, so I guess I
deserve a bit of flack for it.
|
| 20.7749 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 04 1997 12:06 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.7748 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| Okay, I stand corrected. I didn't say what I intended to, so I guess I
| deserve a bit of flack for it.
Will Roberta do?
|
| 20.7750 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 04 1997 12:51 | 20 |
| .7745
It's nice to see consistency. I need to know that I can always count
on certain things, like people always getting it wrong.
Do you really think that if someone has a strong moral code, and does
not act upon that code on a regular basis, that they actually have such
a code? It would seem that such people give lip service to morals,
values, etc, but when it comes to living according to the professed
code they find all sorts of excuses to ignore it.
Also, teens make up a large part of the population, they don't need to
be singled out as a separate group.
I have seen so many people trot out caring for our kids as a club to
beat over those who oppose abortion, but when it comes to really
helping these kids make moral decisions, out come the excuses. If you
really care about kids, reducing abortions and raising the standards
for kids, then help them when they can use it.
|
| 20.7751 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 04 1997 12:54 | 13 |
| > <<< Note 20.7746 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
> I expected better of you, Diane. You are far from reading
> comprehension impaired, yet you insist upon reading into my .7521,
> based on what moral code I, personally, follow.
Steve, please. I really do think you're being intellectually dishonest
here. You have always made it crystal clear that you value your
version of morality over that of the unindoctrinated flotsam and jetsam
of society adrift on the great sea of sin and depravity. And .7521 is
no different, even _if_ that was not the salient point.
|
| 20.7752 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Feb 04 1997 12:58 | 16 |
| Z You have absolutely ZERO basis for the claim that most people in
Z this country *do* have morals which change on a societal whim.
Ah, but there certainly is evidence to prove society does in fact
change it's behavior based on societal whims. This is behavioral
science which has been recognized by a multibillion dollar advertising
industry here in the United States as well as multiple military facists
and dictatorships throughout history. What you would have seen
practiced in places throughout the Roman Empire...places such as
ancient Corinth for example, were most certainly behaviors practiced
based on societal whims. One would be a fool to deny this.
Abortion is widely used in this country because it has become a widely
accepted through a paradigm shift (yes another favorite word of mine).
-Jack
|
| 20.7753 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Feb 04 1997 13:06 | 6 |
| Di:
A standard fromn which to go by is far more desirable than a living
document. Moral relativism is a recipe for misery.
-Jack
|
| 20.7754 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Tue Feb 04 1997 13:08 | 5 |
| My only problem with this Jack, is your use of the word "whim". I think
it is used dishonestly and is the perfect example of a non-sequitur.
In regards to the entire string, IMO the definition of the word "moral" is
totally bogus.
|
| 20.7755 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Tue Feb 04 1997 13:11 | 6 |
| No, misery will always abound and moral relativism is just another way
of acknowledging it.
When the moral code was entrenched in the good old days, were the good
old days really that good? Good if you were a man, good if you were
rich, good if you had political power, crappy for everybody else.
|
| 20.7756 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 04 1997 13:13 | 7 |
|
> <<< Note 20.7753 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
Jack, once again you miss the point. Sigh. How do you always
manage it?
|
| 20.7757 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Feb 04 1997 13:15 | 1 |
| Di, Jack's native language is not English. It's Jackonics.
|
| 20.7758 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Tue Feb 04 1997 13:19 | 1 |
| You sure it isn't Jackoffics?
|
| 20.7759 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 04 1997 13:41 | 1 |
| April???? where r u???
|
| 20.7760 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Feb 04 1997 14:34 | 43 |
| Re .7709:
> If you can make the case that most everyone else's morals are NOT firm
> because society's so-called morals aren't firm, than the same thing
> can be said about you (since you are as much a part of society as
> any other human being within it.)
You show such peccable logic, how can anybody resist it? Your passage
above is mere wordplay, clearly not what Steve Leech's words really
meant.
Re .7737:
> If you truly believe that most people engage in behaviors based
> on societal whims, . . .
Again, that is not what Steve Leech wrote. It is quite possible
physically for a person to believe one day that bank robbery is okay
and to believe the next day that it is not without changing their
behavior in any way on either day.
Re .7738:
> According to this, "MOST" Americans should be gay now (if your claims
> about moral leanings and the acceptability of homosexuality are both
> true.)
Again your logic is peccable. If people believe it is moral or
acceptable to be homosexual, that does not mean they are homosexual.
Steve Leech may be wrong, but your unfair attacks discredit you, lend
an undue air of credence to his notes, and weaken the presentation of
others who would accurately criticize Leech.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.7761 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:02 | 14 |
| Z Jack, once again you miss the point. Sigh. How do you always
Z manage it?
Oh, I didn't miss the point Di. I am furthering the discussion on
matters of firm foundations of morality vs. wishy washy. There is more
honor in a person who stands solid in their convictions than a
conformist...whether they be a Christian or an atheist.
Of course every person feels their standard has merit over
others...that's a given. That's what the core of diversity is really
all about Di...not the nonsensical measurements we use today but the
diversity of ideas!
-Jack
|
| 20.7762 | Ah, but Steve did talk about society ALTERING BEHAVIORS... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:03 | 70 |
| RE: .7760 EDP
Hi Eric - long time no see. How's it going?
>> If you can make the case that most everyone else's morals are NOT firm
>> because society's so-called morals aren't firm, than the same thing
>> can be said about you (since you are as much a part of society as
>> any other human being within it.)
> You show such peccable logic, how can anybody resist it? Your passage
> above is mere wordplay, clearly not what Steve Leech's words really
> meant.
He did actually say that "most Americans" (not "many Americans", as
he tried to claim later) "went along for the ride" when society's
morals changed. (Going for a "ride" certainly sounds like behaviors
rather than mere judgments about others.)
Also, he spoke about society "altering behaviors", which is clearly
talking about the power he thinks society has to get people to act
(or not act) on the morals he believes are set by society.
>> If you truly believe that most people engage in behaviors based
>> on societal whims, . . .
> Again, that is not what Steve Leech wrote. It is quite possible
> physically for a person to believe one day that bank robbery is okay
> and to believe the next day that it is not without changing their
> behavior in any way on either day.
If someone goes "along for the ride" (Steve Leech's own words in
the context of this discussion) on a robbery, they're part of it.
They're not merely believing that it's ok.
>> According to this, "MOST" Americans should be gay now (if your claims
>> about moral leanings and the acceptability of homosexuality are both
>> true.)
> Again your logic is peccable. If people believe it is moral or
> acceptable to be homosexual, that does not mean they are homosexual.
Steve talked about society having the power to change behaviors (with
"most Americans" going "along for the ride" with society's changing
morals.)
This may be an inconvenient position for him now, but he did say
these things. If his statements were true, then people would go
"along for the ride" with homosexuality since it's far more accepted
now than it used to be. Being on such a "ride" would amount to more
than just accepting homosexuality.
> Steve Leech may be wrong, but your unfair attacks discredit you, lend
> an undue air of credence to his notes, and weaken the presentation of
> others who would accurately criticize Leech.
Steve Leech *is* wrong - and I think he needs to accept responsibility
for the way he's expressing himself in this discussion.
If he claims that society has the power to alter "most Americans'"
behaviors, then he needs to come up with some verification for this
(using his own examples of changing morals, such as the acceptance
of homosexuality.)
If he wants to make the case that "most Americans" (the ones who go
"along for the ride") are now gay to prove that society has the power
to alter behaviors, I'd be interested in hearing it. If he can't
make this case, then it shows that his statements (which he tried
to verify with homosexuality as an example) are incorrect.
Let's see what he does.
|
| 20.7763 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:05 | 1 |
| This is making a decision to naturalize very difficult.
|
| 20.7764 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:05 | 4 |
|
Last call for popcorn
|
| 20.7765 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:06 | 12 |
|
> <<< Note 20.7761 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
You are presenting this to me as though you need to convince
me of something. That is not a safe assumption for you to make.
> Of course every person feels their standard has merit over
> others...that's a given.
Tell that to Steve.
|
| 20.7766 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:06 | 1 |
| Prolifers only eat it before it has popped.
|
| 20.7767 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:09 | 3 |
|
.7763 i can understand that.
|
| 20.7768 | | BUSY::SLAB | Buzzword Bingo | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:19 | 8 |
|
RE: Susan/Stephe
How does the morality of society, as a whole, change if the moral-
ity of most of its members doesn't change?
"Many" doesn't cut it.
|
| 20.7769 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:23 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.7761 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| There is more honor in a person who stands solid in their convictions than a
| conformist...whether they be a Christian or an atheist.
What a bunch of bunk! If the convictions harm another, then it is
stupid to stand for those convictions.
Glen
|
| 20.7770 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:24 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.7766 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>
| Prolifers only eat it before it has popped.
I thought a prolifer thought it was popped from the beginning?
|
| 20.7771 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:25 | 3 |
|
Btw... is edp really Steve Leech in disguise?
|
| 20.7772 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:42 | 8 |
| re .7755
Ah yes, the good old days when we just "didn't see" things like
segregated lunch counters, women in hospitals with tattered uteruses,
anal/uterine fistulas, shotgun weddings that failed shortly after the
first or second birth, spousal abuse, child abuse, incest......
Pretending the stuff wasn't there didn't make it any less real.
|
| 20.7773 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:48 | 22 |
| .7762
The errors and holes in your logic are incredible. You try so
desperately to make a point that you end up in a really silly place.
You seem to believe that altering behavior is synonymous with actually
participating in a given activity. The error in this is very apparent.
Sticking with the topic of this note, there are many people who have
changed their behavior related to abortion, and yet have never and
probably will never have an abortion.
There are many men who previously opposed abortion. Society's view and
position on abortion have changed. These same men now support abortion
and may even participate in marches, events, etc. Their behavior has
indeed changed, but hteir ability to have an abortion has not.
There are numerous other examples, but the preceeding will suffice.
Please don't confuse changing opinion, views or behaviors with active
participation.
|
| 20.7774 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:52 | 11 |
|
> <<< Note 20.7773 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> There are numerous other examples, but the preceeding will suffice.
preceding
your idol,
diane
|
| 20.7775 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:53 | 12 |
| .7772
Ah yes, the good old days. When you apparently "didn't see" integrated
lunch counters and companies, women in hospitals giving birth to
healthy children in strong, stable families, people taking
responsibility, even if not voluntarily at first, for their actions,
respect for mothers and wives, protection of children and the weak....
Pretending the stuff wasn't there didn't make it any less real.
You can always find what you are looking for if youstay at the margins.
|
| 20.7776 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:54 | 51 |
| RE: .7750 Rocush
Rocush, you'll never make it through a metal detector again if you
keep pouring lead into your feet like this...
> Do you really think that if someone has a strong moral code, and does
> not act upon that code on a regular basis, that they actually have such
> a code? It would seem that such people give lip service to morals,
> values, etc, but when it comes to living according to the professed
> code they find all sorts of excuses to ignore it.
Gee, sounds like a description of those teenagers in the magazine a few
days ago. They easily found excuses to have sex anyway. Do you really
think this would change if more adults told kids not to have sex?
When I was a teenager, *all* my friends had parents who were trying in
desperation to keep their teens from having sex - it didn't help much.
The movies weren't nearly as racy as they are now, and things weren't
as open for gays as they are in the 90s. Kids had sex anyway, including
gay teens (according to the very few who were open about it back then.)
> I have seen so many people trot out caring for our kids as a club to
> beat over those who oppose abortion, but when it comes to really
> helping these kids make moral decisions, out come the excuses. If you
> really care about kids, reducing abortions and raising the standards
> for kids, then help them when they can use it.
Again, let's look at the most successful western country when it comes
to reducing the incidence of teen sex, unplanned pregnancies and
abortions per capita. They tell their teens that it's ok to have sex
if they protect themselves. However, being responsible in this manner
is work - so the Netherlands' teens tend to wait until they are adults.
(The unplanned pregnancy and abortion rate is 1/10th of the U.S. rate
per capita.)
If our society makes a big, big, big, uptight deal over sex, it only
makes kids more curious. When adults tell kids about the horrors and
the dangers of sex, yet friends say that it actually felt pretty cool
and they didn't keel over dead from it - kids will see sex as a form
of rebellion and doing something 'adult' (as they do now.)
If you say (as the Netherlands does) that sex is a natural part of
life, but it comes with some risks so it's absolutely imperative
that kids protect themselves - it doesn't sound so inviting anymore.
If sex doesn't amount to rebellion and it takes work to be responsible,
teens figure they might as well wait until they're adults. So they do.
However, I do understand that many people in this country would rather
see 10 million abortions in this country every year than go against
their moral code by telling kids, "It's ok to have sex if you protect
yourselves from pregnancy and disease."
|
| 20.7777 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:55 | 4 |
| .7774
Thank you, again. I was happy I got suffice, correct.
|
| 20.7778 | | BUSY::SLAB | Buzzword Bingo | Tue Feb 04 1997 15:56 | 6 |
|
I think parents should tell kids to HAVE sex because it's good
for them.
You KNOW they won't do it after hearing that.
|
| 20.7779 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:05 | 26 |
| RE: .7773 Rocush
> The errors and holes in your logic are incredible. You try so
> desperately to make a point that you end up in a really silly place.
Eventually, you're going to run out of bullets for your feet, ya know.
THEN what the hell will you do? :>
> You seem to believe that altering behavior is synonymous with actually
> participating in a given activity. The error in this is very apparent.
Oh gosh. Do you mean to say that Steve hasn't been talking about
actual immorality in our society, but simple acceptance of behaviors
he considers immoral? Gee...
> Please don't confuse changing opinion, views or behaviors with active
> participation.
So, the people in our society are not actually *PARTICIPATING* in
immoral behaviors? Most Americans simply accept them now, but don't
perform such behaviors? If they consistently ACT UPON their beliefs
in what's right and wrong (in their own personal sexual conduct),
this sounds like they have firm moral foundations, does it not?
So what's the problem? Sounds like we have pretty doggone moral
society, after all, with lots of firm moral foundations afoot.
|
| 20.7780 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:11 | 17 |
| Re .7762:
I read Steve Leech's words about what Steve Leech says.
I read your words about what Steve Leech says.
I have no trouble deciding which more accurately represent what Steve
Leech says.
There is no need to engage in the disingenuous wordplay you use when
Steve Leech's statements are so faulty. Your arguments do great harm
to your position.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.7781 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:32 | 28 |
| .7751 (Diane)
> You have always made it crystal clear that you value your
> version of morality over that of the unindoctrinated flotsam and jetsam
> of society adrift on the great sea of sin and depravity.
Actually, this is not true. I value my moral code, and any solid code
of morality (Jewish, Mormon, Hindu, etc.) over that of no moral
structure or a morality that wavers due to politics, national sentiment
and special interest groups. Such "social morality" wavers too much to
be useful as a guiding force for social behavior.
Now, if we're talking about how to get to heaven, well, I
certainly take a black and white stand on my beliefs, but this is
completely beside the point and is quite off subject of anything I've
brought up in this topic.
> And .7521 is
> no different, even _if_ that was not the salient point.
Of course it is different. It is a note that I have made absolutely no
value judgment whatsoever. What annoys me is that the point I'm making
is completely forgotten in the barrage of notes that do nothing more
than argue about how morally superior you think I'm trying to be.
Utter rubbish, and a red herring to boot.
-steve
|
| 20.7782 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:41 | 19 |
| .7755
You make a good example of social morality outside of what many claimed
was their moral code. Treating women as second class citizens is not a
part of the Judao/Christian moral code that was once THE standard.
Neither was slavery or abusing political power.
Even in the "good old days", we had our social morality problems... we
will always have such problems. The irony is that we've separated
ourselves from our historic moral code, using such excuses as you
mention as amunition to toss all moral precepts.
The fact is, we never had it perfect, nor will we ever. The problem is
that situational ethics and moral relativism are a poor substitute for
a firm moral code of conduct - whether it be Christian, Jewish, Hindu,
or similar code.
-steve
|
| 20.7783 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:41 | 4 |
|
to get to heaven you must do the following. Click your heels together
three times, and chant the following. " I believe in microsoft",
"I believe in microsoft" works for most.
|
| 20.7784 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:46 | 10 |
| > <<< Note 20.7781 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
> Of course it is different. It is a note that I have made absolutely no
> value judgment whatsoever.
You keep saying that, but it doesn't get any more convincing
with time. I consider the note to be loaded with value judgments.
|
| 20.7785 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:47 | 11 |
|
Steve.... when those people thought slavery was ok, did they change
their minds due to political or social pressures?
I would have included women as second class citizens.... but that's
still going on.
Glen
|
| 20.7786 | | BUSY::SLAB | Can you hear the drums, Fernando? | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:50 | 5 |
|
RE: .7783
Works for most, or many?
|
| 20.7787 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:50 | 27 |
| RE: .7780 EDP
> I read Steve Leech's words about what Steve Leech says.
> I read your words about what Steve Leech says.
> I have no trouble deciding which more accurately represent what Steve
> Leech says.
I've quoted Steve Leech directly from his .7521 note. Whether
anyone likes it or not, he did state his belief in society's
ability to "alter behaviors" and he did make explicit statements
about his belief that Americans "went along for the ride" when
society's morals changed.
> There is no need to engage in the disingenuous wordplay you use when
> Steve Leech's statements are so faulty. Your arguments do great harm
> to your position.
Eric, you and I know only too well that Steve's statements are faulty.
You're certainly free to address these faults to Steve directly - I'm
sure your comments would be most amusing, in fact. :>
I'm just playing around with the absurdities I happen to see in his
views. If lives and our civilization's very survival hung in the
balance, I'm sure I'd treat this discussion as though it were as
serious as a heart attack. They don't, so neither do I.
Others' mileage may vary, of course.
|
| 20.7788 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:55 | 19 |
| .7762
Absolutely amazing. You quote stuff right from my note, but these word
smippets are placed in a context of your own creation. This is
intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
And also, I admitted a miscue when I used the word "most", when I
really meant to use "many"... remember? If I can admit this error, the
least you can do is quit using my miscue in future responses. You now
KNOW what I meant, as I clarified this.
Though this may make some small amount of difference in semantics,
my miscue does not discredit the point I was trying to make, though I'm
sure you will continue to use it as a battering ram to try and prove
this.
-steve
|
| 20.7789 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Feb 04 1997 16:58 | 26 |
| Re .7787:
> I've quoted Steve Leech directly from his .7521 note.
You quoted from a subjunctive clause.
> Whether anyone likes it or not, he did state his belief in society's
> ability to "alter behaviors" and he did make explicit statements about
> his belief that Americans "went along for the ride" when society's
> morals changed.
Your wordplay is merely wordplay. I can see for myself what was
written and will not believe anything you write about it that
contradicts what is plain to see.
> I'm just playing around with the absurdities I happen to see in
> his views.
See to your own vision before that of others.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.7790 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:03 | 11 |
| .7768
Good point. Maybe I was correct when I said "most" (unintentionally
so)?
The fact is, societal morality has changed. Some things may change due
to legality, however, even if most of the population does not agree at
the time. For instance, the legalization of abortion.
-steve
|
| 20.7791 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:08 | 5 |
| Z Sticking with the topic of this note, there are many people who have
Z changed their behavior related to abortion, and yet have never and
Z probably will never have an abortion.
Ted Kennedy...the biggest turncoat of them all.
|
| 20.7792 | | BUSY::SLAB | Candy'O, I need you ... | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:15 | 3 |
|
And there's a good chance he'll never have an abortion.
|
| 20.7793 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:21 | 33 |
| RE: .7788 Steve Leech
> Absolutely amazing. You quote stuff right from my note, but these word
> smippets are placed in a context of your own creation. This is
> intellectually dishonest, to say the least.
Well, I see you're now borrowing a term from Di (to replace your
favorite "lack of reading comprehension" term.) It's interesting
that you keep stealing terms from *women* you encounter in notes. :>
> And also, I admitted a miscue when I used the word "most", when I
> really meant to use "many"... remember? If I can admit this error, the
> least you can do is quit using my miscue in future responses. You now
> KNOW what I meant, as I clarified this.
Steve, I corrected you about having written "MOST Americans" in your
.7521 because you denied having used this word in the first place.
You were wrong about this, of course.
It doesn't help your .7521 note much, though. You still need to
demonstrate that "MANY" more people are gay today than were gay
before society started being more accepting of homosexuality.
You have a lot of leeway with the word "MANY", but if you truly
believe that "MANY" more people are gay today, it'd better be
more than 1 or 2 percentage points to support your claim.
If you're backing away from the idea that actual (sexual, etc.)
behaviors have changed for "many" people as society's morals have
changed, then do so now.
Keep in mind that when you find yourself backing away from your
note, it should be clear that your note had problems - it wasn't
simply a case of being misunderstood <boo hoo> or maligned. Ok?
|
| 20.7794 | Another 180 from Steve... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:22 | 10 |
| RE: .7790 Steve Leech
> .7768
> Good point. Maybe I was correct when I said "most" (unintentionally
> so)?
Hopefully you won't cry the next time I quote you as having actually
written the word "most" then. :>
|
| 20.7795 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:25 | 2 |
|
"and a great hue and cry was heard throughout the land"
|
| 20.7796 | Nope. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:41 | 43 |
| RE: .7752 Jack
> Ah, but there certainly is evidence to prove society does in fact
> change it's behavior based on societal whims.
> Abortion is widely used in this country because it has become a widely
> accepted through a paradigm shift (yes another favorite word of mine).
You better have a long talk with Rocush. He says that it's the
behaviors like marching in support of abortion rights, etc. which
have changed (not the actual behaviors of performing the acts that
Steve considers immoral.)
I agree with you that Steve was talking about actual (sexual, etc.)
behaviors, not just acceptance of those behaviors.
I disagree that most people change their morals on societal whim,
though.
It's popular these days to consider those who disagree with a certain
position to be mindless sheep who are incapable of forming their own
thoughts or decisive moral stands. As stated earlier, I consider this
to be self-serving garbage.
> This is behavioral
> science which has been recognized by a multibillion dollar advertising
> industry here in the United States as well as multiple military facists
> and dictatorships throughout history. What you would have seen
> practiced in places throughout the Roman Empire...places such as
> ancient Corinth for example, were most certainly behaviors practiced
> based on societal whims. One would be a fool to deny this.
While I would certainly agree that a great many people look at the
coolest computer toys or other advertisements and say, "Wow, I've got
to have this" (even if they nearly go broke paying for it), I've still
seen ZERO evidence that people would read an article which says that it's
cool to have sex with strangers in elevators in baskets hung from the
elevator ceilings and say to themselves, "Wow, I've got to get a basket
and find a busy elevator!!"
As for ancient societies like the Roman Empire, one would have to be
a fool to believe that the dynamics of such a culture could ever be
the same as our culture in the very late 20th century USA. It's absurd.
|
| 20.7797 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:41 | 5 |
| Having followed this thread with interest and finding it enjoyable, I'm
still not clear as to the definition of the word morality. Steve says
it is changing, morals that is. It would be much easier to agree or
disagree with his argument if I understood how the two combatants define
the word moral. May I have some clarification?
|
| 20.7798 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:47 | 23 |
| .7776
It really is incredible. You make mistakes, use convoluted logic and
then claim someone else shot themselves in the foot. Wow.
Just to point out additional errors for you. the kids in the survey
were saying that they believe that adults can have a very significant
impact in helping support a decision to refrain from sex until
marriage, if only they heard the message often enough. what they hear
is liberal gibberish like I see you put forward about abandoning all
efforts to encourage them to avoid sex, just be careful.
Maybe all of the kids you knew couldn't wait to run off and jump in the
sack, despite parental and societal efforts to the contrary, but such
was not the case everywhere. there was always a certain number of
people who would try anything, but the majority were very willing to
accept societal restrictions. If your friends were different, well one
never knows how onw was raised.
Also, there is nothing wrong with trying to eliminate the need for
abortions and immature sexual activity. they are not mutually
exclusive as you seem to think.
|
| 20.7799 | | BUSY::SLAB | Candy'O, I need you ... | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:54 | 12 |
|
Susan, statistically, if the population is increasing then the
homosexual % is also increasing.
But this depends on when you believe society "accepted" gays.
If 1980-1985, then yes, there would be more than a 2% increase
in the gay population. Many more gays were born [or "came out"]
than died in that same time period.
IE, if 10% of the population is believed to be gay, then 10% of
the total population increase would be gay [linearly speaking].
|
| 20.7800 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:54 | 17 |
| .7779
Ever the consistent.
You seem to have a difficulty with understanding that accepting immoral
behavior, turning a blind eye to it or creating an environment that
promotes immoral behavior speaks loudly of your own morality.
You can claim that you have a strong moral code because you don't
actually do whatever, but if you support those who do, just how strong
is your moral code.
there are numerous examples that can be cited, but I already gave you
an example, that you again took off on an illogical track, but you
already know you are so far off i don't need to point it out any
further.
|
| 20.7801 | original meaning, unless Binder contradicts me... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Tue Feb 04 1997 17:57 | 6 |
|
"Morals" comes from the Latin mos or mor-, meaning "customary".
A Roman was "moral" if he followed custom.
bb
|
| 20.7802 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Feb 04 1997 18:12 | 5 |
| > Susan, statistically, if the population is increasing then the
> homosexual % is also increasing.
Why would the percentage increase?
|
| 20.7803 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 18:12 | 58 |
| RE: .7798 Rocush
> It really is incredible. You make mistakes, use convoluted logic and
> then claim someone else shot themselves in the foot. Wow.
Hopefully, you know how to walk on your hands, Rocush. Hey, I tried
to warn you.
> Just to point out additional errors for you. the kids in the survey
> were saying that they believe that adults can have a very significant
> impact in helping support a decision to refrain from sex until
> marriage, if only they heard the message often enough.
So they were guessing about the societal impact of what adults say
rather than stating, "*I* would not have had sex if one adult had told
me not to do it"?? Pls clarify.
Well, we all have theories about this stuff, I guess.
> what they hear is liberal gibberish like I see you put forward about
> abandoning all efforts to encourage them to avoid sex, just be careful.
The message about being careful comes from the Western country with
the lowest unplanned pregnancy and abortion rate per capita (a feat
they set out to accomplish back when their unplanned pregnancy and
abortion rates were a lot closer to ours.)
> Maybe all of the kids you knew couldn't wait to run off and jump in the
> sack, despite parental and societal efforts to the contrary, but such
> was not the case everywhere. there was always a certain number of
> people who would try anything, but the majority were very willing to
> accept societal restrictions. If your friends were different, well one
> never knows how onw was raised.
Not *all* the kids I knew were into sex as teens - but *ALL* their
parents were most definitely against the idea. I don't remember a
single kid telling me "Gee, I don't want to have sex but my parents
forgot to tell me not to do it." (If anyone had said this, we'd
have laughed ourselves into the next county, and then some.)
> Also, there is nothing wrong with trying to eliminate the need for
> abortions and immature sexual activity. they are not mutually
> exclusive as you seem to think.
The Netherlands all but eliminated the need for abortions *and* teenage
sexual activity (as I've stated here many times), so I know they are
not mutually exclusive.
They did it by taking the fun out of sex for kids. They said it was
ok to do it, but they strongly urged the kids to be responsible about
it. The kids heard the responsibility message, and decided for
themselves that sex wasn't a big enough thrill (and not a good form
of rebellion if adults didn't care if they did it) to do it as teens,
so they wait until they are adults.
The Netherlands solved their problem by 90%. It's incredibly stupid
for the U.S. to look at their success and say, "Gee, let's do exactly
the opposite."
|
| 20.7804 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Tue Feb 04 1997 18:15 | 6 |
| > > Susan, statistically, if the population is increasing then the
> > homosexual % is also increasing.
> Why would the percentage increase?
New math.
|
| 20.7805 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Feb 04 1997 18:16 | 2 |
|
:-)
|
| 20.7806 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Tue Feb 04 1997 18:16 | 1 |
| maybe it's moon math, which is even worser.
|
| 20.7807 | Your position is a lot worse than I thought... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 18:24 | 32 |
| RE: .7800 Rocush
> Ever the consistent.
Strong language from one with so many self-inflicted gun wounds. :>
> You seem to have a difficulty with understanding that accepting immoral
> behavior, turning a blind eye to it or creating an environment that
> promotes immoral behavior speaks loudly of your own morality.
Whoa! Are you saying that it's immoral to have certain OPINIONS about
the morality of others? Do you consider it immoral to be accepting
of sexual behaviors that people would not commit/perform themselves??
Interesting news. I hope you don't really expect our society to adopt
your moral code.
> You can claim that you have a strong moral code because you don't
> actually do whatever, but if you support those who do, just how strong
> is your moral code.
Sounds like a matter to be worked out with ones creator, not with some
jerk who wants his moral code to be promoted in this society (OR ELSE.)
> there are numerous examples that can be cited, but I already gave you
> an example, that you again took off on an illogical track, but you
> already know you are so far off i don't need to point it out any
> further.
Rocush, you don't have a prayer (literally) of selling your moral code
to our society. It makes no sense at all. You can damn us all to hell
and back for the rest of your life, if you feel you must. It won't help.
|
| 20.7808 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Feb 04 1997 18:40 | 14 |
| Z As for ancient societies like the Roman Empire, one would have to be
Z a fool to believe that the dynamics of such a culture could ever be
Z the same as our culture in the very late 20th century USA. It's
Z absurd.
So will this put an end to hysteria replies from the Megs of notes that
we have advanced to the point where inquisitions, segregated bathrooms
and back alley abortions shall not happen again??
As an historian once said, the Titanic was a monument to man's
arrogance. History repeats itself and people don't change. The
barbarism is only has a new face.
-Jack
|
| 20.7809 | Even th Roman Empire was too far removed from some human history... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 18:45 | 4 |
| Jack, you may worry about ending up back in a cave somewhere
carrying a club and wearing a goatskin on your loins, but some
episodes of human history go too far back to be repeated. :>
|
| 20.7810 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Tue Feb 04 1997 18:51 | 6 |
| > Neither murder nor kill are correct translations of the Hebrew.
So *both* the KJV and the other version are incorrect. ie, the KJV
*did* change the sense of the original. Thanks for confirming.
DougO
|
| 20.7811 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 04 1997 19:01 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 20.7809 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
> Jack, you may worry about ending up back in a cave somewhere
he'll be all set language-skills-wise, at least.
|
| 20.7812 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Feb 04 1997 19:10 | 1 |
| How are his cave painting skills?
|
| 20.7813 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Tue Feb 04 1997 19:13 | 1 |
| he's mastered stick figures.
|
| 20.7814 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 04 1997 19:21 | 1 |
| i thought jack already lived in a cave???
|
| 20.7815 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:02 | 15 |
| .7807
You really are way too easy to rebut.
So you can understand this. did the people of Nazi Germany have a
strong moral code because they wouldn't actually attack Jews
themselves, but stood by and said nothing when others did? Did they
participate in parades, marches and speeches calling for the
destruction of Jews, even though they themselves would not actually
kill any Jews? Just what was the strength of their morals?
Can someone claim strong morals and then support immoral behavior?
You really do make this much to easy.
|
| 20.7816 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:26 | 4 |
| Since no one wants to answer, I'll just keep asking. Will somebody
define for me "immoral behavior" and explain why it is so defined?
Example: An immoral behavior is defined as any behavior that ........
|
| 20.7817 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:30 | 61 |
| RE: .7815 Rocush
> You really are way too easy to rebut.
Rocush, if you haven't called an ambulance by now, please do so.
Such a tremendous loss of blood leads to an oxygen deficiency
in the brain, which you have been showing signs of experiencing
all day. Please take care of yourself.
> So you can understand this. did the people of Nazi Germany have a
> strong moral code because they wouldn't actually attack Jews
> themselves, but stood by and said nothing when others did?
Did the people of the United States have a strong moral code when
they refused to let Jewish refugees into this country (forcing many
to return to Nazi Germany where they were murdered in concentration
camps?)
Were your parents alive at the time? If so, do you consider them
immoral for allowing this to happen? (Tell them and let me know
what they say in response.)
> Did they participate in parades, marches and speeches calling for the
> destruction of Jews, even though they themselves would not actually
> kill any Jews? Just what was the strength of their morals?
The Nazis didn't openly state at rallies and during parades that they
were committing genocide, in case you didn't know this.
Many claim now that the German people knew what was happening, even
though the Nazis created cheerful films of happy Jews living in
resettlement camps elsewhere. The Nazis most definitely did not
stand up and ask the German people to cheer and clap for the Final
Solution, though.
If you happen to think that the average German citizen was immoral
for not fighting the Nazis single-handedly, all I can say is that
I don't consider them any more immoral than Americans who did not
fight the American Government for not allowing Jewish refugees into
this country as a way of escaping Nazi death camps.
> Can someone claim strong morals and then support immoral behavior?
It's usually the most self-righteous people who bother to make such
claims in the first place, Rocush. Most others try to do the right
thing while making a real point of avoiding sounding like sanctimonious
jerks and pointing accusing moral fingers at others.
What precisely does it mean to 'support' immoral behavior? If someone
refrains from making harsh judgments about others' sexual activities,
is this a form of 'support' (and do you regard it as immoral to refrain
from making those harsh judgments?)
In your moral code, I do realize that you feel morally obligated to be
as nasty as possible in the face of other moral codes (or else you'll
be supporting their existence, or whatever.) This is a good reason
why our country won't ever adopt your moral code, however.
> You really do make this much to easy.
Please call 911 before it's too late, Rocush. I worry about you.
|
| 20.7818 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:31 | 3 |
| An immoral behavior is defined as a bad thought put into action.
;-)
|
| 20.7819 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:42 | 1 |
| Of course that begs the question of what a bad thought is. ;-)
|
| 20.7820 | | BUSY::SLAB | A Momentary Lapse of Reason | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:44 | 3 |
|
Immoral behavior - anything Stephe wouldn't do.
|
| 20.7821 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:45 | 1 |
| He wouldn't wear a dress and high heels. Which means....
|
| 20.7822 | | BUSY::SLAB | A Momentary Lapse of Reason | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:48 | 3 |
|
... if he didn't own pants he'd have to walk around naked all day?
|
| 20.7823 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:52 | 12 |
| .7817
Since your beginning is just more inane rambling I will ignore. As far
as the rest is concerned, yes remaining silent is giving tacit approval
and support to someone's actions.
I am sure your creative mind can come up with enough examples to prove
my point.
I do appreciate your concern for my well being, but since the apparent
harm exists only in your mind, I am quite well, thank you.
|
| 20.7824 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:53 | 12 |
| Z Rocush, you don't have a prayer (literally) of selling your moral code
Z to our society. It makes no sense at all.
I agree 100% that the moral code will not be sold to society. Funny
how natural it is to flock to churches though when a catastrophe
hits...like when JFK was killed. It seems to be humankinds propensity
to be drawn to a God they never regarded before when calamity hits.
By the way Suzanne, if we do revert back to cave days, I would be
honored to bop you on the head!! :-)
-Jack
|
| 20.7825 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 20:56 | 14 |
| According to Rocush, the bad thoughts are immoral, too (even if
the thoughts only amount to opinions about the behavior in the
bad thoughts being ok when *others* choose to do it.)
Don't even THINK about how immoral it would be to fantasize about
doing the bad thoughts stuff yourself. This would be really, really
bad. Horribly bad, in fact.
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.
It's really tough to be GOOD according to this moral code unless you
get to make the rules when selling it to others in notesfiles. In that
case, it's easy: Whatever they think and do is good, and whatever
others think and do is bad. Simple enough.
|
| 20.7826 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Feb 04 1997 21:06 | 2 |
| Oh Suzanne...get off it! Our whole legal system is based on a moral
code!
|
| 20.7827 | | BUSY::SLAB | A Parting Shot in the Dark | Tue Feb 04 1997 21:09 | 5 |
|
Abortion is legal, yet considered immoral by many.
So much for that theory, Jack.
|
| 20.7828 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Feb 04 1997 21:11 | 4 |
| The theory stands. JonBenet Ramsay's death had a profound effect on
the public yet abortion seems to be a passive issue these days.
-Jack
|
| 20.7829 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Tue Feb 04 1997 21:32 | 6 |
| >It seems to be humankinds propensity to be drawn to a God they never
>regarded before when calamity hits.
Actually it seems that these people are just looking for someone to
tell them what to do, instead of making the effort to understand the
real problem.
|
| 20.7830 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 21:33 | 16 |
| RE: .7823 Rocush
> yes remaining silent is giving tacit approval and support to someone's
> actions.
It's amazing that you can stop yourself from bursting into bedrooms all
over America to make sure you aren't remaining silent about what they
are doing. If you don't do this, then you are giving tacit approval
to the sexual misdeeds (according to your moral code) of a great many
people in our population of over 250,000.000.
> I do appreciate your concern for my well being, but since the apparent
> harm exists only in your mind, I am quite well, thank you.
Euphoria is one of the primary symptoms of oxygen deficiency to the
brain. I remain deeply concerned about you.
|
| 20.7831 | "I think, therefore I could be breaking the law..." | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 21:36 | 8 |
| RE: .7826 Jack
> Oh Suzanne...get off it! Our whole legal system is based on a moral
> code!
It's not based on Steve Leech's or Rocush's moral code, though.
If it were, people could be arrested for their thoughts. :>
|
| 20.7832 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 04 1997 21:44 | 17 |
| RE: .8924 Jack
> I agree 100% that the moral code will not be sold to society. Funny
> how natural it is to flock to churches though when a catastrophe
> hits...like when JFK was killed. It seems to be humankinds propensity
> to be drawn to a God they never regarded before when calamity hits.
People flock to churches for comfort when something bad happens.
It doesn't mean that they don't ordinarily go to church or turn
to God at other times in their lives.
Would you rather that people do not turn to God for comfort when
they are upset? Would it be better to get drunk, pick up a stranger
for sex or drop a few thousand dollars in a poker game?
I would think that turning to God in times of duress would be seen
as a good thing by those who already do so on a more frequent basis.
|
| 20.7833 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 04 1997 22:45 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.7815 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
| You really are way too easy to rebut.
So when will you do it?
| Can someone claim strong morals and then support immoral behavior?
The answer is.... yes. It really depends on if one thinks something is
immoral or not.
Glen
|
| 20.7834 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 04 1997 23:22 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.7826 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| Oh Suzanne...get off it!
EEEEEEEEEK!
| Our whole legal system is based on a moral code!
I guess we'll find out soon if the moral code is still present.... oj
verdict due soon!
|
| 20.7835 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 04 1997 23:25 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.7828 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| The theory stands. JonBenet Ramsay's death had a profound effect on
| the public yet abortion seems to be a passive issue these days.
Jack... if person 'A' feels that abortion is wrong, then they will not
be passive and they will also think the Ramsay death is bad.
If person 'B' feels an abortion is ok, then they will be passive and
they will think the Ramsay death is bad.
Your view above is useless.
|
| 20.7836 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 05 1997 11:26 | 18 |
| .7816
Sorry, I haven't been in the box since the time frame of my last note
posted in this topic.
Immoral behavior is defined as any behavior that goes against a
specific moral code. Historically, our societal moral code was based
upon the Judao/Christian code of conduct, which is the basis I'm using
to show that the morality - in general - of society has changed over
the years, while the actual Judao/christian morality itself remains
unchanged.
I'm not sure what definition Suzanne is using... she's all over the
map, it seems, trying to deny this simple fact.
-steve
|
| 20.7837 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 05 1997 12:32 | 29 |
| | <<< Note 20.7836 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| I'm not sure what definition Suzanne is using... she's all over the
| map, it seems, trying to deny this simple fact.
The version she got from your notes.
Steve.... do you think you have it all down pat? If memory serves me
correct, I believe you had said before, no. This would be believable as
otherwise you would be God. :-)
I do understand what you are saying though....now... :-) The moral
code that was set forth has always been there and has always been the same.
Where the problem is seems to be which version that is out there today is
any more correct or close to the original? And if one can pick a version, how
do you know it is right?
I think this might be why when you said most people's morals have
slipped (paraphrasing) people will take it that your morals are better than
theirs. That and you stating you have a solid hold on morals. :-)
I am surprised that you can't see this though. From your notes it seems
to be a true statement. But then explaining that position so it doesn't sound
that way is a very hard thing to do. I mean how can one say they have a solid
hold on their morals and that most others have slipped and not have people
think you passed judgement?
Glen
|
| 20.7838 | rat-hole | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Feb 05 1997 12:35 | 20 |
|
Tom - the derivation of moral systems is VERY hard, and requires
a lot less passion than you are going to find in Topic 20. Briefly,
no moral system has been derived from Nature, except by lying about
the natural world. If you really start with natural observations,
murdering you in order to get your Nike sneakers is normal.
Moral systems have been products of human civilizations. Some have
been imposed by conquest. Some have developed by trial-error. Some
have been inculcated by prophets who claim revelation. It's a very
complex business, because morality is a "protocol". It makes little
difference whether Robinson Crusoe had one moral system or another on
his island. For a moral system to matter, at least two people must
share it.
When people share NOTHING in the way of "sense of life", the situation
is not, in practice, governed by any moral system, but by the mechanics
of power. These are understood. See Machiavelli's The Prince, for starters.
bb
|
| 20.7839 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 05 1997 12:55 | 13 |
| .7831
Since you have no idea what my moral code is, your statement is a
rather sweeping generalization.
Smiley face aside, please identify how you made the illogical leap to
people being arrested for their thoughts. I have not made any
assertion regarding the legality of anyone's behavior or thoughts, I
have, however, commented upon the morality or lack thereof, in the
same.
And your are right. I do get quite light-headed and disoriented when
reading your replies.
|
| 20.7840 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Wed Feb 05 1997 13:21 | 20 |
| Morality appears to be very subjective from the previous definitions.
It either evolves from one dogma or other, or is forced upon
populations. Since it is subjective it should be fine with everyone if
someone's definition of "moral" and there practice of their own moral
code is left to the individual, as long as it isn't forced upon other
individuals. As most of you know I simply define morality this way:
Moral - Conscious actions that purposely benefit people and society.
Immoral - Conscious actions that purposely harm people and society.
Thus, those who would use force, coercion, or deception are immoral. For,
they purposely harm others and society by choosing to force their
subjective moral code onto others rather than respecting the freedom of
individuals. By contrast, those who mind there own business, respect the
freedom of every other individual to decide for themselves what code to
follow and never resort to force, coercion, or deception are moral. For,
they purposely benefit others and society by promoting freedom to
choose ones own way to prosperity and happiness.
|
| 20.7841 | skip the fuzzies | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Feb 05 1997 13:37 | 18 |
|
But Tom, by your own words you are branding people who don't have the
same moral code as you as immoral. Suppose you see somebody cheating
somebody else, a common occurrence. Or if that isn't immoral to you,
then pick something that is. Either you intervene, or you don't. If
you DO, then you are not "leaving morality up to the individual". If you
DON'T, your moral code matters little, since the person who doesn't
follow it, wins. Believe me, this is HARD. It may seem obvious to you,
but it is NOT. Wars are fought over it.
Whatever moral code you have, imagine somebody who not only doesn't
follow it, or agree with it, but flaunts his alternate ideas and every
success he has with them. How do you coexist with this person ? This
is a moral question, and it defines who you are. It is no good to say
"morality is a personal matter". That's like saying, "automobile driving
behavior is a personal matter". It doesn't work on the road.
bb
|
| 20.7842 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Feb 05 1997 13:44 | 4 |
|
deja vu. bb used the same argument against Tommy a while back.
consistent anyway.
|
| 20.7843 | | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Wed Feb 05 1997 13:48 | 6 |
|
Hmmm.... maybe bb notes in the 'Box to make OJM seem thoughtful and
coherent?
kb
bwaaahaahhaaa <attempting self-restraint>
|
| 20.7844 | Pls ask the hospital staff to adjust your medication... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 05 1997 13:56 | 31 |
| RE: .7839 Rocush
> Smiley face aside, please identify how you made the illogical leap to
> people being arrested for their thoughts.
You made the leap yourself just now (and my comment followed from
your earlier leap):
"I have not made any assertion regarding the legality of anyone's
behavior or thoughts,"
Don't be stupid, Rocush. What I wrote was that our legal system is
*NOT* based on your moral code. Thank goodness.
"I have, however, commented upon the morality or lack thereof,
in the same."
Notice what you just wrote? You do consider some thoughts to be
immoral, apparently. So, if our legal system *was* based on your
moral code (where some thoughts can be considered to be in
violation of your code), some thoughts could be considered illegal.
It was a lighthearted comment on my part, but it was based on your
actual (nutty as hell) statements. :>
> And your are right. I do get quite light-headed and disoriented when
> reading your replies.
I'm glad you're able to hook up a laptop to the hospital phone lines
to dial into Soapbox today, but please tell the staff that they are
giving you far too many drugs.
|
| 20.7845 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:04 | 8 |
| By the way, Rocush, if we did adopt your moral code in our society,
we'd probably end up with far, far more violence than we have now.
Everyone would start a conversation with some nasty as hell comment
and people would end up killing each other far more than they do now.
This is another reason why your apparent moral code makes no sense.
|
| 20.7846 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:06 | 6 |
|
>people would end up killing each other far more than they do now
You mean killed people will be completely dead, rather than just
somewhat dead?
|
| 20.7847 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:07 | 3 |
| /Everyone would start a conversation with some nasty as hell comment
i've heard this happens in NYC a lot.
|
| 20.7848 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:07 | 1 |
| more deaderer.
|
| 20.7849 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:08 | 1 |
| They would kill each other early and often. (And repeatedly, I guess.) :>
|
| 20.7850 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:15 | 20 |
| Z People flock to churches for comfort when something bad happens.
Z It doesn't mean that they don't ordinarily go to church or turn
Z to God at other times in their lives.
True...but Christmas and Easter are two good examples. There is an
inclination to get religion when it is deemed convenient for said
person. This is likened to a husband who avoids the wife and children
throughout the year until he makes that one visit to appease his
conscience.
Z Would you rather that people do not turn to God for comfort when
Z they are upset? Would it be better to get drunk, pick up a
Z stranger for sex or drop a few thousand dollars in a poker game?
Certainly I would rather people turn to God...this is the ultimate
goal. But again, I find our subjective moral code today much like,
again, the man who abandons his family until it is no longer expedient.
This is a character indictment on society.
-Jack
|
| 20.7851 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:23 | 20 |
| RE: .7850 Jack
> True...but Christmas and Easter are two good examples. There is an
> inclination to get religion when it is deemed convenient for said
> person. This is likened to a husband who avoids the wife and children
> throughout the year until he makes that one visit to appease his
> conscience.
Jack, do you realize that you're still blasting people for going to
church? Sounds somewhat counter-productive.
> Certainly I would rather people turn to God...this is the ultimate
> goal. But again, I find our subjective moral code today much like,
> again, the man who abandons his family until it is no longer expedient.
When they do turn to God, though, you want to smack 'em for it. Right?
> This is a character indictment on society.
Society does not have a specific character. It's not a person.
|
| 20.7852 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:26 | 12 |
| .7844
Since you apparently are unable to reply to the note that is written,
further dialogue is useless.
You, once again, took a statment out of context, put your opinions and
assumptions on it, then said, "See how wrong your are". Until you are
able to reply to what is specifically written, without taking it out of
context, read-only would be a good option.
Alos, .7845 made no sense whatsoever.
|
| 20.7853 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:28 | 4 |
| /Alos, .7845 made no sense whatsoever.
^^^^
Alas?
|
| 20.7854 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:32 | 13 |
| Suzanne:
It is not meant to be communicated this way. Anybody is more than
welcome to worship or just listen at our church...as frequently as they
see fit. I'm making the comparison only as an indicator that people
are inclined toward God only during times of strife or during
holidays...much like we as a society take the high moral ground only
when it is necessary or expedient for our purposes.
And yes, I believe society as a whole can have a national character.
The attitudes are driven by ideology and tradition.
-Jack
|
| 20.7855 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Feb 05 1997 14:38 | 2 |
|
Jack, do you think when you type?
|
| 20.7856 | Your moral code makes no sense. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 05 1997 15:10 | 18 |
| RE: .7852 Rocush
> Since you apparently are unable to reply to the note that is written,
> further dialogue is useless.
Rocush, you are incapable of dialogue at all. You preach your code,
then tell everyone else to flock off if they don't like it.
This is the main reason why your moral code will never be accepted
in our society (nor should it be.)
> You, once again, took a statment out of context, put your opinions and
> assumptions on it, then said, "See how wrong your are". Until you are
> able to reply to what is specifically written, without taking it out of
> context, read-only would be a good option.
Don't bother writing notes if you can't handle being called on the
carpet for them.
|
| 20.7857 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Feb 05 1997 15:18 | 3 |
| Mark:
Stuff it!!
|
| 20.7858 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Feb 05 1997 15:20 | 2 |
|
gee, jack, a little touchy are we?
|
| 20.7859 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Feb 05 1997 15:21 | 1 |
| No....I'm just trying to get Glen to put in a swiney inuendo! :-)
|
| 20.7860 | third person | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Feb 05 1997 15:22 | 4 |
|
you mean piggy in his endo ?
bb
|
| 20.7861 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 05 1997 15:57 | 15 |
| .7837
I didn't say anything about most people's morality "slipping", I merely
stated that morality - what is considered acceptable behavior - has
changed in America. All Suzanne's attempts at refuting my notes deal
with what she percieves as me making a value judgement on this change
of morality. Though I certainly have my opinions on this, and have
expressed them in other notes, such is not my intent in this string.
Before you respond to this, let me say that the judgment I make on this
is simply that society's morality is not firm. This does not mean that
all individuals have a wishy-washy moral code, it simply means that
over time, what society accepts as okay behavior, has changed.
-steve
|
| 20.7862 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 05 1997 16:06 | 14 |
| | <<< Note 20.7861 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| Before you respond to this, let me say that the judgment I make on this
| is simply that society's morality is not firm. This does not mean that
| all individuals have a wishy-washy moral code, it simply means that
| over time, what society accepts as okay behavior, has changed.
Steve.... now you are admiting to a judgement of sorts. Before you
weren't at all.
You state that societies morality is not firm. You state that yours is.
Why wouldn't people think you are putting your morality ahead of most of
societies?
|
| 20.7863 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 05 1997 16:10 | 14 |
| .7845
So, you know what Mr. Rocush's moral code is, AND what would happen
should it be implemented into social morality?
You've gone beyond noting by ESP, to noting by prophesy... or is that
both in the same note? Then, you use these mystical assertions to make a
conclusion about his moral code.
I'm not sure whether to be awed by your mystical powers, or amused by the
methedology used to reach your conclusion.
-steve <still scratching head trying to find the relevance to your
note>
|
| 20.7864 | | BUSY::SLAB | Always a Best Man, never a groom | Wed Feb 05 1997 16:20 | 15 |
|
RE: .7802 and others
OK, it took me almost a day to figure out what I meant when I
stupidly said "the % is also increasing" and mathematically
disproved the statement at the same time. 8^)
Of course the % doesn't increase if the growth is linear. But
what does increase is the total number of homosexuals.
In .7793, Suzanne mentions that "many" should mean much more
than a 1-2% increase, and I'd guarantee that it's quite a bit
more than that. However, I still don't know what her starting
point is.
|
| 20.7865 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 05 1997 16:21 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.7863 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| So, you know what Mr. Rocush's moral code is, AND what would happen should it
| be implemented into social morality? You've gone beyond noting by ESP, to
| noting by prophesy... or is that both in the same note? Then, you use these
| mystical assertions to make a conclusion about his moral code.
Steve... funny you should write the above after saying what you did
about most other people's moral code.....
|
| 20.7866 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 05 1997 16:29 | 23 |
| .7862
Wrong. I said early on that I was making a judgement call - that
judgement was limited to saying that society's morality is not FIRM
(meaning it has changed over time). What I have yet to do in this
string is make a VALUE judgement regarding these changes. In fact, I've
gone out of my way NOT to make a value judgement in this string. The
truth of the matter is that if I were to place value judgements, we'd
even get farther off topic, as there have been both good and bad
changes, IMO.
I find it interesting that a few noters have considered this a value
judgement, especially when I specifically said that I'm not judgeing
such changes good or bad in this string. This points to a conclusion
that these noters consider a FIRM moral code superior (to use the very
word used against me) to a changing moral code. Now, as soon as folks
realize that Christianity is not the only firm moral foundation on
which we can base our behavior (it just happens to be my personal choice),
we may get past the "Steve is trying to flaunt his moral superiority"
non-sequitur.
-steve
|
| 20.7867 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 05 1997 16:32 | 28 |
| | <<< Note 20.7866 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| Wrong. I said early on that I was making a judgement call - that
| judgement was limited to saying that society's morality is not FIRM
| (meaning it has changed over time).
Steve.... do you think carrying on about the babe of the week on
Hercules means your moral code hasn't changed like you claim societies has? Be
real.
| What I have yet to do in this string is make a VALUE judgement regarding
| these changes.
Oh.... I agree. But if you read my reply you would have seen the words,
"Why wouldn't people", or something to that effect. It's easy to see why people
would think the way they do.
| realize that Christianity is not the only firm moral foundation on which we
| can base our behavior (it just happens to be my personal choice), we may get
| past the "Steve is trying to flaunt his moral superiority" non-sequitur.
Then how about if you mention some of these other areas? Then maybe
people will understand.
Glen
| -steve
|
| 20.7868 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 05 1997 16:49 | 32 |
| > Steve... funny you should write the above after saying what you did
>about most other people's moral code.....
Oh, and what did I say about most people's morality? That it changes
over time? Individually speaking, I don't think most people's morality
changes at a whim. Societally speaking, it has definitely changed over
time.
Could it be that since morals are being *viewed* more and more as a
personal thing, thus relative to the individual (in recent decades),
that as a society we have stopped trying to enforce (via social
pressure, laws, etc.) our old basis of morality? Without a firm social
foundation for these traditional behavioral morals, it is *natural* for
behaviors to change over time.
Your problem (and likely Suzanne's, too) is that you see me attacking
individuals by saying that society's morality is not firm. I'm doing
no such thing. Sure, society is made up of individuals, but we're
talking a span of generations, not single individuals. If you (and
others in this forum) can't make this distinction, I can understand why
my notes are being reacted to the way they have been over the last 300+
notes.
They key is that in each generation, an altered morality seems
to come to the forefront. Each generation in the last several have
found reasons to not follow the guidelines of the previous generation.
Over a few generations, this change in mindset has brought about a new
social morality to this nation, which includes acceptance of things
that just a few decades ago were considered quite immoral.
-steve
|
| 20.7869 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 05 1997 16:52 | 6 |
| .7867
Don't tell me my Hercules entries have whooshed you, too.
Oh, and I have mentioned other bases for morality outside of
Christianity... in this very string, in fact.
|
| 20.7870 | gimme that ole time religion. | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Feb 05 1997 16:55 | 67 |
| No, Steve, you have not made a value judgement as such, but even the
most casual reader will be left in no doubt that you value your firm,
unchanging, morality over the wishy-washy random meanderings of society
at large.
The non-casual reader will be well aware of your position that that
although the Founding Fathers took great pains not to favour any
specific religious moral tradition, they left many obvious references
to God and Christian values. According to your previous statements on
this, we should be in no doubt as to their religious intent, and the
wellspring of their morals and values. (Ignoring the minor fact that
they had a pretty varied background, from Atheist to Unitarian). If
that's true, then they simultaneously chose to ignore Christian moral
tradition (as I understand it) by only extending rights and liberties
to certain members of society.
Some argue that Christianity itself professed nothing on the topic of
slavery. On the other hand, the Jews had some fairly straightforward
things to say about it and it certainly was more in their moral
tradition to "let my people go". There is only so much you can render
unto Caesar before a tradition becomes a hollow sham. Converting a
person to Christianity while owning that person under the law was a
moral sham, unless you can morally justify ownership of a fellow
Christian as well as a fellow human being. Jefferson had no problem
with this, as did many other church-going, slave-owning professed
Christians all over the world at that time. Few do today.
If your contention is correct, then the specific tradition that you
hark back allowed (or even condoned) the existance of something that
many now consider to be highly immoral. Hundreds of years of
"immorality" that was condoned by the broader society under the
"Judeo-Christian" tradition until a moral change was wrought. It was
not a singular moral code of that worked this change - it was the
"consensus" moral code of broader society. The current rift between
white and black Christian churches exists because white Christianity in
the South historically opposed change or even condoned the immorality.
Therefore, I think you are off target on both counts. There is no
"unchanging" Judeo-Christian morality, and society itself can make
changes for the general good without the specific need for any specific
religious moral code - particularly when those religious moral codes
are deficient or resistant to change. Eventually, it was a diverse
collection of people - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheist, and others
who fought to to extend basic rights to all Americans from emancipation
to the civil rights movement.
The Founding Fathers did know where real threats to a diverse and
egalitarian society lie. Even though the majority may have
acknowledged one particualr moral code, they engineered a system of
checks and balances to ensure that no one faction could impose its
moral code on another. Because of that, this society (like most other
Western democracies) has to build a consensus code of morality. Right
now the consensus is that limited access to abortion does not offend
_current_ public standards of morality. That's not to say that it never
will, although the issue is nothing to do with any particular moral
code. In fact, the more you push your own particular morality, the
less chance of success you have because of the checks and balances
inherent in the system.
There is a huge amount of social value in the many traditions that make
up modern US culture. There's a lot of crap too. Pushing it as a set
of timeless norms that we can all live by today is simply not going to
work. Why not simply say that you want to maintain that which is
acceptable to all and shelve that which is not? And that doesn't mean
they Christianity gets to pick and choose as to what is moral and what
is immoral.
|
| 20.7871 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 05 1997 16:56 | 6 |
| .7856
Wrong, again. As usual.
Do rant on, however.
|
| 20.7872 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 05 1997 17:26 | 16 |
| .7870
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the issue of slavery and there
were discussions about it during the writing of the constitution. As
was said at the time, the issue of slavery laid like a serpent under
the desks. they all knew it was there, something needed to be done
about it but everyone was afraid to touch it.
The decision was made to leave it out as a specific item in order to
accomplish the greater purpose of forging a Union through the
constitution. The Founding Fathers made a political decision, not a
moral decision on the issue.
Does this infer that in regards to this issue that they left something
to be desired. Absolutely.
|
| 20.7873 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Feb 05 1997 17:28 | 3 |
| Well that's fine then. Abortion is also political decision, not a moral
one. End of argument. What's next?
|
| 20.7876 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 05 1997 17:32 | 32 |
| .7870
I agree with you in part. Our morality is a morality of consensus
(speaking of American society), and changes over time when said
consensus changes. In fact, this much I've been saying all along.
Even our historical morality (Judao/Christian) that most accepted was a
consensus of sorts. There has never been a time when all of American
society in general, strictly followed the moral code they claimed as
their own.
Where we part company is when you say that there is no firm
Judao/Christian moral code (if you are speaking of the code itself).
This code has not changed since its origin. The fact that many
misinterpret it or have conveniently ignored said code in "the good old
days", does not mean that the code itself is to blame.
In fact, the freeing of the slaves was a step TOWARDS alignment with
the very code we claimed to follow. But there are those who will use the
ills of the past to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and such
efforts have been greatly successful.
And yes, I do value my firm moral foundation. I also value other firm
moral foundations that do not succumb to social pressure, *as a way to
govern behavior*.
The problem in this string is that some people seem to read my religion
into my posts moreso than what is actually written.
-steve
|
| 20.7877 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Feb 05 1997 17:35 | 1 |
| Judeo Judeo Judeo Judeo
|
| 20.7878 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 05 1997 17:49 | 9 |
| RE: .7871 Rocush
> Wrong, again. As usual.
No dialogue at all, as usual. You simply do not have the capability.
You may actually have some human attributes somewhere, but if so,
you keep them well hidden.
|
| 20.7879 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:05 | 5 |
| .7878
Still wrong. Dialogue can only take place when intellectual honesty is
present. Out of context responses do not meet this requirement.
|
| 20.7880 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:06 | 3 |
| |Dialogue can only take place when intellectual honesty is present.
How can one determine this if the other is lying?
|
| 20.7881 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:12 | 20 |
| Re: .7841, bb
>But Tom, by your own words you are branding people who don't have the
>same moral code as you as immoral.
I don't think so. A person is not immoral if they are not using
unwanted force coersion or fraud against another individual. Likewise a
person is not immoral if they retaliate against unwanted force coersion
or fraud in self-defense.
Personal morality is based on the value one gets from his own conscious
life. Values exist only relative to life. Whatever benefits a living
organism is a value to that organism. Whatever harms a living organism is
a disvalue to that organism. The basic value against which all values are
measured is the conscious individual. Morals relate only to conscious
individuals. Immoral actions arise from individuals choosing to harm
others through force, fraud, deception, coercion, or from individuals
choosing to usurp, attack, or destroy values earned by others. Moral
actions arise from individuals choosing to benefit others by producing
values for them.
|
| 20.7882 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:14 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.7881 by SSDEVO::RALSTON "Goodbye, Feb 14th" >>>
| Personal morality is based on the value one gets from his own conscious life.
Only men have moral codes then?
|
| 20.7883 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:17 | 14 |
| RE: .7879 Rocush
> Still wrong. Dialogue can only take place when intellectual honesty is
> present. Out of context responses do not meet this requirement.
'Out of context' is just your lame excuse for not facing criticism
about specific things you've written that stand on their own.
When you claim that thoughts (as in, opinions on moral issues) can
be immoral themselves, this is one hell of a notion that can and
should be addressed on its own.
It's not out of context to do so. You just can't handle it when
this happens (which is your weakness.)
|
| 20.7884 | you can't have BOTH absolutes and relativity is all, Tom... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:23 | 14 |
|
But what if I disagree ? Sure, your morality might work fine between
those who hold it. But suppose your plane crashes among the remote
legpulla tribe in the jungle ? Among the legpulla, it is considered grossly
immoral, insulting, and offensive to tell the truth. This works fine
for them, although it has led to some convolutions in legpulla language,
and in legpulla courts, the witness swears that "nothing I say is true,
may I fall out of the tree".
From birth, all legpulla are taught to defraud each other with great
subtlety. Until rescue comes, how well do you suppose you would fare
among them, using Ralston morality ? I suspect, not well.
bb
|
| 20.7885 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:34 | 2 |
|
yet another, "my morals are better than your morals" string.
|
| 20.7886 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:38 | 16 |
| Re: .7882
>Only men have moral codes then?
The use of the word his is perfectly acceptable in this context as referring
to both sexes
.
Re: .7884
>Until rescue comes, how well do you suppose you would fare among them, using
>Ralston morality ? I suspect, not well.
This is a nonexistent problem for my individual life. Please explain how a
situation that I know nothing about and of which no one is asking me to be
involved can be judged as moral or immoral my me or anyone in my position.
|
| 20.7887 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:51 | 4 |
|
"I find your lack of faith, disturbing"
Darth Vader Lord of the Darkside
|
| 20.7888 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:55 | 1 |
| "I find your surplus of commas disturbing."
|
| 20.7889 | ok, i was being obtuse... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Feb 05 1997 18:56 | 15 |
|
A philosophy that only works for your individual life, isn't one.
But OK. In Soapbox, we have different rules about what is allowed than
they do in ::Digital. Do you change the way you note when you note in a
different file, to subcribe to what is customary there, or not ?
Pick out something you do, and suppose your fellow citizens, through
there representatives, outlawed it in the near future, as not compatible
with their society. How would you react ? Change ? Defy them ? Attempt
to organize in protest ? Flee ?
The purpose of thought is action. What does your philosophy make you DO ?
bb
|
| 20.7890 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Feb 05 1997 19:00 | 8 |
| > <<< Note 20.7889 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Champagne Supernova" >>>
> The purpose of thought is action.
hoho. good thing it doesn't always work out that way.
i would be in serious trouble.
|
| 20.7891 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Wed Feb 05 1997 19:01 | 1 |
| Me too! I'd still be stuck in that toilet today!
|
| 20.7892 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Feb 05 1997 19:01 | 3 |
|
gerald, this means war. light sabers will be the weapon. choose
your color.
|
| 20.7893 | but of course | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Feb 05 1997 19:04 | 11 |
|
Lady Di, every organism, even those like the starfish or the bacterium,
with no brain, must every moment answer the question, "What should I do
next ?" Unlike the computer, which originated from processing strings
into other strings, biological units began as servo-mechanisms, to control
themselves and what's around them. What should I do next ?
Philosophies only matter to the extent that they suggest alternative
answers to that question. Otherwise, you can pass them by.
bb
|
| 20.7894 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Feb 05 1997 19:21 | 6 |
|
.7893 You're very wise and nearly always right, bb, imo.
But often the purpose of thought is inaction, which
is equally important, I find. ;> That's all I meant.
|
| 20.7895 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Wed Feb 05 1997 19:24 | 2 |
| But if you decided not to do something, you've done something even
though it didn't seem that way.
|
| 20.7896 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Feb 05 1997 19:26 | 4 |
|
they get very Zen-like up in Canada, when they're not busy pandering
to Nazi war criminals.
|
| 20.7897 | yes inaction is often the wisest action... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Wed Feb 05 1997 19:32 | 12 |
|
of course, you're right...the more thoughtful among us sometimes seem
the least active...perhaps the heart cannot support vigorous activities
and deep thought simultaneously...as exercise people seem to shut down
the brain for a while. Some activities are so elemental that the brain
is a hindrance to success, like digging a hole in the hot sun.
It comes down to this, really (as Colin said much better) : Steve Leech
loses, because he hasn't got the votes. He is probably right, that at
some past time in our history, "Right to Life" WOULD have had the votes.
bb
|
| 20.7898 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 05 1997 20:09 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.7886 by SSDEVO::RALSTON "Goodbye, Feb 14th" >>>
| >Only men have moral codes then?
| The use of the word his is perfectly acceptable in this context as referring
| to both sexes
| .
I don't agree.
|
| 20.7899 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Wed Feb 05 1997 20:19 | 12 |
| >Pick out something you do, and suppose your fellow citizens, through
>there representatives, outlawed it in the near future, as not
>compatible with their society. How would you react ? Change ? Defy
>them ? Attempt to organize in protest ? Flee ?
Find the loophole. There is always a loophole. Politicians aren't smart
enough to close them all and second they always keep a few open for
themselves to use.
Seriously, give me a real, not fabricated, situation. I can explain how
I would react to that real situation, staying within the bounds of my
philosophy. I'm nothing if not consistent.
|
| 20.7900 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Wed Feb 05 1997 20:22 | 5 |
| >Philosophies only matter to the extent that they suggest alternative
>answers to that question. Otherwise, you can pass them by.
I disagree. Man, unlike every other animal, has developed the ability
to think conceptually as opposed to only preceptually.
|
| 20.7901 | | BUSY::SLAB | Antisocial | Wed Feb 05 1997 20:25 | 5 |
|
RE: .7898
Much better than "them", isn't it?
|
| 20.7902 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 05 1997 20:30 | 4 |
|
| Much better than "them", isn't it?
It has nothing to do with the word, "them". :-)
|
| 20.7903 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Wed Feb 05 1997 20:58 | 3 |
| I think it is acceptable usage, in the English language, to use him in
a sentence as a gender neutral term. I'm sure that Di could help on
this one.
|
| 20.7904 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 05 1997 22:05 | 3 |
|
For many, yes... it is. But I still disagree with the term.
|
| 20.7905 | | EVMS::MORONEY | UHF Computers | Wed Feb 05 1997 22:21 | 5 |
| It's kind of silly to disagree if it's correct, isn't it?
I don't agree with the spelling of words with "ough" in them, like "tough".
It is confusing. But I wouldn't respond to a note using such a word complaining
about the spelling.
|
| 20.7906 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 05 1997 22:38 | 5 |
|
| It's kind of silly to disagree if it's correct, isn't it?
I don't think it is correct... although I'm told I need a dictionary,
too!
|
| 20.7907 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Thu Feb 06 1997 01:34 | 12 |
|
>| The use of the word his is perfectly acceptable in this context as referring
>| to both sexes
| .
> I don't agree.
I'm shocked!
|
| 20.7908 | need data | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Thu Feb 06 1997 11:23 | 33 |
|
I don't know your life, Tom. If you never do much, you won't get
into much trouble, no matter what your philosophy is. So, it's a no-op.
That's why I asked about NOTES files with different rules. Here, we allow
much more than other places. If you enterred a note somewhere which you
thought unobjectionable, and they remove it as contrary to their policy,
and you disagree with that, what is your response ?
OK, I'll guess you're an engineer. In engineering, one often has to
make what I consider "ethical", if not "moral" decisions. Can you imagine
resigning a lucrative engineering position to go to one less lucrative,
because you were uncomfortable particpating in a project whose ethics
you doubt ? Clue : I did this. My sister, a lawyer, did the same,
deliberately lowering her income forever, rather than feel bad about
what she did. But we both felt a real moral dilemma about this : we have
dependents, people we have made an implicit promise and commitment to,
whose options in life would be curtailed by our ethical choices.
The proof is in the pudding - it is in the DIFFICULT ethical or moral
choices that a philosophy shows its merit or lack thereof. Have you
ever faced a real moral dilemma - case where you saw validity in BOTH
sides of a decision ? I suspect that for pregnant single women, this
topic can often pose such a moral dilemma, which may be simple or complex,
depending on the circumstances. Which is how we got to this rat-hole.
And do you recognize any rights belonging to the society you are in ?
If not, do you accept the amenities that society provides, without
performing the duties and responsibilities it expects of you, and do
you see THAT as an ethical dilemma ? Tell me how you think your stated
philosophy has come to your assistance in making real decisions. Otherwise
it's a stale exercise, isn't it ?
bb
|
| 20.7909 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Feb 06 1997 12:10 | 3 |
| >I don't agree with the spelling of words with "ough" in them, like "tough".
Tuff!
|
| 20.7910 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 06 1997 12:24 | 11 |
| .7883
Please identify where I stated, exactly, that thoughts can be immoral.
Although I believe such can be the case, I did not make that claim.
I believe, if you do not take things out of context, that a person's
thoughts affect their actions or behaviors, and lend support to other's
behavior.
Correcting your errors is really getting tiring.
|
| 20.7911 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 06 1997 13:47 | 32 |
| RE: .7910 Rocush
> Please identify where I stated, exactly, that thoughts can be immoral.
> Although I believe such can be the case, I did not make that claim.
No need at all to identify your statements about this since you admitted
it just now (above.)
Besides, every time I quote your words directly, you claim that such
a quote constitutes something being taken 'out of context'.
> I believe, if you do not take things out of context, that a person's
> thoughts affect their actions or behaviors, and lend support to other's
> behavior.
If you were a real person, I'd ask you how someone's private thoughts
(i.e., personal opinions) conducted in the sanctity of ones own mind
can be described as lending support to someone else's behavior.
I mean, who's keeping score on what goes on inside a specific
individual's head (such that the person ought to feel that his or
her opinions about others' behaviors could be considered immoral?)
But, I won't ask these things since you don't have the capability
of human interaction.
> Correcting your errors is really getting tiring.
Your lame excuses for not responding to direct comments on your
notes is getting more than tiring.
Hope your self-inflicted gun wounds are healing nicely, by the way.
|
| 20.7912 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 06 1997 13:54 | 8 |
| .7911
It's nice to see that youa re still missing or ignoring the
relationship I have drawn between thoughts and actions. I realize it
is a complex concept and that is why you may keep missing it, although
I doubt that's the case. Or do you really believe that one's thoughts
does not have any affect on their actions or speech?
|
| 20.7913 | You shot yourself again.Don't hospitals have policies about guns? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 06 1997 14:07 | 36 |
| RE: .7912 Rocush
> It's nice to see that youa re still missing or ignoring the
> relationship I have drawn between thoughts and actions.
Earlier, you made a huge distinction between someone regarding
actions as being 'ok' and actually engaging in those actions
when I confronted Steve with questions about whether or not most
Americans are now gay (since our culture is far more accepting
of homosexuality now.) You mentioned abortion specifically as
another example of so many people accepting that it's 'ok' without
actually having abortions.
I'd quote you directly, but we know where that would lead
(and I'm not interested in watching you burst into tears again.)
> I realize it is a complex concept and that is why you may keep missing
> it, although I doubt that's the case.
It's obviously way too complex for you to handle the idea that
thoughts exist on their own. It's easy enough to regard some
specific thoughts as dangerous (and capable of leading to immoral
actions), but the concept of regarding the thoughts themselves
as immoral because they can affect behavior is bizarre, IMO.
> Or do you really believe that one's thoughts
> does not have any affect on their actions or speech?
Do you want to go back to the discussion about whether an acceptance
of homosexuality makes an entire population start to lean more towards
being gay?
Do you believe that an acceptance of homosexuality affects heterosexual
people enough to be in danger of becoming gay?
(Personally, I don't. My heterosexuality is not by choice.)
|
| 20.7914 | More data always needed. | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Thu Feb 06 1997 14:28 | 29 |
| Re: .7908
>If you enterred a note somewhere which you thought unobjectionable, and
>they remove it as contrary to their policy, and you disagree with that,
>what is your response ?
If they removed it as contrary to their policy I would make my case, if I
felt it worth my time, which it probably wouldn't be.
>Can you imagine resigning a lucrative engineering position to go to one
>less lucrative, because you were uncomfortable particpating in a project
>whose ethics you doubt ?
Been there, done that. However, outside of this contract job at Digital I
control the philosophy/ethical behavior of my companies.
>And do you recognize any rights belonging to the society you are in ?
"Society" is a term created by individuals. It is not an entity unto itself.
Therefore, IMO it has no rights. I choose to live in society. I function
by the rules set forth because I choose too. Once that freedom of choice is
removed by political policy and force, totalitarianism is the result.
Totalitarianism eventually leads to the destruction of the individual,
hence the "society".
>Tell me how you think your stated philosophy has come to your assistance
>in making real decisions.
My business is thriving.
|
| 20.7915 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 06 1997 15:09 | 22 |
| .7913
I see you didn't answer my question, but I really didn't think you would. It
does, however, get to the heart of the matter.
If someone's thoughts form the basis of their opinions and hence their
attitudes towrd a particular behavior, and that behavior is considered
immoral, please explain how one does not tie to the other.
Quaite a long time ago, there was a case regarding a person anmed Kitty
Genovese who was attacked and murderedi n New York.. Numerous people
heard her screams and actually saw what was happening. Not one person
did anything including calling the police. this event began a
discussion regarding the American character.
Now all of these people claimed that they were opposed to violence, but
their actions, or inaction, served as a clear message that people
aren't going to do anything about violence. these people< I'm sure,
would say they have a strong moral code that opposes murder and
attacks, but their thoughts, that affect their actions, are to do
nothing to stop it.
|
| 20.7916 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 06 1997 17:54 | 49 |
| RE: .7915 Rocush
> I see you didn't answer my question, but I really didn't think you
> would.
You're back on the heavy drugs at the hospital again, I see.
Enjoy...
> If someone's thoughts form the basis of their opinions and hence their
> attitudes towrd a particular behavior, and that behavior is considered
> immoral, please explain how one does not tie to the other.
As I wrote earlier (which you missed in your stupor, I guess) was
that certain thoughts could certainly be considered dangerous, but
thoughts are distinct in themselves. They are not actions. Whatever
a person may think, it changes nothing if they do not act upon these
thoughts.
Before you do something really stupid like trying to argue that the
problem involves *acting upon the thoughts*, let me smack you upside
the head for a second so that you read my words very, very clearly:
Thoughts change nothing if a person does not act upon them.
> Quaite a long time ago, there was a case regarding a person anmed Kitty
> Genovese who was attacked and murderedi n New York.. Numerous people
> heard her screams and actually saw what was happening. Not one person
> did anything including calling the police. this event began a
> discussion regarding the American character.
> Now all of these people claimed that they were opposed to violence, but
> their actions, or inaction, served as a clear message that people
> aren't going to do anything about violence. these people< I'm sure,
> would say they have a strong moral code that opposes murder and
> attacks, but their thoughts, that affect their actions, are to do
> nothing to stop it.
As I recall, these individuals stated that they did not want to become
involved. They didn't consciously and purposefully allow a woman to die
- in fact, they all probably thought someone else would call the police.
Not wanting to get involved had tragic results, but was it immoral (I'm
talking about the **thought** of not wanting to get involved itself.)
Of course not. Thoughts are not actions.
In this case, these individuals took a type of 'action' on their thoughts
by refraining from calling the police. It was sad, shocking and very
tragic - but should those individuals be judged as immoral? Only God
is wise enough to make that call. (You're not!)
|
| 20.7917 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Thu Feb 06 1997 18:38 | 3 |
|
you know, if suzanne and al didn't live 2,000 miles apart, i'd swear
they have a thing for each other.
|
| 20.7918 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 06 1997 18:46 | 31 |
| .7916
Thank you for slowing beginning to prove my point for me. My
contention initially, and still is, that thoughts precede actions ot
inactions. How a person thinks and feels about a particular issue
determines how one will respond to that issue. And how one responds
determines whether there is more or less of a particular issue.
the initial point was that one does not have to partake in an activity
to bring one's moral code into question. By actively supporting
immoral activity, or doing nothing to reduce it, speaks volumes about a
moral code.
Now follow along with this because this will get tricky as thought and
not emotion will be required. Assume abortion is considered immoral as
it was not all that long ago. Now enter my man again. A man can not
have an abortion, at least to the best of my biological knowledge. He
believed abortion to be immoral based on his moral code. As societal
pressure built and more and more people challenged him, since he can't
get pregnant anyway, he then takes an "I don't care" attitude. this
now leads to more people adopting the same attiude.
The initial act never changed. the morality of the initial act never
changed. What changed is the thought about the act and this person's
action or inaction regarding the act.
Remember, thoughts precede actions. thoughts in a vaccuum don't
matter. It's like the question about a tree falling in the forest and
no one hearing it, does it make a sound. Who cares. Unless there is
an action the thought may or may not have taken place.
|
| 20.7919 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 06 1997 18:47 | 6 |
|
.7917
Remember Mark, I do live quite close to you. that is a very dangerous
thing to say.
|
| 20.7920 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 06 1997 19:20 | 77 |
| RE: .7918 Rocush
>> Before you do something really stupid like trying to argue that the
>> problem involves *acting upon the thoughts*, let me smack you upside
>> the head for a second so that you read my words very, very clearly:
>> Thoughts change nothing if a person does not act upon them.
> Thank you for slowing beginning to prove my point for me. My
> contention initially, and still is, that thoughts precede actions or
> inactions.
You couldn't stop from doing something really stupid even after my
warning, I see. Figures. :>
> How a person thinks and feels about a particular issue determines
> how one will respond to that issue. And how one responds
> determines whether there is more or less of a particular issue.
So if most people in America think and feel that homosexuality is
okay, then they'll be willing to engage in homosexual sex if/when
the opportunity arises (so to speak)? Of course not.
> the initial point was that one does not have to partake in an activity
> to bring one's moral code into question. By actively supporting
> immoral activity, or doing nothing to reduce it, speaks volumes about a
> moral code.
On your planet, maybe.
A person's thoughts alone do not determine morality or immorality.
Thoughts are not actions.
> Now follow along with this because this will get tricky as thought and
> not emotion will be required. Assume abortion is considered immoral as
> it was not all that long ago. Now enter my man again. A man can not
> have an abortion, at least to the best of my biological knowledge. He
> believed abortion to be immoral based on his moral code. As societal
> pressure built and more and more people challenged him, since he can't
> get pregnant anyway, he then takes an "I don't care" attitude. this
> now leads to more people adopting the same attiude.
Try to follow THIS, Rocush - I realize that you regard people
who disagree with you as mindless sheep who are incapable of forming
their own opinions without being subject to society's domination,
but I've never had a discussion with a pro-choice man or woman who
hadn't thought the issue through on his or her own. I distinctly
remember the thought process I went through when I considered this
issue. It wasn't societal pressure - it was a complete thought
process (with consideration given to both sides.)
> The initial act never changed. the morality of the initial act never
> changed. What changed is the thought about the act and this person's
> action or inaction regarding the act.
If the person only changed his opinion about abortion (and did not act
upon this opinion in any way), his thoughts as an individual changed
absolutely nothing.
I do realize that you will judge him harshly anyway (as if you thought
you were God), but that's your problem, not his.
> Remember, thoughts precede actions. thoughts in a vaccuum don't
> matter. It's like the question about a tree falling in the forest and
> no one hearing it, does it make a sound. Who cares. Unless there is
> an action the thought may or may not have taken place.
This is what I've been trying to tell YOU, Rocush. Thoughts change
absolutely nothing unless a person acts upon them (which means that
thoughts themselves are not immoral.)
Now, you'll probably take my position as your own and call me some
horrible name in the process (while you deny profusely that you've
stolen my position.)
Your moral code isn't strong enough to keep you from behaving this
way, but so what. It's just the way you are, and I don't care.
|
| 20.7921 | Do you regard political BELIEFS (thoughts) to be moral/immoral? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 06 1997 19:49 | 9 |
| Rocush, let's presume for a minute that you were thinking of other
possible behaviors (other than engaging in homosexual sex or having
an abortion) that might be influenced by thoughts.
Let's say someone decides to vote for a political candidate who
supports gay rights (or abortion rights.)
Would you consider it immoral to vote for such a candidate?
|
| 20.7922 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 06 1997 20:42 | 15 |
| .7921
You still don't get it. My original position was, and still is, that
thoughts precede actions. Until those thoughts result in an action or
inaction, the thoughts don't matter. You were the one who raised the
entire issue of the thought alone being the issue. YOu attempte dto
make this my position when you said I would have people arrested for
their thoughts.
to answer your specific question, a person can have whatever thoughts
they want until they use those thoughts to frame an action. In your
specific example, without additional information, a simple yes or no is
not possible. the thing to keep in mind is that the action of voting
now makes the thought, or belief, an action.
|
| 20.7923 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 06 1997 22:12 | 65 |
| RE: .7922 Rocush
> You still don't get it. My original position was, and still is, that
> thoughts precede actions. Until those thoughts result in an action or
> inaction, the thoughts don't matter.
Therefore, thoughts themselves are not immoral. It's the actions that
are moral or immoral. This has been MY position all along.
> You were the one who raised the entire issue of the thought alone
> being the issue. YOu attempte dto make this my position when you
> said I would have people arrested for their thoughts.
Actually, what I said was that if we had a legal system based on
your moral code, people could be arrested for their thoughts
(since your moral code considers some thoughts to be immoral.)
Now, you seem to be claiming that thoughts are only immoral
if they lead to actions - so, under your moral code, our legal
system could arrest people for crimes and add their thoughts
as additional charges against them (so they'd still pay a legal
penalty for thinking, but not until those thoughts were followed
by actions.)
If you truly believed that thoughts themselves are not immoral,
all you had to say was that *thoughts* are not immoral. Instead,
you said (several notes back):
"Please identify where I stated, exactly, that thoughts can be
immoral. Although I believe such can be the case, I did not make
that claim."
Look - this should simple enough, even for you, Rocush. If "actions"
make the difference between being moral or not moral, then you don't
need to make the thoughts immoral retroactively. Thoughts are not
action (as I've told you many times now) - it's the actions that can
be moral or immoral. Thoughts are just thoughts, whether you act on
them later or not.
> to answer your specific question, a person can have whatever thoughts
> they want until they use those thoughts to frame an action.
Oh really... Once s/he frames an action, s/he isn't allowed to have
thoughts anymore? :> Who enforces this rule?
Don't tell me I'm taking you 'out of context' again - saying that
people 'can have whatever thoughts they want UNTIL...' stands on
its own as being a pretty preposterous notion.
If it's the ACTIONS that matter, then they stand on their own as
being moral or immoral. The thoughts will never be more than
thoughts, no matter what happens later.
> In your specific example, without additional information, a simple
> yes or no is not possible. the thing to keep in mind is that the
> action of voting now makes the thought, or belief, an action.
So, voting (as an action!!) could be judged as moral or immoral,
depending on who a person chooses for their vote (and depending
on some other information which would help you decide if a
specific candidate vote is immoral or not...)
If a particular vote could be considered immoral, then I have to
wonder if a legal system based on your moral code could arrest
people for their choices in the voting booth...
|
| 20.7924 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | Goodbye, Feb 14th | Thu Feb 06 1997 22:21 | 5 |
| All all know, I agree that thoughts are amoral (even if followed by an
action). Only actions alone can be judged as moral or immoral. I will
also add that actions are only immoral if they involve unwanted force,
coersion or fraud. Actions between two concenting adults, no matter how
sick they seem to be to other individuals, are never immoral.
|
| 20.7925 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Thu Feb 06 1997 22:42 | 17 |
| RE: .7923
> Now, you seem to be claiming that thoughts are only immoral
> if they lead to actions - so, under your moral code, our legal
> system could arrest people for crimes and add their thoughts
> as additional charges against them (so they'd still pay a legal
> penalty for thinking, but not until those thoughts were followed
> by actions.)
Actually, our current legal system does take thoughts into account --
specifically in the category of hate crimes. Smash someone over the
head with a baseball bat and you will have one set of charges brought
against you. Smash a person over the head with a baseball bat because
of their race or sexual orientation and you will have additional
charges brought against you.
-- Dave
|
| 20.7926 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 06 1997 23:29 | 23 |
| RE: .7925 Dave
> Actually, our current legal system does take thoughts into account --
> specifically in the category of hate crimes. Smash someone over the
> head with a baseball bat and you will have one set of charges brought
> against you. Smash a person over the head with a baseball bat because
> of their race or sexual orientation and you will have additional
> charges brought against you.
Yeah, I was thinking about this awhile ago myself - 'premeditated'
murder is another example. The crime has a harsher penalty because
of the thought involved with the crime.
However, hate crimes and premeditated murders are still about
the nature of the actions. Does someone smash another person
over the head with a special malice that is present because of
the person's race or sexual orientation? Does someone kill
a person as the result of a specific decision and/or a plan?
In our legal system, they are regarded as being more insidious
than just aiming a bat or a knife at someone. I think it's the
*intention* of the actions that make them more serious, rather
than trying to enforce a penalty for having certain thoughts.
|
| 20.7926 | Not thoughts so much, but rather intent - don't you think? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 07 1997 03:34 | 3 |
| Dave, the intention behind the crime does play a role in our
current legal system's prosecution of certain offenses.
|
| 20.7927 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 07 1997 11:45 | 12 |
| You cannot separate thought from intent, in this case.
And as far as thoughts being immoral or not... it depends. If you
believe the Bible, then in many instances thoughts - when dwelled upon
- can indeed be immoral.
"I say to you, even if you look at your neighbors wife with desire, you
have committed adultery with her." [paraphrased]
This should keep Suzanne going for another 100 notes or so. 8^) I
eagerly await to see how this will be used against my argument - even
though this is certainly not a part of my original point.
|
| 20.7928 | "your business" says it all... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Feb 07 1997 12:08 | 37 |
|
re, Tom - the telling comment in your last reply to me, is your
reference to "your business". I keep forgetting this. Many here,
including me, never had or wanted a business, still don't, and never
will. I often find communication with folks whose situations are
unlike mine to be fraught with dangers of misunderstandings, not so
much from different language, as from different assumptions.
And part of that difference of circumstance comes out as a philosophical
difference, when really it's more one of perception. For example, to me
a standalone computer is furniture : computers must interact to matter.
And none of the biggest accomplishments or failures of my life were the
results of the behavior of individuals. In every case, I've been a part
of giant operations beyond the ken of any single person. Never had an
employer with less than 10,000 employees. I think in terms of teams, and
never consider humans as anything but a gregarious, social species.
But of course, it's not necessarily so. While a single computer engineer,
no matter how brilliant, has NO chance of creating a competitive machine
today, that is not true of a lone dentist, a lone artist, or in a less
mature field, a lone crackpot inventor, all of whom can compete alone in
their more solitary disciplines. Just a career choice.
This, I don't think of myself as "competing" with my fellow DEC employees,
and often, I find the "economic assumptions" model of lone autonomous
rational economic humans as a myth created by economists, to keep their
models and theories tractable. It does not explain my individual behavior.
I keep forgetting that there is another world of small business, totally
foreign to us organization men.
Thus, our differences may be differences of observation point. To me, there
is nothing threatening about a "society". I can't imagine life without
one, and don't want to. The dynamics of societies, and how they achieve
results autonomous individuals could not (from the pyramids of Egypt to
the man on the moon) interest me intensely. But your mileage varies.
bb
|
| 20.7929 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 07 1997 13:05 | 42 |
| The questions about the potential for thoughts to be immoral or
not (IMO) comes down to whether or not the thought process falls
into the realm of actions/behavior that could/should be guided
by a moral code.
It's easy to see that some moral codes might regard it as immoral
to hold opinions that certain behaviors are moral (when the code
says they are not moral), even if the opinion holders never engage
in the behavior at all throughout their lives.
Also, it's pretty much a given that it's possible for some moral
codes to regard certain political positions as immoral, which
would make voting for politicians who hold these positions an
immoral vote.
One other thing is that 'strong moral code' seems to be defined
as 'one just like mine' (or 'one very similar to mine') by those
who hold some moral codes. It's evident in the examples given
which describe people holding certain opinions or refusing to take
certain actions as being individuals who shouldn't really claim
a strong moral code (when their opinions and actions don't follow
what the person describing them would think or do.)
Meanwhile, we still have no evidence at all that most/many of the
people in our culture conduct their private lives with morals that
are mandated (on a changing basis) by our society. Those interested
in setting the morals of our society might find it easy to describe
"others" (those who don't follow their code) as being immoral sheep
until they become willing to toe the line for THE (or for ONE of the)
moral codes that these folks find acceptable.
It may be sold as a struggle between good and evil in our society,
but (IMO) it's really a struggle for control. In our society, people
who live honest, forthright lives are not regarded as being immoral for
refusing to judge some others harshly for their private sexual lives
(conducted between consenting adults.) Some promoters of certain
moral codes would like to change the moral standards in this country
by going after those who don't *engage* in certain behaviors, but
who accept them as "ok" (so that pressure can be brought to bear on
those who do engage in the behaviors.)
Personally, I don't think these efforts will work. But who knows... :>
|
| 20.7930 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 07 1997 13:52 | 45 |
| You still take an all or nothing approach to societal morality,
Suzanne. SOME morals ARE mandated by society. For instance, murder
and theft are illegal, both punishable offenses. Who gives society teh
right to overrule someone's personal moral code that says these things
are okay? You see, in some instances, morality is dictated - at least
when it comes to acting out on a certain morality that goes against
that of society's.
Other, less obvious things do change over time. Not due to societal
mandate so much as to social change - a change in mindset, if you will.
This change in mindset does indeed have a general impact upon the
morality of society... once something is no longer viewed as immoral,
then old social stigmas/laws go away, and the behavior comes out into
the open. Once in the open and accepted (in general) via society by
social pressure or laws, then this newly accepted behavior becomes a
part of that society's morality. It does not mean that each individual
has this morality, or that each individual accepts it, just that on
broader social terms, said behavior becomes acceptable.
What we are seeing today are basically two groups (with a large third
group sitting in apathetic inaction, for the most part) fighting for
certain standards. One group fights for a firm moral foundation, based
upon traditional standards. The other group pushes for freedom for
individual moral codes to coexist equally within this society -
promoting, by default, no actual behavioral guidelines.
The problem with the first group is that some get too involved in their
own personal morality. They try to implement doctrine into law, rather
than the basic behavioral guidelines that the whole society would
benefit from (not that dogma itself is bad, or unuseful, but dogma
belongs in church).
The problem with the second group is that they do not understand that
in order for a society to function, it needs relevant and firm behavioral
guidelines - not situation ethics nor moral relativism.
The problem with the third group is obvious, and need not be expanded
upon.
The fact remains that if the mindset of a society changes, so does its
moral values. This is exactly what has happened over the last several
decades.
-steve
|
| 20.7931 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 07 1997 14:16 | 12 |
|
Steve... you say your morals are firm. Does this mean they never
change? If this is true, then it would appear that you also have a view that
morals are all or nothing. And this might be what Sue is referring to.
Of course if your morals change like you say many other peoples do,
then you're in the same boat as the rest of us.
Glen
|
| 20.7932 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 07 1997 14:50 | 20 |
| When I wrote this:
Meanwhile, we still have no evidence at all that most/many of the
people in our culture conduct their private lives with morals that
******************************************************************
are mandated (on a changing basis) by our society. Those interested
*************************************************
in setting the morals of our society might find it easy to describe
"others" (those who don't follow their code) as being immoral sheep
until they become willing to toe the line for THE (or for ONE of the)
moral codes that these folks find acceptable.
I wasn't referring to behaviors which can be prosecuted by law.
Obviously, if something is against the law, society does have a mandate
about the behavior.
I was referring to the legal ways people conduct their private lives.
We have no evidence that many/most people look to society to decide
whether something in their private (legal) lives is moral or immoral.
|
| 20.7933 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 07 1997 14:51 | 22 |
| No Glen, I didn't say my morals are firm. I said my moral code is
firm... there is a difference. I am not perfect at following my moral
code, but that is not the fault of the code itself. But since I have a
firm guide, I do know right from wrong, and won't try to rationalize
wrongful actions as acceptable.
For instance, if I get mad and say the dreaded f-word, it does not mean
that my moral code says this is okay. I can try to rationalize it as
"so and so/something *made* me mad", causing me to swear; but in truth
this is nothing more than a rationalization. There is not a single
person or event that can MAKE me react badly, the reaction is of my own
volition. I, personally, am responsible for this reaction - not the
other person or event.
Now, in today's society, such a statement of "he made me do that" seems
an accepted theme in everyday life. It's a misnomer, of course, but
it's also a way to rationalize away personal responsibility for one's
actions. This is just one very generic and simple example of how
mindset affects morality.
-steve
|
| 20.7934 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 07 1997 15:35 | 92 |
| RE: .7930 Steve
> This change in mindset does indeed have a general impact upon the
> morality of society... once something is no longer viewed as immoral,
> then old social stigmas/laws go away, and the behavior comes out into
> the open. Once in the open and accepted (in general) via society by
> social pressure or laws, then this newly accepted behavior becomes a
> part of that society's morality. It does not mean that each individual
> has this morality, or that each individual accepts it, just that on
> broader social terms, said behavior becomes acceptable.
You say that the "behavior comes out into the open" (because old social
stigmas go away.)
Personally, I think society is healthier when we acknowledge what's
really happening, rather than use pointy fingers and scarlet letters
to push people into hiding. A lot of people (especially children)
are harmed needlessly when many in our society make a point of giving
the 'stink eye' to people in certain situations.
> What we are seeing today are basically two groups (with a large third
> group sitting in apathetic inaction, for the most part) fighting for
> certain standards.
This supports my statement that the people of some moral codes are
'going after' those who do not commit the so-called immoral behaviors
(objectionable to the moral codes) but accept the behaviors as 'ok'.
The moral-code folks see this middle group as being 'sheep' who can
be bullied into taking a different stand if the moral-code people
yell and insult them long enough. :>
Ironically, it's this hostility for the large 'middle group' that
makes it impossible for the moral-code people to push their code
successfully in our society. They alienate the very people whose
support they need to change society's moral standards.
> One group fights for a firm moral foundation, based upon traditional
> standards.
They fight against (and insult) the large middle group who will ultimately
decide society's moral standards. They fight against (and insult) the
other group, too, of course.
> The other group pushes for freedom for individual moral codes to coexist
> equally within this society - promoting, by default, no actual
> behavioral guidelines.
It isn't 'all or nothing' (either accept the moral code of the group
pushing for so-called traditional standards, or you have no moral
code at all.)
A lot of people in this country want the privacy to make their own
(legal) moral decisions without being subjected to discrimination,
pointy fingers or stigmas about it. This is an extremely reasonable
request.
Society does not benefit by disenfranchising groups of people based
on petty forays into their private (legal) lives. While I realize
that the moral-code crowd has a long list of reasons why everyone
ought to jump on these groups, the reasons still come across as
having the promotion of the moral code as the prime objective (so
the middle group will not go along with the moral-code crowd.)
> The problem with the first group is that some get too involved in their
> own personal morality. They try to implement doctrine into law, rather
> than the basic behavioral guidelines that the whole society would
> benefit from (not that dogma itself is bad, or unuseful, but dogma
> belongs in church).
They have other problems, too. :>
> The problem with the second group is that they do not understand that
> in order for a society to function, it needs relevant and firm behavioral
> guidelines - not situation ethics nor moral relativism.
The first group too often characterizes the other two groups in ways that
make these other groups sound stupid, gullible or evil. This is the
main reason why the first group won't ever win their quest.
> The problem with the third group is obvious, and need not be expanded
> upon.
"The sheep", eh? :>
> The fact remains that if the mindset of a society changes, so does its
> moral values. This is exactly what has happened over the last several
> decades.
If you can characterize society as having values at all, it's the
values of the majority that you're describing. If you attack and
insult the majority to try to change the values they hold, you
won't change their minds about it. You will lose.
|
| 20.7935 | 8^) | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Fri Feb 07 1997 15:37 | 3 |
|
ARE YOU DONE CORRECTING THAT ONE YET?!
|
| 20.7936 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Fri Feb 07 1997 15:40 | 3 |
|
;-)
|
| 20.7937 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Fri Feb 07 1997 15:41 | 2 |
|
Abortion, people, Abortion i thank you.
|
| 20.7938 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 07 1997 15:42 | 5 |
|
Yes, the final release of reply .7934 is now available for reading.
The FT versions had problems. :>
|
| 20.7939 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 07 1997 16:07 | 20 |
| | <<< Note 20.7933 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| I do know right from wrong, and won't try to rationalize wrongful actions as
| acceptable.
Then all this lusting you do over the Hercules women you realize is
going against your moral code, right? And that you shouldn't be doing it?
| Now, in today's society, such a statement of "he made me do that" seems
| an accepted theme in everyday life.
Really? How do you know it isn't just like your system? That the person
knows it is wrong, but does it anyway? You really don't. And for you to have
said MOST when referring to their moral code not being firm, you have placed
yourself up on a pedestal for judging their codes with no knowledge.
Glen
|
| 20.7940 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 07 1997 16:18 | 11 |
| Steve, you may not realize it, but when you say that you don't
rationalize when you break your moral code, but it seems like
most of the rest of our society does - you are setting yourself
up as having a superior moral position to these others.
I know it may seem to you as though it's enough to say "Gee, I'm
not perfect" - when you describe why you're better than most other
people at least, you are describing yourself as being morally
superior to these others.
Do you realize this?
|
| 20.7941 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Fri Feb 07 1997 16:27 | 3 |
| Glen,
He's not responding to you because your being a simpleton.
|
| 20.7942 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Fri Feb 07 1997 16:28 | 2 |
|
you're yes, you may thank me, profusely even.
|
| 20.7943 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Fri Feb 07 1997 16:30 | 4 |
|
HWYMF
|
| 20.7944 | You can't be serious .... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Feb 07 1997 16:33 | 4 |
| > Then all this lusting you do over the Hercules women you realize is
>going against your moral code, right? And that you shouldn't be doing it?
|
|
| 20.7945 | | BUSY::SLAB | Dancin' on Coals | Fri Feb 07 1997 16:41 | 6 |
|
>HWYMF
Uh-oh, it's started!!
|
| 20.7946 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Fri Feb 07 1997 16:42 | 3 |
|
I thought you'd like that 8^).
|
| 20.7947 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 07 1997 17:37 | 167 |
| re: .7934 (version 1.4 8^) )
> You say that the "behavior comes out into the open" (because old social
> stigmas go away.)
Basically, yes.
> Personally, I think society is healthier when we acknowledge what's
> really happening,
There is a difference between acknowledgement and acceptance. To
acknowledge the truth of what goes on is one thing. To say that what
is going on is valid moral conduct is another thing altogether.
> rather than use pointy fingers and scarlet letters
> to push people into hiding.
When you do something that is unacceptable to society in general, it
does come with consequences. One such consequence is that it is best
that said behavior is not to be paraded in front of others.
> A lot of people (especially children)
> are harmed needlessly when many in our society make a point of giving
> the 'stink eye' to people in certain situations.
And what harm is this? Please give examples. Tell me how folks are
hurt when society looks down on immoral behavior. Now, compare this to
how such pressure helps to limit said behavior.
It is my view than many children are being harmed by such blatant
exposure to historically immoral behaviors that are now accepted norms.
And I am sure that many, many more unborn children have been terminated
by modern morality, than would have if society took a different view on
abortion and premarital sex (than it does today).
> This supports my statement that the people of some moral codes are
> 'going after' those who do not commit the so-called immoral behaviors
> (objectionable to the moral codes) but accept the behaviors as 'ok'.
I'm not sure how you gathered this from what I wrote.
> The moral-code folks see this middle group as being 'sheep' who can
> be bullied into taking a different stand if the moral-code people
> yell and insult them long enough. :>
This is plain silly.
> Ironically, it's this hostility for the large 'middle group'
Now you take your silly conclusion to the next extreme.
> They alienate the very people whose
> support they need to change society's moral standards.
I disagree. I doubt that the push for a renewal of a more traditional
code of morality is alienating anyone. Most every non-Christian friend
agrees that things are going to hell, and it can't hurt to try to go
back to a more traditional view on morality. However, a few bad apples
make great media hype, and effectively demonize any efforts to propose
going back to a firm moral foundation.
> They fight against (and insult) the large middle group who will ultimately
> decide society's moral standards. They fight against (and insult) the
> other group, too, of course.
Although I agree that group 1 and 2 are idealogically opposed - thus
battle each other to some extent - I disagree that group 1 battles
with group 3 (the middle group).
I disagree with your first parenthetical statement, and would very much
like to see examples of such insults.
> It isn't 'all or nothing' (either accept the moral code of the group
> pushing for so-called traditional standards, or you have no moral
> code at all.)
What good is your moral code if eventually, just about any behavior can
become "moral"? By not having any real foundation - which is the end
result of trying to say things like "what's moral for you is not for
me" (speaking of behaviors) or "morals are a personal issue" (which is
only partly true) - you really have NO firm moral foundation on which
you can stand. Situational ethics and moral relativism are
antithetical to having a "moral code".
It is not a matter of "accept group 1's moral code or have no moral
code at all", either. You once again have trouble differnciating between
societal morality (what society promotes as proper behavior) and
personal morality.
> A lot of people in this country want the privacy to make their own
> (legal) moral decisions without being subjected to discrimination,
> pointy fingers or stigmas about it. This is an extremely reasonable
> request.
No, it is not a reasonable request; not when you look at the end result
of this mindset. Let's say my religion is steeped in ceremony which is
necessary for that religion. Let's say that this ceremony required the
sacrifice of living animals - a torturous process of slow death for the
animal. Society has every right - for the greater good - to stigmatize
me for sacrificing animals. It also has the right to make laws banning
the destruction of animals in this way.
To take it one step further, by your logic, we should not stigmatize
pedophiles. Oh, I realize that acting out on this "orientation" is
illegal (as it should be), but who knows what the future holds? The age
of legality for participating in sexual acts may change, and an older man
(or woman) may legally, one day, be able to have relations with a
consenting 12-year old, of even a 10-year old. It is not beyond
imagination, to be sure. Sexual experimentation seems to be starting
at an earlier age these days, and in increasing numbers.
Since it's been legalized, it's okay, right? Shouldn't be any stigmas
at all. We should just accept this, right? According to your logic,
we should indeed just accept such things, because this group should not
be subject to discrimination or pointy fingers and such.
> Society does not benefit by disenfranchising groups of people based
> on petty forays into their private (legal) lives.
I beg to differ here. Society has much to benefit from stigmatizing
(even legal) behaviors that are known to cause social problems.
Doesn't matter if such behaviors go on behind closed doors or not...
we don't each live in our private vacuum, where results cannot escape
to affect others.
> The first group too often characterizes the other two groups in ways that
> make these other groups sound stupid, gullible or evil. This is the
> main reason why the first group won't ever win their quest.
No such assertion was made, nor intended. Very interesting that you
should come to this conclusion.
> If you can characterize society as having values at all, it's the
> values of the majority that you're describing.
You fail to understand that if this majority (middle group) is
apathetic, they will likely just "go along" with whatever becomes
politically popular (not that their personal morality changes, but in
some cases, their view on certain behaviors may be adjusted over time
due to society's acceptance).
What I see happening in America today, is a small group
(relative to population) of people pushing their brand of morality on
everyone else. Look at political correctness...it's a good example of
politicized moral relativism being pushed on the population. And from
where I'm sitting, it seems that the majority of folks are not only
tired of PC nonsense, but think the whole thing is stupid (and any good
points that may have been made via this trend are lost due to
over-zealousness of those pushing for it).
It's not just some of the firm-moral crowd that is trying to PUSH their
morality on others. It seems that the other group does a fair share of
this, too, while pointing at group 1 and crying "foul!".
> If you attack and
> insult the majority to try to change the values they hold, you
> won't change their minds about it. You will lose.
I agree. This is why political correctness will lose out eventually.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, though. Perhaps you can
enlighten the box on all this insulting and attacking that seems to go
on around you.
-steve
|
| 20.7948 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 07 1997 17:48 | 37 |
| re: .7939
| I do know right from wrong, and won't try to rationalize wrongful actions as
| acceptable.
> Then all this lusting you do over the Hercules women you realize is
>going against your moral code, right? And that you shouldn't be doing it?
WHOOSH!! You still don't get it, do you? Heck, I even explained it to
one noter (forget who), and everyone else seems to understand the joke
(that, or they simply ignore my posts in the TV topic, which seems
equally likley 8^) ).
I'm the ANTI-BATTIS! 8^) He goes on about the uhm, "qualities" of
Melrose (alias, Dysfunctional) Place, so I picked one of the lamest
(intellectually-speaking) shows I could think of to go on about. It's
a joke, man! Geez, now I'll have to find another intellectually-lame
show (besides Xena) to blather on about. I think Sinbad would be a
good replacement. 8^)
I admit to being desparate to finding anything worth gushing over on
Hercules, so I thought it would be fun to go on about the women therein
- to counter Battis' babe-count on Melrose Place.
Now go away or I shall WHOOSH! you a second time.
| Now, in today's society, such a statement of "he made me do that" seems
| an accepted theme in everyday life.
> Really? How do you know it isn't just like your system?
Quite simply, by the statement itself. I have the urge to WHOOSH! you
again, yes I do.
-steve
|
| 20.7949 | Who me? Paranoid? | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Feb 07 1997 17:50 | 13 |
| > It is my view than many children are being harmed by such blatant
> exposure to historically immoral behaviors that are now accepted norms.
Exactly the reason why there is no cable TV in my house and why my
kids are only allowed to watch certain programs on certian channels.
Now, if I could only find a way to control what they are exposed to
in school ... :-/
Taking on the responsibilities of raising a child can really open your eyes
to all the unncessary CRAP that is all around us ...
Doug.
|
| 20.7950 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:00 | 20 |
| > Steve, you may not realize it, but when you say that you don't
> rationalize when you break your moral code, but it seems like
> most of the rest of our society does - you are setting yourself
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> up as having a superior moral position to these others.
> Do you realize this?
I do realize that I never said what you accuse me of saying above
(underlined). I did say such a thing is commonplace, though, which it
is.
I'm glad you view my moral position on this as superior, though.
It is true that taking responsibility for your actions is much better
than blaming someone else for your actions. Glad you can see this
much. I doubt that just one aspect of a moral code can make one
"morally superior", though. ymmv.
-steve
|
| 20.7951 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:02 | 4 |
|
<<< HWYMF
???????
|
| 20.7952 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:08 | 15 |
|
>> It is my view than many children are being harmed by such blatant
>> exposure to historically immoral behaviors that are now accepted norms.
>Exactly the reason why there is no cable TV in my house and why my
>kids are only allowed to watch certain programs on certian channels.
I was somewhere one night this week where the E! channel was on and they
ran a couple of ads for upcoming programs, along with footage..the programs?
"Sex in Rio", "Sex on the Riviera", "Sex.." "Sex..".
Jim
|
| 20.7953 | | BUSY::SLAB | Do you wanna bang heads with me? | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:15 | 7 |
|
RE: .7948
So you're saying that your "Hercules" monologues are a joke?
Yeah, right.
|
| 20.7954 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:23 | 31 |
| RE: .7950 Steve Leech
>> Steve, you may not realize it, but when you say that you don't
>> rationalize when you break your moral code, but it seems like
>> most of the rest of our society does - **YOU** are setting yourself
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>> up as having a superior moral position to these others.
>> Do you realize this?
> I'm glad you view my moral position on this as superior, though.
Apparently, you're not familiar with the use of pronouns. I distinctly
stated that "YOU" had set YOURSELF up as having a superior moral position.
You described something you regard as 'bad' then you claimed that **YOU**
don't do this, but it seems to be the norm in our society to do it.
You told Di over and over and over that you were not describing your
moral code as superior, when it's been so doggone obvious in your notes
for years and years.
Now you finally *almost* admit that you do feel morally superior:
"It is true that taking responsibility for your actions is much better
than blaming someone else for your actions. Glad you can see this
much. I doubt that just one aspect of a moral code can make one
'morally superior', though. ymmv."
Just so you know, I don't consider you to be morally superior to
anyone else. It's obvious that you see yourself this way, which
means absolutely nothing.
|
| 20.7955 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:27 | 8 |
| Gimme a break, Shawn, even you can't think that I sincerly gush over
Hercules, the TV show. It's about as mentally stimulating as watching
grass grow. Of course, I rather like mindless escapist fare from time to
time.
Now, do I really think these women are beautiful? Of course I do.
Do they catch my attention? Of course they do. I'm not dead, you
know.
|
| 20.7956 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:46 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.7944 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>
| -< You can't be serious .... >-
But I am.... lust, according to his code book, is wrong. Even lust in
the mind.
|
| 20.7957 | | BUSY::SLAB | Do you wanna bang heads with me? | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:49 | 9 |
|
RE: .7955
>It's about as mentally stimulating as watching grass grow. Of course,
>I rather like mindless escapist fare from time to time.
That reminds me ... how was your bowling game this week?
|
| 20.7958 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:50 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 20.7948 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| Quite simply, by the statement itself. I have the urge to WHOOSH! you
| again, yes I do.
Oh please. If they know it is wrong, but do it anyway, then the moral
code did not change. Just the person. But you seem to be taking their actions
and putting them into they don't have a fim moral code catagory. While I agree
this is a possibility, the words most don't fit. And why they don't fit is
because quite basically, you can't possibly know. That is unless you know all
of these people in the 'most' catagory.
Glen
|
| 20.7959 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:51 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.7953 by BUSY::SLAB "Do you wanna bang heads with me?" >>>
| So you're saying that your "Hercules" monologues are a joke?
| Yeah, right.
That's what I was thinking, slab.
|
| 20.7960 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:51 | 7 |
|
.7958
eh?
|
| 20.7961 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 07 1997 18:58 | 1 |
| b
|
| 20.7962 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:04 | 5 |
| With the exception of mythology, I have never heard of anyone getting
pregnant because some man "lusted in his heart" after her. Seems with
the exception of gods, this is impossible for mere mortal men.
|
| 20.7963 | | BUSY::SLAB | Dogbert's New Ruling Class: 150K | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:09 | 7 |
|
>this is impossible for mere mortal men.
But there are those of us who are not bound by paradigms such
as this.
|
| 20.7965 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:12 | 3 |
|
Is Shawn an Immortal?
|
| 20.7966 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:14 | 1 |
| Might explain his omnipresence in vaxnotes.
|
| 20.7967 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:18 | 1 |
| then lets cut his head off and watch the pretty light show
|
| 20.7968 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:22 | 3 |
|
In the end there can be only one.
|
| 20.7969 | | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:30 | 3 |
| RE: 7961
Good one, Glen!
|
| 20.7970 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:30 | 88 |
| > Apparently, you're not familiar with the use of pronouns.
Well you know how us dimwitted folks who don't hold a candle to Ann
Broomhead's intelligence are. Pronouns are hard.
Of course, for some, reading comprehension (thank you, Ann B.!) is even
harder:
> I distinctly
> stated that "YOU" had set YOURSELF up as having a superior moral position.
Which is an incorrect conclusion, as it is based upon criteria of your
own creation.
To wit:
> You described something you regard as 'bad' then you claimed that **YOU**
> don't do this, but it seems to be the norm in our society to do it.
I didn't say it was bad, precisely, I said it was normal these days. I
did say it was better to own up to your own actions, than to blame
someoen else. Do you disagree with this? If not, then guess what?
According to your own criteria, you, Suzanne, think yourself morally
superior.
According to my moral code, blaming someone else for your own actions
is not acceptable, But as you've pointed out, society does not follow my
moral code; thus for society, perhaps such a thing is not considered bad
at all. I did make a value judgement on this, however, and am
interested whether or not you disagree with my judgement.
> You told Di over and over and over that you were not describing your
> moral code as superior, when it's been so doggone obvious in your notes
> for years and years.
Over and over? No, I think I posted two replied to Di. Unlike you,
she *does* read for comprehension... at least most the time. 8^)
Yes, I think my moral code is better than that which I see
espoused by society today. If I didn't think it were, I would not try so
hard to follow it, would I? Why put up with the ridicule and why
restrain myself from doing what society condones, if I didn't see it as
beneficial.
Of course, my view that my moral CODE (the code itself) is better than
society's espoused morality, is not at all the same thing as viewing
myself as being morally superior. It is this kind of distinction that
you seem unable to follow.
> Now you finally *almost* admit that you do feel morally superior:
Oh, get off the moral superior kick already. Not only is this untrue,
but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I guess when you
have nothing of substance to use in a discussion, it is natural to try
to herd the discussion into a bastion of red herrings.
I think your definition of 'morally superior' equated to 'following a
firm moral foundation'. If so, then I am guilty as charged. If not,
you are way off base, and I'd appreciate you stop trying to read my
mind... you aren't very good at it.
me> "It is true that taking responsibility for your actions is much better
> than blaming someone else for your actions. Glad you can see this
> much. I doubt that just one aspect of a moral code can make one
me> 'morally superior', though. ymmv."
And you seem to disagree (or at least take offense) with the above. If
so, perhaps you can tell me why.
This is what you used against me, claiming that by making such a
judgement call, I set myself up as being morally superior to others
(since I've admitted I don't behave in this manner).
> Just so you know, I don't consider you to be morally superior to
> anyone else.
How about that. We agree on something.
> It's obvious that you see yourself this way, which
> means absolutely nothing.
It's obvious that your mind-reading skills need work. It's obvious
that no matter how simple a concept I post, you will still be unable to
keep it in context. Of course, I knew this going into the string, so I
can only blame myself for any aggravation incurred.
-steve
|
| 20.7971 | 8^) | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:31 | 7 |
| .7957
1st game - bad.
2nd game - good.
3rd game - bad.
We won all four points, though... (we bowled a blind).
|
| 20.7972 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:49 | 228 |
| RE: .7947 Steve Leech
>> Personally, I think society is healthier when we acknowledge what's
>> really happening,
> There is a difference between acknowledgement and acceptance. To
> acknowledge the truth of what goes on is one thing. To say that what
> is going on is valid moral conduct is another thing altogether.
You forgot another possible choice:
Refraining from judging others harshly (i.e., remaining neutral
on the moral validity of the conduct.)
>> rather than use pointy fingers and scarlet letters
>> to push people into hiding.
> When you do something that is unacceptable to society in general, it
> does come with consequences. One such consequence is that it is best
> that said behavior is not to be paraded in front of others.
Pointy fingers and scarlet letters have become unacceptable to society
in general (to some degree) now, so if you try pushing stigmas on
people, you will have consequences to pay. You may want to refrain
from parading your stigmas in front of others.
>> A lot of people (especially children)
>> are harmed needlessly when many in our society make a point of giving
>> the 'stink eye' to people in certain situations.
> And what harm is this? Please give examples. Tell me how folks are
> hurt when society looks down on immoral behavior. Now, compare this to
> how such pressure helps to limit said behavior.
Ever heard words like "bastard" and "illegitimate"? These words were
applied to children when the stigmas against birth out of wedlock
existed.
I don't care what good you think it will do for society to place such
names onto children - I will never agree to going back to stigmas.
> It is my view than many children are being harmed by such blatant
> exposure to historically immoral behaviors that are now accepted norms.
Even one child being burned by the term "bastard" is harmful enough to
refrain from going back to those archaic days.
> And I am sure that many, many more unborn children have been terminated
> by modern morality, than would have if society took a different view on
> abortion and premarital sex (than it does today).
If you return a huge stigma on premarital sex and births out of wedlock,
the best way to keep these things secret will be to choose abortion.
>> They alienate the very people whose
>> support they need to change society's moral standards.
> I disagree. I doubt that the push for a renewal of a more traditional
> code of morality is alienating anyone.
Wow, are you blind.
> Most every non-Christian friend agrees that things are going to hell,
> and it can't hurt to try to go back to a more traditional view on
> morality.
What else would you expect your "friends" to say to you...
> However, a few bad apples make great media hype, and effectively
> demonize any efforts to propose going back to a firm moral foundation.
No demonization is needed. Do you remember the term "moral majority"?
The public response to it was "The moral majority is neither."
The moral-code folks are considered extreme in this country by their
own doing.
> Although I agree that group 1 and 2 are idealogically opposed - thus
> battle each other to some extent - I disagree that group 1 battles
> with group 3 (the middle group).
The moral-code folks refer to the middle group as sheep who listen
to the people you've designated as group 2. You probably think
that the middle people don't care enough to notice, but I disagree.
> What good is your moral code if eventually, just about any behavior can
> become "moral"? By not having any real foundation - which is the end
> result of trying to say things like "what's moral for you is not for
> me" (speaking of behaviors) or "morals are a personal issue" (which is
> only partly true) - you really have NO firm moral foundation on which
> you can stand. Situational ethics and moral relativism are
> antithetical to having a "moral code".
Again, you don't seem to understand that some actions can be considered
neutral (neither moral nor immoral.) They're just personal choices
that do not break laws.
> No, it is not a reasonable request; not when you look at the end result
> of this mindset. Let's say my religion is steeped in ceremony which is
> necessary for that religion. Let's say that this ceremony required the
> sacrifice of living animals - a torturous process of slow death for the
> animal. Society has every right - for the greater good - to stigmatize
> me for sacrificing animals. It also has the right to make laws banning
> the destruction of animals in this way.
We have laws against this stuff. All we need to do is to enforce the
laws. Stigmas to make people feel worse would be pointless. The laws
will stop the behavior.
> To take it one step further, by your logic, we should not stigmatize
> pedophiles. Oh, I realize that acting out on this "orientation" is
> illegal (as it should be), but who knows what the future holds? The age
> of legality for participating in sexual acts may change, and an older man
> (or woman) may legally, one day, be able to have relations with a
> consenting 12-year old, of even a 10-year old. It is not beyond
> imagination, to be sure. Sexual experimentation seems to be starting
> at an earlier age these days, and in increasing numbers.
We have laws against this, too. We also have laws against drunk driving.
People do tend to wave pointy fingers at these two groups still, and
it will probably go on for a long time. So you have no need to make
a big point of trying to start these up (and I feel no need to make
a specific point of trying to stop the pointy fingers at these folks.)
In general, I think pointy fingers and stigmas are mean-spirited and
counterproductive, but we do still have a few in our society that will
be with us for awhile.
Let's deal with the issue of laws changing by working against such
changes. Fictional future law changes do not justify stigmas in
general.
>> Society does not benefit by disenfranchising groups of people based
>> on petty forays into their private (legal) lives.
> I beg to differ here. Society has much to benefit from stigmatizing
> (even legal) behaviors that are known to cause social problems.
> Doesn't matter if such behaviors go on behind closed doors or not...
> we don't each live in our private vacuum, where results cannot escape
> to affect others.
You cause WORSE social problems by making a point of adding to the
difficulties of those who have made certain legal choices that cause
so-called social problems.
The point is to make their lives so miserable that others won't want
to follow in their footsteps, but it means making it far, far, far
more difficult for those involved in the 'social problems' to find
their way out of these difficulties. It's counterproductive.
>> The first group too often characterizes the other two groups in ways that
>> make these other groups sound stupid, gullible or evil. This is the
>> main reason why the first group won't ever win their quest.
> No such assertion was made, nor intended. Very interesting that you
> should come to this conclusion.
Your moral code doesn't prevent you from lying, I see.
You make negative statements about your ideological opponents ALL THE
TIME.
>> If you can characterize society as having values at all, it's the
>> values of the majority that you're describing.
> You fail to understand that...
Here's an example. You can't accept that someone disagrees with you.
If they could possibly understand/comprehend the issues, they'd have
no choice but to agree with you, right?
> ...if this majority (middle group) is apathetic,
***YOU*** call them apathetic. I'm not obligated to accept this
as truth, and I don't.
> they will likely just "go along" with whatever becomes politically
> popular...
As "sheep", right (and you claim that you don't insult or attack the
middle group.) Where's your moral code when it comes to being honest
about this stuff.
> (not that their personal morality changes, but in
> some cases, their view on certain behaviors may be adjusted over time
> due to society's acceptance).
They may become neutral about things that are private to others' lives,
that's all. Some people have better things to do than to worry about
making sure they condemn the sexual lives of consenting adults in other
households across America.
>> If you attack and
>> insult the majority to try to change the values they hold, you
>> won't change their minds about it. You will lose.
> I agree. This is why political correctness will lose out eventually.
"Political correctness" started out as a self-deprecating term that
some people used to describe themselves. It was never a movement
to make others subscribe to it.
Now it's just used as an accusation. All the ideas which inspired
those who called themselves "PC" (as self-deprecating humor) are
still thriving.
> I'm not sure what you are talking about, though. Perhaps you can
> enlighten the box on all this insulting and attacking that seems to go
> on around you.
Steve, you question the morals, the intelligence and the character
of almost everyone who disagrees with your moral position.
It's so normal for you (I guess your moral code says nothing about
trying to harm others) that you don't even see it anymore.
It speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the moral code you wish to
shove down society's collective throat.
Not that you represent all those who happen to hold your moral position.
I have a great many deeply religious relatives who deliver their message
with their love, not with baseball bats. In my religious family, the
birth of a child out of wedlock was treated very positively because
the young mother chose life. They made an absolute point of welcoming
the child into the family without putting any stigmas onto the young
mother AT ALL. They have my utmost respect and love for the way they
conduct their lives within their very, very deeply held moral beliefs.
|
| 20.7973 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Fri Feb 07 1997 19:51 | 8 |
|
>Pointy fingers and scarlet letters have become unacceptable to society
>in general (to some degree) now,
Yes, my manicurist suggests the squared-off shape nowadays.
|
| 20.7974 | | BUSY::SLAB | Don't drink the (toilet) water | Fri Feb 07 1997 20:16 | 9 |
|
RE: .7971
As if I really care.
Kidding!! 8^) Nice try, and better luck next time.
[But in your case I guess 2 out of 3 was bad, eh?]
|
| 20.7975 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 07 1997 20:59 | 51 |
| RE: .7970 Steve Leech
Either your interpretation of moral code says absolutely nothing
against being exceptionally mean-spirited, or else you don't follow
it very well.
Either way, it certainly makes the explanation of your moral code
unacceptable to our society, and this is why you will fail in your
quest.
>> You described something you regard as 'bad' then you claimed that
>> **YOU** don't do this, but it seems to be the norm in our society
>> to do it.
> I didn't say it was bad, precisely, I said it was normal these days.
> I did say it was better to own up to your own actions, than to blame
> someoen else. Do you disagree with this? If not, then guess what?
> According to your own criteria, you, Suzanne, think yourself morally
> superior.
My criteria was that you boasted that you own up to responsibility
more than others. This boasting about your morals (i.e., your PRIDE,
which is one of the seven deadlies, interestingly enough) is the
criteria which shows that you see yourself as morally superior to others.
> I think your definition of 'morally superior' equated to 'following a
> firm moral foundation'. If so, then I am guilty as charged. If not,
> you are way off base, and I'd appreciate you stop trying to read my
> mind... you aren't very good at it.
Your sanctimonious claims about your alleged morals is what makes
you appear to see yourself as morally superior. I'm glad you used
the word "guilty" to describe yourself in this context.
> It's obvious that your mind-reading skills need work. It's obvious
> that no matter how simple a concept I post, you will still be unable to
> keep it in context. Of course, I knew this going into the string, so I
> can only blame myself for any aggravation incurred.
Steve, your version of moral behavior is singularly unimpressive.
My very religious relatives would agree with you on the basic
concepts of morality (100%), but never in a million years would
they use their religion or their moral views as a baseball bat
against others. They don't even judge others harshly. They give
people the benefit of the doubt and the privacy to make their
own peace with God, if these others believe in God.
If you could spend a week with my relatives, you'd see a part of
your own moral code that you don't even know exists. I wish it
were possible to arrange it, I truly do.
|
| 20.7976 | A thought experiment | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Mon Feb 10 1997 06:54 | 15 |
| As a reasonable compromise on the abortion question, I'll offer the
following:
"In order to halve the abortion rate in the US, we will criminalize only
the abortions of males."
What troubles you most:
1) That we will kill so many women?
2) That we will let so many men live?
3) There won't be enough abortions to go around?
4) There will still be too many abortions?
|
| 20.7977 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 10 1997 12:35 | 80 |
| re: 7975 (Suzanne)
> Either your interpretation of moral code says absolutely nothing
> against being exceptionally mean-spirited, or else you don't follow
> it very well.
If you consider this note mean-spirited, you are really reading a lot
into it. You're the one who has basically called me a liar throughout
this string - telling me what I *really* think. You haven't seen
mean-spirited yet, but if you do, you will have brought it upon
yourself. You can only call someone a liar for so long without some
kind of repercussion.
> Either way, it certainly makes the explanation of your moral code
> unacceptable to our society, and this is why you will fail in your
> quest.
You have never had a clue about my moral code, so I consider any
judgement you make on it as irrelevant.
> I didn't say it was bad, precisely, I said it was normal these days.
> I did say it was better to own up to your own actions, than to blame
> someoen else. Do you disagree with this? If not, then guess what?
> According to your own criteria, you, Suzanne, think yourself morally
> superior.
> My criteria was that you boasted that you own up to responsibility
> more than others.
Well now, that's putting a bit of a spin on what was said. But I
really didn't expect you to read it in context to the discussion... and
I'm not disappointed.
> This boasting about your morals (i.e., your PRIDE,
> which is one of the seven deadlies, interestingly enough) is the
> criteria which shows that you see yourself as morally superior to others.
Oh, so now I'm boasting. You're a riot, Suzanne. I guess this is one
reason why I keep responding to your notes... just to see what spin
you'll put on my notes the next post.
I noticed that you failed to answer the question, too. No surprise
there, as you would then have to either admit to not accepting
responsibility for your own actions or be labelled 'morally superior'
by your own criteria. Quite a corner you've painted yourself into.
> Your sanctimonious claims about your alleged morals is what makes
> you appear to see yourself as morally superior. I'm glad you used
> the word "guilty" to describe yourself in this context.
Ho ho! You are a gem, Suzanne.
> My very religious relatives would agree with you on the basic
> concepts of morality (100%), but never in a million years would
> they use their religion or their moral views as a baseball bat
> against others.
Ah, the newest of red herrings pops its head out of the water, along
with the not so subtle suggestion that I somehow use my moral code as a
baseball bat against others. If you knew me, you'd know this
accusation was silly; but since you don't, I'll take your suggestion
for what it's worth ( { } ).
> They don't even judge others harshly. They give
> people the benefit of the doubt and the privacy to make their
> own peace with God, if these others believe in God.
Oh, now I'm judgeing others. <eagerly awaiting the line about how I
want to throw 9 million children out onto the streets>
> If you could spend a week with my relatives, you'd see a part of
> your own moral code that you don't even know exists.
*I* would find out about part of *my* moral code that *I* didn't know
exists? Do you know how silly this sounds coming from someone who has
doesn't know me? And you dare accuse me of being judgemental?
Incredible.
-steve
|
| 20.7978 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 12:47 | 17 |
| .7975
For someone who claims to be so very tolerant and attacks those who do
not toe the same line, you tend to use very perjorative terms. You
seem to have this real problem if someone were to dare to use a
grammatically correct term to identify an individual who is born outside
of marriage, but have no problem consistently anme-calling those how
have a differnt view than you.
The terms you use seem to position you as incredibly intolerant of
those who hold a different position, particularly you use of the term
"mean-spirited". If you truly were as accepting as you try to portray,
you would certainly take an entirely different approach. you condemn
those with a different opinion, but see nothing of the hypocracy of
your own statements.
|
| 20.7979 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 10 1997 12:54 | 10 |
|
> <<< Note 20.7978 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
pejorative
hypocrisy
it was nothing, really.
|
| 20.7981 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 13:50 | 45 |
| RE: .7977 Steve Leech
> If you consider this note mean-spirited, you are really reading a lot
> into it.
You're stand is mean-spirited in general (not that I expected you
to take responsibility for your actions in this.) You question the
intelligence and the character of those who disagree with you, which
is not a very impressive moral position for someone who keeps claiming
to have such a strong moral code.
> You haven't seen mean-spirited yet, but if you do, you will have
> brought it upon yourself. You can only call someone a liar for so
> long without some kind of repercussion.
So much for taking responsibility for your actions. When *you* do
something bad, it's the other person's fault. Nice rationalization.
(Is this what you mean by situational ethics?)
>>This boasting about your morals (i.e., your PRIDE,
>>which is one of the seven deadlies, interestingly enough) is the
>>criteria which shows that you see yourself as morally superior to others.
> I noticed that you failed to answer the question, too. No surprise
> there, as you would then have to either admit to not accepting
> responsibility for your own actions or be labelled 'morally superior'
> by your own criteria. Quite a corner you've painted yourself into.
It's interesting that you think you can trap me into a position of
either denying that I take responsibility for my actions or else
boasting about it the same way that you do. You don't seem to
recognize that most people contemplate their moral balance sheets
privately. What a concept, eh?
It's funny that you do this in the same note where you refuse to
take responsibility for your own actions.
> Ah, the newest of red herrings pops its head out of the water, along
> with the not so subtle suggestion that I somehow use my moral code as a
> baseball bat against others. If you knew me, you'd know this
> accusation was silly; but since you don't, I'll take your suggestion
> for what it's worth ( { } ).
I've seen you do it. Now I've seen you refuse to take responsibility
for your actions when you do it.
|
| 20.7982 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 13:54 | 5 |
| .7979
In your debt, again. Actually I am becoming dependent on your
corrections.
|
| 20.7983 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 10 1997 13:55 | 4 |
|
.7982 A dependent Republican? This will never do.
|
| 20.7984 | People are born out of wedlock completely innocently. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 13:57 | 23 |
| RE: .7978 Rocush
> You seem to have this real problem if someone were to dare to use a
> grammatically correct term to identify an individual who is born outside
> of marriage, but have no problem consistently anme-calling those how
> have a differnt view than you.
The grammatically correct term for someone born out of wedlock is
"infant", "baby", "child", "son" or "daughter", "grandchild",
"niece" or "nephew", "godchild" - then later, "man" or "woman",
"human being"...
The fact that you would defend calling a completely innocent person
a "bastard" or "illegitimate" as being merely "grammatically correct"
shows your hypocrisy when you claim to value "LIFE".
So much for the "precious children" saved when people don't have
abortions. Let them be born so you can call them bastards, eh?
Stigmas devalue the lives of innocent people in very mean-spirited
ways. This is why our society wisely saw fit to end them.
It's also why we won't go back to using them.
|
| 20.7985 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Feb 10 1997 14:02 | 3 |
| .7976
get off drugs. /hth
|
| 20.7986 | It's almost towel time... | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 10 1997 14:19 | 266 |
| .7972 (Suzanne)
> You forgot another possible choice:
> Refraining from judging others harshly (i.e., remaining neutral
> on the moral validity of the conduct.)
I judge no one, that's God's job, not mine. Neither can I remain
morally neutral on behaviors that are overtly immoral according to my
moral code. If I do this, then I do not follow my own code. Nor can I
simply turn my head as some people try to push for the moral acceptance
of said behaviors... especially when it is society that will end up
paying the price when such behavior is widespread.
I know you will twist this into me sticking my head into someone else's
bedroom, but this is not at all what I'm saying. It's another
distinction you are either incapable or unwilling to make.
> And what harm is this? Please give examples. Tell me how folks are
> hurt when society looks down on immoral behavior. Now, compare this to
> how such pressure helps to limit said behavior.
> Ever heard words like "bastard" and "illegitimate"?
Yes, but isn't this a case of mistaken finger pointing? I'm talking
about stigmas against the behavior, not the result of said behavior.
I'm not talking about creating stigmas against children, who are
innocent.
> It is my view than many children are being harmed by such blatant
> exposure to historically immoral behaviors that are now accepted norms.
> Even one child being burned by the term "bastard" is harmful enough to
> refrain from going back to those archaic days.
You are the only one who is suggesting we turn back the clock and
accept both the good and the bad of that era. My suggestion is use the
good and toss the bad. Learn from history. You choose to forget
history, to only see the bad of it, thus you will never be able to use
what actually worked well from the past.
You know, we CAN use some things from the past without bringing
back segregated drinking fountains.
> And I am sure that many, many more unborn children have been terminated
> by modern morality, than would have if society took a different view on
> abortion and premarital sex (than it does today).
> If you return a huge stigma on premarital sex and births out of wedlock,
> the best way to keep these things secret will be to choose abortion.
First of all, you are the only one who keeps bringing up stigmatizing
births out of wedlock. The only thing I wish to stigmatize is the sex
out of wedlock. As a society, we can do this in the same manner as
we've stigmatized drunk driving (and sex without "protection").
I'm willing to bet the bank that the need for abortions would be
greatly reduced, so even if some decided to have an abortion due to the
stigma against their behavior, then the total number of abortions would
be quite a bit less than the number of abortions today.
> No demonization is needed. Do you remember the term "moral majority"?
> The public response to it was "The moral majority is neither."
Actually, you cannot prove that the majority of society felt this way,
so your comment is misleading, at best.
> The moral-code folks are considered extreme in this country by their
> own doing.
I'm not sure who all you are lumping in as "moral code folks", so I
can't really respond to this - other than by saying it is too generic
(and unsubstanciated) to be useful.
> Again, you don't seem to understand that some actions can be considered
> neutral (neither moral nor immoral.) They're just personal choices
> that do not break laws.
But I do understand this. However, we are not talking about morally
neutral behaviors. You failed to answer my question, too.
> We have laws against this stuff. All we need to do is to enforce the
> laws. Stigmas to make people feel worse would be pointless. The laws
> will stop the behavior.
It is not reasonable to pass a law against pre-marital sex. For one
thing, it is an unenforcable law. For another, it is not something I
would like to see any government try to regulate.
> To take it one step further, by your logic, we should not stigmatize
> pedophiles. Oh, I realize that acting out on this "orientation" is
> illegal (as it should be), but who knows what the future holds?
> We have laws against this, too. We also have laws against drunk driving.
Yes, I already stated that there are laws agaisntg this. So, you are
saying that we should not stigmatize pedophiles?
> People do tend to wave pointy fingers at these two groups still, and
> it will probably go on for a long time. So you have no need to make
> a big point of trying to start these up (and I feel no need to make
> a specific point of trying to stop the pointy fingers at these folks.)
So, stigmas DO work, right? Since you disagree with social stigmas,
I'm surprised that you do not feel inclined to stop these particular
ones. If stigmas are harmful to society in general, then they all
should be done away with, right? You seem to be quite selective about
this issue of stigmas.
> In general, I think pointy fingers and stigmas are mean-spirited and
> counterproductive, but we do still have a few in our society that will
> be with us for awhile.
And a few, even though you consider them mean-spirited and
counterproductive, which you feel no need to do anything about. If
they are truly as you say, and you seem to feel very strongly on this
issue of stigmas, you should be at the forefront of eliminating stigmas
against pedophiles and drunk drivers. You are not very consistent.
> Let's deal with the issue of laws changing by working against such
> changes. Fictional future law changes do not justify stigmas in
> general.
No, but they do underline a certain trend, don't they? By showing how
we have tossed off traditional veiws on some activities considered to
be VERY immoral in the past, it shows that societal views on morality
have changed greatly - AND that it can do so in the future. Doesn't
mean it will, but that we should look long and hard at what has
happened and what direction we are currently heading. What do they say
about those who do not learn from the past?
> You cause WORSE social problems by making a point of adding to the
> difficulties of those who have made certain legal choices that cause
> so-called social problems.
No, you cause WORSE problems by saying that what they did (that got
them into trouble) is okay, and then coddle them. By doing this, you
promote this behavior throughout society... it's a green light.
Stigmas at least tend to keep the majority of poeple thoughtful about
certain actions.
> The point is to make their lives so miserable that others won't want
> to follow in their footsteps, but it means making it far, far, far
> more difficult for those involved in the 'social problems' to find
> their way out of these difficulties. It's counterproductive.
It is not counterproductive, even in light of your melodrama, above.
By making people more thoughtful of their actions in certain areas, said
behaviors are normally less prolific, since the behavior does not look so
attractive when all things are considered.
It's normal to think twice before doing something you KNOW will be
looked down upon by most people. This is not rocket science.
> Your moral code doesn't prevent you from lying, I see.
Prove where I've lied or shut up.
> You make negative statements about your ideological opponents ALL THE
> TIME.
So what? I haven't in this string, unless you think the truth (that
you simply don't read my notes at face value) is making a negative
statement. Even EDP (who disagrees with my argument) has pointed out
to you where you've misinterpreted my notes. I will continue to tell
you to read for comprehension when you put a spin on what I've posted.
> Here's an example. You can't accept that someone disagrees with you.
Here's a counter example. You can't read for comprehension.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or pull my hair out, at this point.
> If they could possibly understand/comprehend the issues, they'd have
> no choice but to agree with you, right?
If they could possibly understand/comprehend my posts (without reading
into what is there), they'd have a basis for real argument, and I
wouldn't have to continually use Ann B's famous phrase.
> ...if this majority (middle group) is apathetic,
> ***YOU*** call them apathetic.
Read the above... I said "if". Just in case your English professors
are thick, "if" is a qualifier to the argument. Now you know.
> I'm not obligated to accept this
> as truth, and I don't.
You ARE obligated, at least if you expect to have a reasonable
discussion with someone, to read notes in context.
> They may become neutral about things that are private to others' lives,
> that's all.
Then their view on morality has shifted then, right? Thank you.
You've just agreed with me (unintentionally, I imagine).
> "Political correctness" started out as a self-deprecating term that
> some people used to describe themselves. It was never a movement
> to make others subscribe to it.
I don't care how it started, but it is definitely a movement now.
I appologise for inserting this non-sequitur, though. It really has
little to do with this discussion.
> Now it's just used as an accusation. All the ideas which inspired
> those who called themselves "PC" (as self-deprecating humor) are
> still thriving.
Oh yes, they are indeed thriving. It started with a few good ideas,
but these few shreds of wisdom were soon to be lost in the flood of
abject stupidity. It's a shame, really.
> It speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the moral code you wish to
> shove down society's collective throat.
You repeatedly say this, but have yet to back it up. Just HOW am I
trying to force my particular morality down society's throat? By
standing up for what I believe to be right? Under your own criteria,
you do the very same thing, only in a different direction, and you call
ME a hypocrite... it is to laugh.
And even if what you say were true (and it is not), it speaks nothing
of my moral code, but only my shortcomings in regards to following it.
> In my religious family, the
> birth of a child out of wedlock was treated very positively because
> the young mother chose life.
Oh, and I go around stigmatizing the young mothers, right? Tell that
to a young lady I dated recently, who had a 9-month old girl (and
adorable little girl, too). Boy did I let HER have it. Yup, told her
once every hour just how terrible she was for having that child out of
wedlock... wasn't supportive a bit, nope. And of course, I told her
NEVER to bring that bastard child near me. I never played with little
Brianna, nor did I suggest that the two of them go to church with me, or
come over, or.... Nope. Don't want nothing to do with bastard children.
Ick. Yup, I'm an ogre... and a mean-spirited one at that.
And I won't even tell you about a pen-pal of mine who recently told me
of an "oopsie". Ho-boy... I really laid into her, too. Judgemental
Biblical excerpts litterally filled my return letter, I tell ya!
(sorry for the melodrama)
You are incredibly focused in the wrong direction, Suzanne. Quit
trying to judge me - you can't do it! You don't know me! And please
read my notes "as is". I really have been going
out of my way to make no value judgements in my assertions. My opinion
is irrelevant to my arguments in this string - whether I actually think
something is moral or not. Please at least TRY to read my notes
neutrally... I know it will be a stretch for you, but I really think you c
an do it (maybe I'm just being overly optemistic).
I think perhaps that you simply do not understand the concept of
stigmas. It is not retribution after the fact, it is a preventive
measure more than anything. It matters little if this concept was
abused in some ways in the "good old days". Why can't we look at
history and see where we went wrong and fix these things, rather than
throw out everything related to the morality of yesteryear. Obviously,
some of our moral guidelines were effective, and perhaps we tossed them
out too quickly and for the wrong reasons.
-steve
|
| 20.7987 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Mon Feb 10 1997 14:47 | 3 |
|
almost forgot, steve, tuesday or wednsday there is 2 back to back
Hercules and Xena episodes. back to the name calling.......
|
| 20.7988 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:02 | 47 |
| .7981 (Suzanne)
[First, let me appologise to the 'box denizens who are undoubtedly
forced to "next unseen" this string, for continuing what I knew up
front was a useless continuance of an argument. I'm having fun,
though, so I'll keep it going for a bit longer. 8^) ]
> You're stand is mean-spirited in general (not that I expected you
> to take responsibility for your actions in this.)
What is my stand? You don't even understand what my stand is, even
though I've spent many notes explaining it to you. Or perhaps you
refuse to see what my position really is because it clashes with your
version of reality.
> You question the
> intelligence and the character of those who disagree with you, which
> is not a very impressive moral position for someone who keeps claiming
> to have such a strong moral code.
Hmm... you are the only one arguing with me in this string. It has
been pointed out to you by myself and EDP that you are not reading my
notes as they are written. I've explained my notes over and over, yet
you continue to read your spin into them. I tell you to read for
comprehension. You do not. This may be what you consider questioning
someone's intelligence (I don't equate reading skills to intelligence,
personally) and character, but I do not.
> It's interesting that you think you can trap me into a position of
> either denying that I take responsibility for my actions or else
> boasting about it the same way that you do.
You've trapped yourself, evidenced by you non-answer. You can't answer
without falling into one of those two categories. Remember, the
criteria for thinking oneself "morally superior" are yours, not mine.
If there is a trap here, it is created by your own illogical assertions.
> You don't seem to
> recognize that most people contemplate their moral balance sheets
> privately. What a concept, eh?
Ho ho! What a transparent avoidance! You're stuck, face it. You've
trapped yourself, all I did was point out the obvious.
-steve
|
| 20.7989 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:02 | 17 |
| .7984
I see subtlety does not work with you. Let me make this plain for you.
No one has ever, as far as I can remember, ever said that refering to
children born out of wedlock, with a particular term was either good or
bad - it has not really been discussed. YOu have constantly raised
this point as a smoke-screen, no one else has. Yet this is a very
specific word that appropriately identifies an individual. It may not
be kind or nice, but it is true. Again, let me stress, that no one but
you has ever said it is a word that should be resurrected.
On the other hand, you have continually said that people who use this
word, yet only you have used this word, as mean-spirited. Again, I ask
why you insist on using such a word when you keep saying that others
should be more tolerant - that word being mean-spirited, not your
smoke-screen word.
|
| 20.7990 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:03 | 5 |
| .7983
Dependency is so easy to build and so easy to accept. Please stop
before I depend again.
|
| 20.7991 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:07 | 6 |
|
.7990 too late.
.7989 referring
|
| 20.7992 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:12 | 1 |
| oh no. caught in a cycle of dependency.
|
| 20.7993 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:13 | 1 |
| I hope it has a seat.
|
| 20.7994 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:13 | 18 |
| If you sanction sex, then you are looking at sanctioning the outcomes
of sex, IE kids. There is an "easy" way to hide the fact that someone
has had sex outside of some peoples "societal norms" and that is
terminating any potential outcomes before there is so much as a bulge
showing.
Currently people who claim to be "pro-life" are working to hold up
family planning funding that has nothing to do with abortion, in fact
it helps prevent same. The outcome of holding up this funding will
likely be 1.9 million abortions, 500K sterile, maimed or dead women,
and another 2.0 million babies born to desparate circumstances, likely
to die before their first year after birth. Oh, and probably another
several 100's of thousands of women with advanced cervical-uterine
cancer who will also die, as this funding also pays for pap smears, the
best early detection method for cervical cancers, which are easily
treated when caught in time, but likely to be fatal if missed.
meg
|
| 20.7995 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:15 | 4 |
| .7991
Hey, typos don't count. I usually get that one right.
|
| 20.7996 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:19 | 4 |
|
.7995 Who knew? ;>
|
| 20.7997 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:20 | 15 |
| .7994
Very emotional and relatively inaccurate response. The funds are being
held up only on the basis to insure that those receiving the funds to
not support, promote or perform abortions. The sponsors are all in
favor of family planning instruction, pre- and post-natal care, etc.
they rightly refuse to have emotional charges, such as your, cloud the
fact that these funds are not going just for the intended purpose, but
to support abortions as well.
As long as the recipients of the funds refuse to have anything to do
with abortion in any fashion, the funds are available. If they want to
insist on promoting abortions, then the opponents are certainly
entitled to try and stop the killing of millions of babies.
|
| 20.7998 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:28 | 16 |
| Rocush,
You have obviously been misled. These funds have strictly gone for
family planning and reproductive health issues outside of abortion
since 1973. There is nothing emotional, unless you really do value
life in 1.9 million more abortions, 500K maimed women, higher infant
mortality rates....
The emotional wordplay, as far as I am concerned is only coming from a
group that links contraception and cancer screening to abortion, while
ignoring the extra millions of abortions the world will wind up with,
the extra deaths, the extra injuries by continuing to hold up this
funding. If creating more death and misery is part of being pro-life,
I am really glad to be pro-choice.
meg
|
| 20.7999 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:44 | 144 |
| RE: .7986 Steve Leech
> I judge no one, that's God's job, not mine.
You judge the character and intelligence of those who disagree with
you (and you've done this quite persistently over the years.)
You don't own up to your responsibility for these actions, though.
>> Ever heard words like "bastard" and "illegitimate"?
> Yes, but isn't this a case of mistaken finger pointing? I'm talking
> about stigmas against the behavior, not the result of said behavior.
> I'm not talking about creating stigmas against children, who are
> innocent.
The only way you can prove that people had sex out of wedlock is when
they have children out of wedlock (so it's the *families* and the
*children* who are stigmatized by this particular social stigma.)
Everyone else (including anyone who has an abortion) goes free.
>> If you return a huge stigma on premarital sex and births out of wedlock,
>> the best way to keep these things secret will be to choose abortion.
> First of all, you are the only one who keeps bringing up stigmatizing
> births out of wedlock. The only thing I wish to stigmatize is the sex
> out of wedlock.
The only way to prove sex out of wedlock so that the stigmas can be
pushed onto individuals is to note that they've had a child out of
wedlock (as mentioned above.) Thus, the child is included in this
stigma.
> I'm willing to bet the bank that the need for abortions would be
> greatly reduced, so even if some decided to have an abortion due to the
> stigma against their behavior, then the total number of abortions would
> be quite a bit less than the number of abortions today.
I'm willing to bet the bank that the human drive for sex and bonding
is so great that most people wouldn't stop to consider whether or not
they might be stigmatized later for having sex. Stigmas are so archaic
that most people (except the children) wouldn't care - if they did care,
they'd simply get abortions.
>> People do tend to wave pointy fingers at these two groups still, and
>> it will probably go on for a long time. So you have no need to make
>> a big point of trying to start these up (and I feel no need to make
>> a specific point of trying to stop the pointy fingers at these folks.)
> So, stigmas DO work, right? Since you disagree with social stigmas,
> I'm surprised that you do not feel inclined to stop these particular
> ones. If stigmas are harmful to society in general, then they all
> should be done away with, right? You seem to be quite selective about
> this issue of stigmas.
Drunk driving and pedophilia are both illegal. I feel no need to make
a specific point of trying to stop the pointy fingers against illegal
activities, even though the laws against such activities stand on their
own.
Social stigmas are aimed at law-abiding people who make personal
choices you don't like. All along, I've been fighting against
stigmas aimed at people who are not breaking the law when they
engage in their personal, private behavior.
You're the one who keeps trying to include illegal behaviors into
the mix to get me to agree to stigmas for LEGAL behaviors. It's not
working, though. It's appropriate to distinguish between the two.
> If they are truly as you say, and you seem to feel very strongly on this
> issue of stigmas, you should be at the forefront of eliminating stigmas
> against pedophiles and drunk drivers. You are not very consistent.
Rubbish. While I'm sure that you'd love nothing more than to force
me into the position of needing to put illegal and legal behaviors
into the same category (so that I would need to accept or reject
them all), it's not going to work.
It's appropriate to distinguish between illegal and legal behaviors,
and you can't change this (even if you buy a bigger baseball bat.)
> It's normal to think twice before doing something you KNOW will be
> looked down upon by most people. This is not rocket science.
You're dreaming, Steve. When the behavior is private and no one
else's business (and very unlikely to be discovered), it's normal
for people to do what they choose to do without caring what someone
like you will think about it.
>> You make negative statements about your ideological opponents ALL THE
>> TIME.
> So what? I haven't in this string, unless you think the truth (that
> you simply don't read my notes at face value) is making a negative
> statement.
Ah, another rationalization (and another refusal to accept responsibility
for your actions.) Still not surprising, of course.
It's easy to claim that you have such a firm moral code when you can
simply 'explain it away' when you do something that isn't moral.
>> They may become neutral about things that are private to others' lives,
>> that's all.
> Then their view on morality has shifted then, right? Thank you.
> You've just agreed with me (unintentionally, I imagine).
Not at all, they simply refuse to judge others. What a concept, eh?
>> Now it's just used as an accusation. All the ideas which inspired
>> those who called themselves "PC" (as self-deprecating humor) are
>> still thriving.
> Oh yes, they are indeed thriving. It started with a few good ideas,
> but these few shreds of wisdom were soon to be lost in the flood of
> abject stupidity. It's a shame, really.
The abject stupidity is yours, of course. You regard "PC-ness" as a
movement when it's just a way of teasing people.
> I think perhaps that you simply do not understand the concept of
> stigmas. It is not retribution after the fact, it is a preventive
> measure more than anything.
Earlier in your note, you wrote:
"It's normal to think twice before doing something you KNOW will be
looked down upon by most people. This is not rocket science."
"WILL BE LOOKED DOWN UPON" indicates a response IN THE FUTURE for
something which has already taken place.
So the stigmas you are suggesting would take place AFTER THE FACT as
retribution. You contradicted yourself, pal. Not that you haven't
done this many times already.
Look - we aren't going back to a system of stigmas (I don't care
how much you wail about it.) Our society simply won't do it again
for legal behaviors.
Instead of telling me to shut up, why don't you start behaving
according to your famous 'moral code' which you think would benefit
society so much.
|
| 20.8000 | Ignored most of your crap this time. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 15:52 | 22 |
| RE: .7988 Steve Leech
> Hmm... you are the only one arguing with me in this string. It has
> been pointed out to you by myself and EDP that you are not reading my
> notes as they are written.
EDP characterized your arguments as faulty, actually.
If you have decided that he read your notes as written (whereas I'm
the only who hasn't), then apparently, you are prepared to accept
his verdict about your arguments.
When people disagree with you, out pop your lame claims about having
been misunderstood or misread (with questions about the other person's
character and intelligence.) Hardly the moral high ground.
You explain away your behavior by blaming it on others, while you
also claim to take responsibility for your actions more than our
society does in general. Talk about hypocrisy.
Not that it matters. You don't have a prayer (literally) of making
our society as small-minded as you are, so you aren't a threat.
|
| 20.8001 | People are INappropriately identified for their parents' actions. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 16:03 | 29 |
| RE: .7989 Rocush
> No one has ever, as far as I can remember, ever said that refering to
> children born out of wedlock, with a particular term was either good or
> bad - it has not really been discussed. YOu have constantly raised
> this point as a smoke-screen, no one else has. Yet this is a very
> specific word that appropriately identifies an individual. It may not
> be kind or nice, but it is true.
It's not true at all, any more than the n-word is true.
> Again, let me stress, that no one but
> you has ever said it is a word that should be resurrected.
You simply think it's appropriate and true, which is most telling.
> On the other hand, you have continually said that people who use this
> word, yet only you have used this word, as mean-spirited. Again, I ask
> why you insist on using such a word when you keep saying that others
> should be more tolerant - that word being mean-spirited, not your
> smoke-screen word.
How disingenuous of you to claim that a discussion about the
inappropriateness of a word is the same thing as using the word
as if it were appropriate and true.
You're certainly quite ignorant if you believe that being called
'mean-spirited' while you're taking swings at people is as harmful
as being called a 'bastard' simply for being born.
|
| 20.8002 | | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Mon Feb 10 1997 16:15 | 8 |
|
RE: CONLON vs LEECH (with ROCUSH assisting)
Verdict: Game, Set, and Match CONLON.
Now perhaps we could get back to the topic of abortion.
kb
|
| 20.8003 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 17:27 | 18 |
| .7998
Obviously someone has been misled, but I prefer to count on the words
of the person who has put forward the amendment. He has stated his
opposition as I previously noted. You can claim something to the
alternative, but that is not true.
Planned Parenthood is one such entity. they claim they do not use the
funds for abortions, but they do not segregate the funds in any way.
This allows them to use the funds that would normally go towards these
efforts into abortion counseling and procedures. The opponents do not
believe that Planned Parenthood, with its long-term support of
abortion, as an appropriate recipient of these funds. If Planned
Parenthood dropped their abortion stance, or operated a completely
separate organization, they would get the funds. What's more
important, taking care of mothers and mothers-to-be and their children,
or insisting on an abortion agenda?
|
| 20.8004 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 17:31 | 12 |
| .8001
Still don't get it, huh? If you don't like the word, then stop using
it. Also, petition every dictionary publisher to drop the word and its
definition. Until then, it is an appropriate word. I would not use
such a word, but it is correct. YOu keep using the word and accusing
everyone else of using it. Your cheap tactics are really becoming way
too transparent at this time.
You still haven't gotten around to the issue of demanding that everyone
else show tolerance when you seem so incapable of the same.
|
| 20.8005 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 17:33 | 6 |
| .8002
Hint: a lot of this discussion is related to abortion, please follow
along. Also it's good see your verdict is as flawed as the logic and
tactics of your awardee. Nice try.
|
| 20.8007 | I guess this note is <next unseen> for a few weeks | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:05 | 9 |
| 20.8006 | I *am* tolerant of your personal, private family choices, Rocush | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:08 | 38 |
| RE: .8004 Rocush
> Still don't get it, huh? If you don't like the word, then stop using
> it.
You forget that I was asked quite specifically to give an example
of the way stigmas hurt children. This word more than suffices
as such. I've only discussed the word in the context of the
harmful nature of stigmas.
> Also, petition every dictionary publisher to drop the word and its
> definition. Until then, it is an appropriate word. I would not use
> such a word, but it is correct.
The word is only correct as an insult to another human being with
ZERO meaning or reference at all to the marital status of his/her
parents (as in, "You torched a building, you rotten bastard.")
> YOu keep using the word and accusing everyone else of using it.
> Your cheap tactics are really becoming way too transparent at
> this time.
Rocush, you are disingenuous. It isn't "USING" a word to make a
case for why the word shouldn't be used in a certain way (and
citing the word within the context of such remarks.)
> You still haven't gotten around to the issue of demanding that everyone
> else show tolerance when you seem so incapable of the same.
You show intolerance toward people who are making their own personal,
private family decisions. Our society shows a lot more tolerance for
such private matters these days, and I agree with this (even though it
means showing tolerance for *YOUR* personal, private family decisions.)
Your mean-spiritedness towards other people's private lives is not a
matter of your own private life. You do this in public, where it's
subject to criticism. If you don't like criticism, keep this stuff to
yourself.
|
| 20.8009 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:08 | 3 |
|
kb.... to quote ren in this topic was great! My hat is off to ya!
|
| 20.8010 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:10 | 1 |
| is that all?
|
| 20.8011 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:28 | 1 |
| i aborted the rest of the note
|
| 20.8012 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:44 | 3 |
| .7987
I'll mark my calendar. Thanks.
|
| 20.8013 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:47 | 9 |
| .8006
Still consistently wrong I see. The term you reference is, indeed, an
accurate reference to the marital status of the child's parents. If
anything, it isn an indictment of the parents, not the child.
Also, you once again, make reference to my mean-spiritedness, without
any proof, other than what you create and then claim it is my position.
|
| 20.8014 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:49 | 6 |
|
So...looking at a child, and calling him a 'bastard', will only hurt
the parents, not the child.
I see.
|
| 20.8015 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:50 | 11 |
| .8007
I see you have the same ability as the other participant. What I have
found myself doing, is clarifying the consistent errors made by your
other referencee by taking statments out of context, making statments
on her own and applying them to me and generally not addressing the
points raised.
If this is backpedalling, etc, then so be it, in your mind, I certainly
don't agree.
|
| 20.8016 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:51 | 2 |
| ever read that book, "bastard out of carolina".
woo, depressing. couldn't get through it.
|
| 20.8017 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:53 | 1 |
| 20.8016 This Carolina woman must have loose morals.
|
| 20.8018 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:55 | 13 |
| .8014
Since this particular term, as so many others, have been so overused and
misused, that it has no meaning today, other than a general expletive.
I would, however, have a bery clear meaning if used as, The b*****
child of Ms. xxxxx. This would be accurate and have more to do with
the parents than the child. If you think it applies to the child,
seems to be your point of view. Whenever I heard this term, I always
thought of the parents, actully the father who didn't take his
responsibility.
I guess it's a point of reference.
|
| 20.8019 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:56 | 1 |
| You Raleigh think so?
|
| 20.8020 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 10 1997 18:58 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 20.8015 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> other referencee by taking statments out of context, making statments
statements, statements
it's really no trouble.
|
| 20.8021 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:05 | 7 |
| .8018
/If you think it applies to the child,
it applied to the child, rocush. the word was
used to stigmatize the child and put him at a social
disadvantage. jesus, can't you get anything straight?
|
| 20.8022 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:08 | 23 |
| Rocush,
You have been misled, AGAIN, by someone in the anti-choice movement.
Planned Parenthood does, indeed segregate funds. The Location near me
has no sliding scale, as they receive no federal funding for this
clinic and does perform abortion along with multiple
other reproductive health procedures, INCLUDING first trimester
prenatal care and adoption counseling. The PP clinic on the other side
of town does get federal funding, and has the sliding scale, and does
NOT perform abortion procedures. Planned Parenthood seperated clinic
responsibilities and funding over 20 years ago when the 1973 law went
into effect. In 198x this segreagation went even further do to the
Reagan administration's decision that federally funded clinics were
required to inform parents that their minor children were reuesting
contraception. (the squeal rule)
The clinic that is on my side of town is funded by client fees, some
insurance, and donations. The clinic on the other side of town has
these AND federal funding, which saved a good friends life when she
discovered a dangerously growing breast lump and had no inurance or
ready money.
meg
|
| 20.8023 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:11 | 16 |
| re: .8018
Yes, I am sure that a child who grows up hearing him/herself
called, "The bxxxxxx child of Ms. xxxxxxx" will be quite
well-adjusted, have perfectly adequate self-esteem, and
understand quite clearly that this well-meaning monniker is
more of an indictment against his/her parents than a judgement
against the child.
Since I'm sure we all know for a fact that children have
no way of comprehending the shame of their parents, and
couldn't possible transfer any of the blame for that shame
to themselves.
Sheesh.
|
| 20.8024 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:18 | 3 |
|
I could be wrong here, but i think di is going to have to start
charging for the corrections. carry on.
|
| 20.8025 | | ABACUS::CURRAN | | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:28 | 13 |
| (back a few) Rosch
Why can't we just call the child a blessing...instead of stigmatizing
it as something to be shameful of. Why is it that you MUST label an
unwed mother. So you can have a clear assessment of your adgenda.
The mother is the mother. The child is a blessing. What on
earth are you thinking in the 1990's by labeling any child or unwed
mother a bastard. Good grief. What would you call a single father with
custody of his child? Do you have a label for that?
Wow, you need to pedal forward into this century.
|
| 20.8026 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:33 | 5 |
|
It's not a blessing! It's a bastard! A bastard!
<evil face>
|
| 20.8027 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:33 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.8020 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>
| > other referencee by taking statments out of context, making statments
| statements, statements
Well... it is as close to stats as he has gotten....
|
| 20.8028 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:35 | 8 |
|
> <<< Note 20.8025 by ABACUS::CURRAN >>>
> (back a few) Rosch
it's not Rosch, it's Rocush. they are distinctly different
mammals.
|
| 20.8029 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:41 | 22 |
| I do find it hard to believe that someone who professes to love fetuses
is willing to be so cruel towards post-born fetuses as to call them
names which historically have been used as epithets against children,
and then justify it by saying he or she only wishes to punish the
parents.
Making babies into a punishment is a driving force for abortion
throughout the world. Since it is practiced illegally in countries
where women are killed for sex out of wedlock, such sanctions obviously
aren't going to solve the abortion problem, much less the problem
Rocush and others have with people who have sex out of wedlock.
Rocush, I see you wanting punitive sanctions, I see no love for the
post-born fetus or much love of any sort in your writings. All I see
is your wanting people to be punished for having sex outside of you
narrow definition of morality. Many churches have figured out that
this attitude was actually increasing abortions in their midst, as
abortion is a private sin, no one but the person, the provider and
their diety need to know about. A pregnancy to term makes it obvious
that a person was having sex outside of moral constraints.
meg
|
| 20.8030 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:45 | 4 |
|
Bad baby! Bad! Bad!
|
| 20.8031 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:48 | 1 |
| Can I make a comment here?
|
| 20.8032 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:49 | 1 |
| you've never asked before, so how could anyone say no?
|
| 20.8033 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Feb 10 1997 19:49 | 3 |
|
No! Go away!
|
| 20.8034 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 10 1997 20:05 | 1 |
| i stand corrected.... again
|
| 20.8035 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 10 1997 20:19 | 12 |
|
I don't know - I have to agree with Rocush here. I just
went back and read the string over. Suzanne brought up
the word "bastard" and it seems to me that Rocush simply
acknowledged the fact that its definition is that of a child
born out of wedlock. Certainly that's indisputable. He
doesn't seem to me to be advocating calling children "bastards"
and said that in fact for him, the stigma is attached to the parents
when he hears the word. I don't see what the big deal is,
frankly.
|
| 20.8036 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 10 1997 20:25 | 142 |
| .7999 (Suzanne)
> You judge the character and intelligence of those who disagree with
> you (and you've done this quite persistently over the years.)
This is a pretty generic 'fact by assertion' response, but that's okay.
We all know that context is hard. It is mindset/mentality/philosophy that
I attack. You simply refuse to read my notes in this manner.
> The only way you can prove that people had sex out of wedlock is when
> they have children out of wedlock [...]
> The only way to prove sex out of wedlock so that the stigmas can be
> pushed onto individuals is to note that they've had a child out of
> wedlock (as mentioned above.)
I'm not interested in proving anything. I'm interested in prevention,
and am really interested in stigmatizing the males (who really never
suffered from such stigmas in the past, at least that I'm aware of),
too. Once again, I never said to stigmatize the child... you simply
don't have to do this. It's like stigmatizing sex without
"protection"... you are simply considered stupid by society for doing
this. I merely wish to extent this manner of stigma to sex out of
wedlock. I want society to say "you are stupid for doing this" (and if
you'd look at the results of this kind of prolific behavior, it is
something that is very obviously true in all too many cases).
You're the only one still wallowing around in the 50's.
> I'm willing to bet the bank that the human drive for sex and bonding
> is so great that most people wouldn't stop to consider whether or not
> they might be stigmatized later for having sex.
And you accuse *me* of judgeing the intelligence of people. You not
only challenge the intelligence of the masses, but suggest that they
are slaves to their sexual drives. You must think of people as
barnyard animals or something.
> Stigmas are so archaic
> that most people (except the children) wouldn't care - if they did care,
> they'd simply get abortions.
You also seem to think that most people would simply abort the fetus,
rather than give it a chance at life. How irresponsible you must think
Americans are. Oh darn, I'm preggers again! Time to visit the doc...
can't have anything like a pregnancy stifle my sex life, after all. I
gots a mighty powerful drive to bond... with anyone willing!
> I feel no need to make
> a specific point of trying to stop the pointy fingers against illegal
> activities, even though the laws against such activities stand on their
> own.
So, legality decides what you stigmatize? So it is only a
"mean-spirited" thing if you stigmatize something that isn't
specifically illegal? Of course, you do realize that homosexual sex is
illegal in several states, right? We should not try to do away with
this particular stigma, then... correct? Yet you've argued vehemently
against such a stigma. I'm getting dizzy.
> You're the one who keeps trying to include illegal behaviors into
> the mix to get me to agree to stigmas for LEGAL behaviors. It's not
> working, though. It's appropriate to distinguish between the two.
So, if abortion were to become illegal again, you would not argue
against stigmatizing it?
> Rubbish. While I'm sure that you'd love nothing more than to force
> me into the position of needing to put illegal and legal behaviors
> into the same category (so that I would need to accept or reject
> them all), it's not going to work.
Too bad this is not what I was doing, eh? I'm just pointing out that
if I am "mean-spirited" for supporting stigmas on certain behaivors,
then so are you. By your criteria, we are both mean spirited. Welcome
to the club (remember, you consider stigmas "mean-spirited", you said
so flat out and used the term against me).
You should think through your position on the issues in question more
thoroughly. This is twice I've caught you in your own trap...
gift-wraped, even.
> You're dreaming, Steve. When the behavior is private and no one
> else's business (and very unlikely to be discovered), it's normal
> for people to do what they choose to do without caring what someone
> like you will think about it.
We're not talking about me, and what I think of it. Do try to keep on
the topic at hand. We're talking about peer pressure in the form of
stigmas. It can be very effective at making folks think twice before
acting.
> It's easy to claim that you have such a firm moral code when you can
> simply 'explain it away' when you do something that isn't moral.
Explain what away? I've done nothing in need of explaining away. I've
not compromised my morality in this string. In fact, I've done all I
can to keep my personal moral code OUT of this string, but you just
can't leave it alone.
> Then their view on morality has shifted then, right? Thank you.
> You've just agreed with me (unintentionally, I imagine).
> Not at all, they simply refuse to judge others. What a concept, eh?
I'm not judgeing others, either. Of course, your smoke-screen doesn't
cover your weak denial of the fact that you did, indeed, agree
with my original assertion. To become morally neutral - from morally
opposed to an action - is a change in moral outlook.
> The abject stupidity is yours, of course. You regard "PC-ness" as a
> movement when it's just a way of teasing people.
So PC-ness is a big joke? Well, that *would* explain a few things...
> Earlier in your note, you wrote:
"It's normal to think twice before doing something you KNOW will be
looked down upon by most people. This is not rocket science."
> "WILL BE LOOKED DOWN UPON" indicates a response IN THE FUTURE for
> something which has already taken place.
"to think twice" is in present tense, and is the key to stigmas. After
all, if it's already happened, the stigma, in this instance, didn't
work. Keep in mind that I explained my idea of a stigma above as
society saying "it's stupid to do this". I doubt the doer would be
stigmatized as stupid for his/her entire life, unless he/she continues
with said behavior indefinitely.
> Instead of telling me to shut up, why don't you start behaving
> according to your famous 'moral code' which you think would benefit
> society so much.
Your the one who's been calling me a liar and other names throughout
this entire string. I'm tired of it. I'm merely telling you to put up
(the proof) or shut up. Since you cannot prove your wild slanderings, I
strongly suggest you quit with the name calling... unless you like
coming across as a hypocrite.
-steve
|
| 20.8037 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 20:29 | 18 |
| Again, the word "bastard" came up when I was very specifically
asked for an example of when stigmas can hurt children.
Whatever image Rocush gets in his mind when he hears a child
called by this name, it's undeniable that the term is being
used *to refer to the child* (not the parents.) The harm is
done to the child, as well.
He's defending this term as correct. While the historical usage
is undeniable, using the term this way is as outdated (thank God)
as stigmas themselves. In fact, this usage went out of vogue along
with the stigmas.
Our society has excellent reasons for not wanting to return to
the days of such stigmas. Seeing how calmly Rocush can defend
a child being called by this term (as if it would mean nothing
at all to the child) is reason enough to see how how recklessly
such stigmas would be applied if our society went back to them.
|
| 20.8038 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Feb 10 1997 20:35 | 13 |
| Suzanne:
I agree that stigmatizing a child does the child absolutely no good.
It acts as a deterrant for raising a child's self esteem and allowing
him/her the opportunity to function in society. Of course this is zero
excuse for deviant behavior.
The blame of course lies on the shoulder of mommy and
pappy...particularly pappy who couldn't control his glands in the first
place. Seems to me like you should be on the case of those who act
like barn animals instead of the politically incorrect.
-Jack
|
| 20.8039 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 10 1997 20:42 | 58 |
| .8000 (Suzanne)
> -< Ignored most of your crap this time. >-
It's getting harder and harder to respond, when your illogic is brought
to the forefront, eh? Since your smoke-screens are not distracting me,
you are now forced to try the "ignore it and it'll go away" tact. This
too will fail. I can be uncomfortably persistent. 8^)
> EDP characterized your arguments as faulty, actually.
EDP also said your reading comprehension skills are very much lacking.
> If you have decided that he read your notes as written (whereas I'm
> the only who hasn't), then apparently, you are prepared to accept
> his verdict about your arguments.
I'm more than willing to hear his views on this subject.
> When people disagree with you, out pop your lame claims about having
> been misunderstood or misread (with questions about the other person's
> character and intelligence.) Hardly the moral high ground.
Funny, but I never said a word about EDP's intelligence or charcter,
and he called my arguments faulty. And guess what? Not one note to
EDP about how he must have misunderstood my note since he disagrees
(I'm sure he understood it fine, actually, and am interesting in his
point of view). Obviously, he does not agree with me.
Oopsie, there goes another one of your unsubstanciated claims.
> You explain away your behavior by blaming it on others, while you
> also claim to take responsibility for your actions more than our
> society does in general.
Of course, I never said this. But you didn't understand what I posted
when I posted it, so why should I expect your understanding to improve.
If you haven't understood my original note, after having it explained
to you peicemeal over the last several hundred replies, I guess there's
little hope in you getting this one right, either.
> Talk about hypocrisy.
Oh indeed. Let's discuss hypocrisy. This is probably one subject in
this string that you *don't* want to bring up. Pot and kettle and all
that.
> Not that it matters. You don't have a prayer (literally) of making
> our society as small-minded as you are, so you aren't a threat.
Ah, more name calling. Yet I'm the mean-spirited one who you say
questions the intelligence and character of those who disagree with me.
Ho ho! This is getting better all the time. Yes, let's DO discuss
hypocrisy.
-steve
|
| 20.8040 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 10 1997 20:47 | 9 |
| Jack,
But most people don't act like "barn animals" who only have sex when
the female is in estrus, who have no apparent pleasure in the act, and
little to no bonding occuring.
Of course, YMMV, I don't want to inquire as to your bedroom practices.
meg
|
| 20.8041 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 10 1997 20:53 | 11 |
| .8035
First you get me dependent on you for my spelling, now you make me
dependent to clarify my notes. Will it never end, or will you not be
satisfied until I am totally subservient to you. Watch, she's probably
going to correct my spelling of subservient.
Also, I do appreciate the clarification. I did not intend to convey
any approval of the term, merely that it is a correct use and meaning
of the word. It is unfortunate, but true.
|
| 20.8042 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Mon Feb 10 1997 20:53 | 5 |
| ZZ Of course, YMMV, I don't want to inquire as to your bedroom practices.
Meg,
Ever hear of a game called, "The Burning of Atlanta"??
|
| 20.8043 | Take a hike, Steve. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 21:01 | 114 |
| RE: .8036 Steve Leech
>> You judge the character and intelligence of those who disagree with
>> you (and you've done this quite persistently over the years.)
> This is a pretty generic 'fact by assertion' response, but that's okay.
> We all know that context is hard. It is mindset/mentality/philosophy
> that I attack. You simply refuse to read my notes in this manner.
You're refusing to take responsibility for your actions again, Steve.
You rationalize that you're not talking about the people themselves,
but your own comments identify your untruths. You say direct things
about specific people.
> I want society to say "you are stupid for doing this"
You won't mind if society says, "Steve Leech, you are stupid for
wanting to return our society to archaic stigmas and small-mindedness",
I hope.
>> I'm willing to bet the bank that the human drive for sex and bonding
>> is so great that most people wouldn't stop to consider whether or not
>> they might be stigmatized later for having sex.
> And you accuse *me* of judgeing the intelligence of people. You not
> only challenge the intelligence of the masses, but suggest that they
> are slaves to their sexual drives. You must think of people as
> barnyard animals or something.
My statement above didn't question intelligence of the masses nor
did I suggest they are slaves to their sexual desires. Unlike you,
I happen to consider human sexuality as a natural and normal part
of life (not something we stole from other species in the animal
kingdom.)
My statement is that you're dreaming if you think that your viewpoint
is important enough for people to make their most personal, private
decisions *TO PLEASE YOU* (and those who think the way you do.)
> Of course, you do realize that homosexual sex is
> illegal in several states, right? We should not try to do away with
> this particular stigma, then... correct?
Do away with the law *and* the stigma at the same time.
By the way, if you want to ask me about other archaic laws (such as
not holding hands with your wife in public on Sunday, or whatever
the archaic law still on the books says about this) - such laws should
be removed. No, I would not support a stigma against a man holding
his wife's hand on Sunday. Our legal system does still have some
glitches in it with old laws that shouldn't be there. I'm not in
favor of stigmas for such laws.
> I'm getting dizzy.
You've been this way for years and years. Glad you finally realized it.
> I'm just pointing out that if I am "mean-spirited" for supporting stigmas
> on certain behaivors, then so are you.
You sound like Pee-Wee Herman when he said, "I know you are, but what
am I?" :>
Actually, I said that I would not make a point of getting rid of stigmas
for illegal behaviors (such as drunk driving and pedophilia.) It's not
something I'd go out of my way to fight in the same way that I would
fight stigmas directed at families for very, very personal, private
family choices.
> By your criteria, we are both mean spirited. Welcome
> to the club (remember, you consider stigmas "mean-spirited", you said
> so flat out and used the term against me).
Quote me where I said that stigmas (specifically) are mean-spirited.
If you can't do this, then admit that you've been untruthful again.
> You should think through your position on the issues in question more
> thoroughly. This is twice I've caught you in your own trap...
> gift-wraped, even.
In your dreams, Pee-Wee.
>> You're dreaming, Steve. When the behavior is private and no one
>> else's business (and very unlikely to be discovered), it's normal
>> for people to do what they choose to do without caring what someone
>> like you will think about it. *******
****************************
> We're not talking about me, and what I think of it.
Steve, are you so ego-centric that you can't spot the difference
between the phrase "someone like you" and the word "YOU"?
> Do try to keep on the topic at hand. We're talking about peer pressure
> in the form of stigmas. It can be very effective at making folks think
> twice before acting.
It's most effective at getting people to keep their actions secret.
> I've not compromised my morality in this string.
Then you don't have much of a moral code. You've denied responsibility
for your actions, then you've been untruthful about it.
> I doubt the doer would be stigmatized as stupid for his/her entire life,
> unless he/she continues with said behavior indefinitely.
So you do admit that stigmas are aimed at people AFTER THE FACT, even
you denied this earlier. Thank you.
> Your the one who's been calling me a liar and other names throughout
> this entire string. I'm tired of it. I'm merely telling you to put up
> (the proof) or shut up.
Put it where the sun don't shine, Steve.
|
| 20.8045 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 10 1997 21:25 | 12 |
|
.8041 Well now that you mention it, it has long been a dream of mine
to have a flock of dyed-in-the-wool Republican men satisfying
my every desire.
|
| 20.8046 | You've gone too far this time, buddy. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 21:42 | 16 |
| RE: .8039 Steve Leech
>> -< Ignored most of your crap this time. >-
> It's getting harder and harder to respond, when your illogic is brought
> to the forefront, eh?
My lunch was being brought to the forefront from reading what you wrote,
actually.
>> EDP characterized your arguments as faulty, actually.
> EDP also said your reading comprehension skills are very much lacking.
Accusing Eric of using the phrase you stole from another noter is really
low. I will never forgive you for talking about him this way. Never!!!
|
| 20.8047 | How's this for irony... :> | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 21:52 | 9 |
| Meg is absolutely right about the fact that barnyard animals do
not have sex for pleasure and bonding. Only for procreating when
the female is able to do so.
So, it sounds like barnyard animals have the ideal sexual relationships
(according to some moral codes), eh? :>
Sex for pleasure and bonding is fairly unique to the human species
(along with one known species of chimpanzees.)
|
| 20.8048 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 23:04 | 52 |
| Let's face it, sex outside of marriage is a given in our society.
Actually, extra-marital sex is pretty common, as well.
Most people do not cause any problems in our society when they
have sex outside of marriage. This sexual activity will not stop
to suit the morals of some in our culture. These activities
are personal, private, and quite legal.
The 'sex is dirty' crowd think that when humans are described
as having strong sexual drives (for pleasure and bonding), it's
like saying that people have no self-control and will behave
like barnyard animals. As Meg pointed out, barnyard animals
only have sex for procreation, so they'd have to go a long way
sexually to behave like humans in general. :>
If our society started promoting the idea that sex outside of
marriage is bad, it wouldn't stop the adults from engaging in
sex - it certainly didn't stop adults from having sex back when
our society had stigmas about it.
It would mean that our society would become a lot more hypocritical.
We'd be telling kids how wrong it is to have sex outside of marriage
while we'd all know that adults were still engaging in sex freely
(without causing societal problems.)
The kids would never listen to this "do as I say and not as I do"
message from adults. They barely listen to adults anyway.
IMO, it's better to heed the experience of the one western country
which has succeeded in all but eliminating unplanned pregnancies
and abortions in their society. They were straight-forward with
the kids when they said that sex was not the problem - unplanned
pregnancies and diseases were the problems, and they could be
prevented easily enough (with BOTH the men and women using their
own methods - a practice known as "Double Dutch".)
Teens in the Netherlands don't have sex as early as American teens,
even though adults tell them outright that it's ok if they decide
to have sex, as long as they protect themselves. Sex doesn't work
as a cool rebellion tactic or a 'trying to be adult' thing when the
adults don't mind about teens having sex as long as they protect
themselves.
In this country, some people seem to think that we should look at
their success and do precisely the opposite of it.
It would be like watching an Olympian run a marathon and deciding
to do exactly the opposite of what this person did to train for
the same kind of race.
It's best to take the advice of a successful country rather than
go in the opposite direction.
|
| 20.8049 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 10 1997 23:04 | 10 |
|
.8047
> Meg is absolutely right about the fact that barnyard animals do
not have sex for pleasure and bonding.
oh really? where do you think that expression "sheepish
grin" comes from?
|
| 20.8050 | Some guys have a special affection for sheep... :> | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 10 1997 23:07 | 7 |
| RE: .8049 Di
> oh really? where do you think that expression "sheepish
> grin" comes from?
Probably from the guy standing behind the sheep, actually. :>:>
|
| 20.8051 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Tue Feb 11 1997 01:33 | 1 |
| That's very devaluing to decent men whose only fault is bestiality.
|
| 20.8052 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 03:42 | 2 |
| Easy for ewe to say... :>
|
| 20.8053 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 11 1997 11:57 | 3 |
| .8002
And what have YOU been smoking, eh? 8^)
|
| 20.8054 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 11 1997 12:00 | 4 |
| .8013
Join the club. I too am labelled as "mean-spirited"... it seems that
those who do not agree with her are labelled as such.
|
| 20.8055 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Tue Feb 11 1997 12:03 | 1 |
| and small-minded steve, don't forget that one :-)
|
| 20.8056 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 11 1997 12:05 | 13 |
| .8029
Your conclusion is flawed. You take the position that since some
people do it in other countries - even under the threat of death - that
it will not *help* our abortion problem here. So, what is the abortion
rate in this country you speak of? Bet it's a lot lower per capita
than ours.
Suggesting that because *some* will do it anyway, that placing stigmas
on behavior will not help, is disengenuous.
-steve
|
| 20.8058 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 11 1997 12:40 | 3 |
| .8055
You are quite right. How could I forget that one... it's a gem.
|
| 20.8059 | cart before the horse | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Tue Feb 11 1997 12:41 | 16 |
| With trepidation, and sadness at finally joining in this rat-hole:
You can not "apply" a stigma in order to change behaviour. This is
putting the cart before the horse.
A stigma will accrue to any behaviour that it is generally considered
"socially unacceptable". This can not be prevented.
In the case of children born out of wedlock, we have probably reached
the point where we will never stigmatise these children, even if/as the
behaviours that result in their births returns to a socially condemned
status. I wouldn't offer any guarantees on this.
Probably only .01 worth, but anyway...
FJP
|
| 20.8060 | Fun time is over... | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 11 1997 12:56 | 29 |
| .8053
It seems that I've pushed all the right buttons... you have been
reduced to reactionary noting. Quite amusing, actually.
I especialy like your next note after .8053, where you get mad at me
for telling you what EDP said. Oh, no doubt I didn't speak verbatim,
but what I posted was an accurate representation of what he told you.
This in itself points to the very thing you deny, like a huge neon arrow.
I'm shocked that someone who claims the moral high-ground refuses to
forgive me for stating the truth. You really are a gem, you know. I
have all manner of fun when noting with you... why else would I
continue with a doomed (as I know you read your personal opinion of me
into every note I post) discussion for so long?
I'm afraid that I won't have the time to continue this conversation...
I've got another project to do, and won't have much time to long posts
(even with my notes window running in the background). Do continue
lambasting me, though... I find it most entertaining when you get all
worked into a lather.
If you do decide to address the argument (that I have been trying to
steer you back to for 400+ notes), please let me know. I'll be happy to
address (if briefly) issues that are actually related to what I've
posted. This goes for anyone else too, of course.
-steve
|
| 20.8061 | You deleted this and started over in .8060, apparently. Oh well. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 13:01 | 27 |
| RE: .8057 Steve Leech
Your posturing is such a joke, Steve. If you truly felt so blissfully
triumphant, you wouldn't have spent 60 lines trying to convince me of
this (while taking one last shot at trying to argue your case.)
It's like a kid yelling to others from the safety of his Mom's car,
"I beat you, I beat you - nyaa nyaa..." :>
You have little to offer society on this issue except the chance
to be a lot more hung up about sex (as a society) than our culture
is already.
Worse than that, your position would seek to harm people for their
very personal, private family choices which are covered entirely
under their own responsibilities. Remember, not all 'sex out of
wedlock' is about teens who could get caught up in unplanned
pregnancies.
Many responsible people simply choose to conduct their lives on
their own timetables (even when it means supporting and raising
their own families without choosing to get married at a specific
point.) People are more than entitled to make this choice on
their own, and our society is not going to sanction individuals
or families for such very private choices. It will not happen.
See you later, bud...
|
| 20.8062 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 13:02 | 5 |
| .8045
I have found the way to break free. I can't wear wool, even if it's
dyed, as I am way too sensitive.
|
| 20.8063 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 11 1997 13:05 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.8062 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
| I have found the way to break free. I can't wear wool, even if it's
| dyed, as I am way too sensitive.
And one never knows if what they're wearing might not be a former date!
|
| 20.8064 | | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Tue Feb 11 1997 13:05 | 3 |
| re: .8041
You must not want very much...
|
| 20.8065 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 13:14 | 16 |
| RE: .8060 Steve Leech
Your second attempt at saying goodbye to me toned down the posturing
quite a bit, but not nearly enough. It's still a joke.
Go to the nearest school playground to see if you can brush up
on this stuff, Steve. You need new material.
As for EDP (Eric) - he's the wordsmith of wordsmiths in notes arguments
- it was pretty funny that you thought he'd borrow your stolen phrase
in his note. It would be like Charlie Chaplin stealing comedy material
from Saturday Night Live's later years. :> (Except that Eric stealing
material from you is even *less* likely, even though Charlie Chaplin's
dead.)
See ya...
|
| 20.8066 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 13:15 | 29 |
| .8048
Well this has got to be the topper. Are you really saying that there
should be no effort on the part of a society to establish a strong
position in opposition to extra-marital sexual relationships because
some adults will chose this activity? YOur note seemed to indicate
that should such a stance be taken that kids would no longer believe
anything adults say because it would be hypocritical.
If such were really the case then there is a lot of other areas that
need to be addressed. A few that come quickly to mind are smoking and
crime. There are many people, even in this conference, that believe we
should aggressively restrict smoking by kids because of the ill-effects
of such activities. The issue, as you post it, is that kids won't
listen as, most likely, more adults smoke than have extra-marital
affairs. Right now this is a legal, personal decision, yet there are
many who want to restrict and eliminate it. this would seem to
eliminate all credibility with kids. the same applies to crime. I
would tend to think that more adults participate in criminal behavior
than have extra-marital affairs, yet we continue to try to keep kids
from engaging in the same activity.
The fact that adults do something, does not make it appropriate for
kids. It also doesn't mean that just because something is presently
legal or acceptable, doesn't mean that efforts shouldn't be made to
change it.
I really hope you didn't mean what you wrote.
|
| 20.8067 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 13:20 | 6 |
| .8063
If I thought for a moment that this reply was directed toward me, I
would take a much different response. I will assume it was intended
for someone else, or just a poor attempt at humor.
|
| 20.8068 | You jumped on the wrong term, Rocush. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 13:41 | 25 |
| RE: .8066 Rocush
> Are you really saying that there should be no effort on the part of
> a society to establish a strong position in opposition to extra-marital
> sexual relationships because some adults will chose this activity?
"Extra-marital sex" usually describes married people who have affairs,
not sex outside of wedlock. You mistook one for the other in my note.
I was talking specifically about sex outside of wedlock among adults.
> YOur note seemed to indicate that should such a stance be taken that
> kids would no longer believe anything adults say because it would be
> hypocritical.
It isn't just a few adults who engage in sex outside of wedlock,
Rocush. It's extremely common for unmarried adults to have active
sex lives in this country. Marriage sometimes has the reputation
of slowing down people's sex lives (since the pre-nuptual bliss is
often so good), actually.
The point is - sex outside of wedlock among consenting adults is not
a problem in this country. It's a natural part of life for many, many
Americans. Telling kids that it's wrong for them now when they know
it'll be a natural part of their lives later will only make them want
to try to 'be adult' sooner.
|
| 20.8069 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Tue Feb 11 1997 14:07 | 4 |
| Steve:
Deal with it...it's all Reagan's fault...just like AIDS and every other
ill that has come upon us!!
|
| 20.8070 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 14:30 | 16 |
| .8068
The first parapgraph of the note I referenced specifically addressed
extra-marital affairs. Are you saying that extra-marital affairs
should have social sanctions, or they are also to be considered
off-limits since some adults will engage in this activity?
The last part of .8068 also brings up, once again, that kids are going
to try and engage in adult activities, and sex is just one of them.
That being the case, then why do we try and keep kids from alcohol and
cigarettes. These are just other adult activities that are legal and
trying to keep kids from them just will encourage them to try it even
more. Perhaps, as adults, we recognize that there are activities that
require adult judgement, even though not all adults are equally
capapble, we do establish an appropriate age for various activities.
|
| 20.8071 | Oooops. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 14:48 | 21 |
| RE: .8070 Rocush
Look, I realize that you're confused, so I'm going to repost part
of my note so you can start over...
> The first parapgraph of the note I referenced specifically addressed
> extra-marital affairs.
"Let's face it, sex outside of marriage is a given in our society.
Actually, extra-marital sex is pretty common, as well.
"Most people do not cause any problems in our society when they
have sex outside of marriage. This sexual activity will not stop
to suit the morals of some in our culture. These activities
are personal, private, and quite legal."
Extra-marital sex was mentioned very briefly as a side comment, but
my note was written about "sex outside of marriage [i.e., wedlock]"
quite specifically.
When you get this straightened out, write back.
|
| 20.8072 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Tue Feb 11 1997 14:48 | 3 |
|
Nope, no love here.
|
| 20.8073 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Tue Feb 11 1997 14:58 | 25 |
| > Well this has got to be the topper. Are you really saying that there
> should be no effort on the part of a society to establish a strong
> position in opposition to extra-marital sexual relationships because
> some adults will chose this activity? YOur note seemed to indicate
> that should such a stance be taken that kids would no longer believe
> anything adults say because it would be hypocritical.
The society should not establish hypocrisy as an accepted social more,
would be a more succinct way of putting it. If that means admitting
openly that people have sex even though they aren't married, then yes,
admit it and move along. *THEN* you have a *CHANCE* of addressing the
issues that accrue in a society where people have sex, but not
everybody gets married. Like here, and everywhere else, for example.
Otherwise, solutions like abortion are what you get.
> eliminate all credibility with kids. the same applies to crime. I
> would tend to think that more adults participate in criminal behavior
> than have extra-marital affairs, yet we continue to try to keep kids
> from engaging in the same activity.
You think there are more criminals than adults having sex outside
marriage? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON???!
DougO
|
| 20.8074 | Thanks, DougO!! | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 15:07 | 15 |
| When it comes to anti-smoking campaigns, we're actually closer to
what we *should* be doing to prevent pregnancy and disease (in the
sense that it's considered as a health issue, not a moral issue.)
Our 'no smoking' campaigns don't tell kids that it's immoral to
smoke - the campaigns say that it's addictive and causes lung
cancer, etc. Smoking doesn't stop being addictive or causing
lung cancer when smokers get married. It's the same risk for
everyone, and it's a health issue.
If we just asked kids to be careful of the dangers involved with
sex outside of wedlock (such as pregnancy and diseases) and treated
it as a health issue instead of a moral issue, we'd be doing what
the Netherlands did to eliminate unplanned pregnancies and abortions
to the degree that their rate per capita is 1/10th the U.S. rate.
|
| 20.8075 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 11 1997 15:15 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.8067 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
| If I thought for a moment that this reply was directed toward me, I
| would take a much different response. I will assume it was intended
| for someone else, or just a poor attempt at humor.
GOI
|
| 20.8076 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 11 1997 15:15 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.8069 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Ebonics Is Not Apply" >>>
| Deal with it...it's all Reagan's fault...just like AIDS and every other
| ill that has come upon us!!
Hee hee hee.... too funny, Jack.
|
| 20.8077 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Tue Feb 11 1997 15:16 | 2 |
|
rough crowd lately, like sharks at feeding time.
|
| 20.8078 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 11 1997 15:18 | 30 |
| Careful here.
One of the main reasons for differences between European countries
like Holland and the USA is not to do with education programs but more
to do with socialized medicine.
Many people in the US make a decision to terminate based on economics
alone. If the mother is poor she will find it impossible to provide
about $10,000 in medical fees to have a kid. Assuming basic care and no
complications.
Which raises an interesting side issue.
For the poor and uninsured, most of that cost will be covered by our
taxes, or our elevated insurance costs - due to pumped up hospital
bills for covering the uninsured. Assuming only 25% of the figures
cited by Meg, who covers 500,000 X $10,000 for uninsured births? It
will probably be much more expensive in the end because the poor and
uninsured will skip prenatal care. The mother turns up in the
emergency room to give birth to a sick 2lb infant that requires several
weeks in the ICU at a few thousand dollars a day.
Part of the reason why other contries have lower abortion rates than
the US is because they have virtual free access to Gov't funded
family planning clinics and contraception. It's not so much education
as infrastructure.
Colin
|
| 20.8079 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 15:22 | 5 |
| .8073
Regarding your last paragraph. READ WHAT I WROTE! I did not say
what you wrote.
|
| 20.8080 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 15:28 | 11 |
| .8071
Oh, I got it sorted out, I am looking for a clariffication on your
part. You referenced extra-marital affairs in the same note with
unmarried affairs. Are you equating the two, or feel they are somehow
related?
If not, then do you believe societal sanctions against extra-marital
affairs is appropriate, or should a blind eye be turned to this
activity also?
|
| 20.8081 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 15:31 | 5 |
| .8074
So in other words, there are things that adults do, understanding the
risks involved, that we should try to keep kids from engaging in.
|
| 20.8082 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 11 1997 15:34 | 7 |
|
.8080 clarification
i can't help myself.
|
| 20.8083 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Tue Feb 11 1997 15:44 | 2 |
|
di, this is getting serious. it's getting to be an obsession.
|
| 20.8084 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 11 1997 16:26 | 28 |
| .8065
Yes, I did tone down my original note... I thought I'd pushed enough
buttons for one week. 8^) I decided to bow out without again stating
the obvious, yet I find myself wanting to expand anyway.
I'm still trying to figure out this EDP sensation you are on. He very
clearly said your view of my notes do not match what was written. Go
back and read his notes once more, if you don't believe me. Since you
find him an authoritative source, maybe you will listen to what he was
saying.
Of course, you didn't take this to heart when EDP jumped in, so I don't
imagine you are going to in the future due to any correction on my part.
You simply do not read my notes for comprehension. You keep supporting
this fact in every response, as you go further and further astray of the
topic, and try to center everything on my moral code (which has been
irrelevant to this discussion all along) and your view on what damage
you feel my personal moral code would inflict upon society (also
completely irrelvant).
My original assertion is not only a simple one, but is one you have
basically agreed with it in at least one note. I guess you forgot what
my assertion was. Surely if you knew, you would have gone to great
lengths to disagree with it. You're slipping... 8^)
-steve
|
| 20.8085 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 11 1997 16:28 | 7 |
|
And no "demented parrot" comments from Mr. Walters.
Hmmph.
|
| 20.8086 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 11 1997 16:39 | 23 |
| .8068
> The point is - sex outside of wedlock among consenting adults is not
> a problem in this country.
I disagree. This is the very problem (percentage-wise) that directly
contributes to this topic of discussion.
> It's a natural part of life for many, many
> Americans.
Sure, it's natural, but not everything that comes naturally is a good
thing in every context.
> Telling kids that it's wrong for them now when they know
> it'll be a natural part of their lives later will only make them want
> to try to 'be adult' sooner.
Depends on how this message is delivered and supported. Telling them
to go ahead and do it, but be careful, is a definite green light.
-steve
|
| 20.8087 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 11 1997 16:56 | 6 |
| 20.8085 I was thinking of something along the lines of the
Calvin Klein ads, Di:
"Somewhere between love and being a demented parrot lies obsession."
|
| 20.8088 | Sex and Friendships in the nineties | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Feb 11 1997 17:21 | 10 |
| Michael Doonesbury is about to get married again (maybe) to a young
computer whiz.
They're currently going over the invitation list on the computer, and
Michael is objecting to having guests at the wedding who have slept
with the bride.
His young woman is bristling: "What? Are we only inviting your friends, then?"
/john
|
| 20.8089 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 17:29 | 5 |
| .8082
I! Capital I. Not really a misspelling, but I think it's the best
I'll get.
|
| 20.8090 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 11 1997 17:31 | 3 |
|
.8089 <bzzzt> that's just 'box syntax.
|
| 20.8091 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 18:02 | 8 |
| RE: .8081 Rocush
> So in other words, there are things that adults do, understanding the
> risks involved, that we should try to keep kids from engaging in.
In other words, we should make sure that kids understand health issues
which face us all so that they can make informed decisions.
|
| 20.8092 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 18:06 | 6 |
| .8091
So in other words, if kids are given all of the information regarding
cigarettes, and they chose to smoke anyway, then you are all in favor
of supporting their informed decision.
|
| 20.8093 | No self-control... <tsk,tsk> | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 18:21 | 53 |
| RE: .8084 Steve Leech
Steve, Steve, Steve - don't ever make another big statement about
how you're saying goodbye in some topic.
You lack the self-control to stick with it.
> Yes, I did tone down my original note... I thought I'd pushed enough
> buttons for one week. 8^) I decided to bow out without again stating
> the obvious, yet I find myself wanting to expand anyway.
No self-control at all. You find yourself needing to posture some
more, and it doesn't help you at all that some will look down on
you for it later. (So much for the value of even the tiniest hint
of a stigma, eh?) :>
> I'm still trying to figure out this EDP sensation you are on. He very
> clearly said your view of my notes do not match what was written. Go
> back and read his notes once more, if you don't believe me. Since you
> find him an authoritative source, maybe you will listen to what he was
> saying.
Steve, I've noticed that you have severe limitations in your thought
processes such that when a response to your note is unacceptable to
you, it follows in your mind (as night follows day) that the person
couldn't read your words. No other possibility is feasible to you.
Eric made no such claim. He doesn't suffer from your limitations.
He spoke of wordplay, which is not the same thing as being incapable
of reading someone's note.
When Ann B. (from whom you stole this notion) used to write that
someone lacked reading comprehension, she chose instances when
a true misunderstanding had occurred. And she used it sparingly.
You use this phrase for almost every situation you encounter.
Do you see why this is a limitation on your part?
> You simply do not read my notes for comprehension.
Here you go again. It's the only thing you know how to say when
things don't go your way in conversations. Your limitations grow
more severe as we speak...
> My original assertion is not only a simple one, but is one you have
> basically agreed with it in at least one note. I guess you forgot what
> my assertion was. Surely if you knew, you would have gone to great
> lengths to disagree with it. You're slipping... 8^)
You're starting to babble now - worse than usual, Steve.
Let it go. Find your goodbye note and re-commit yourself to it.
If you need a 12 steps program for this, we'll find one for you.
|
| 20.8094 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 18:28 | 17 |
| RE: .8092 Rocush
> So in other words, if kids are given all of the information regarding
> cigarettes, and they chose to smoke anyway, then you are all in favor
> of supporting their informed decision.
Once kids are hooked on cigarettes, they're in the same boat as the
millions of adults who got hooked when *they* were kids.
They're going to face a (potentially) lifelong struggle to kick their
addiction, and they have my sympathies.
Does this constitute support? I don't buy cigarettes for kids, nor
do I favor abolishing the laws against selling cigarettes to kids.
However, I do accept that they're in the boat of having to kick an
addiction (along with millions of adults), so I know it'll take more
than a simple "Shame on you" to get them past it.
|
| 20.8095 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 18:54 | 13 |
| .8094
Please don't add things to my notes that I didn't say. I never said
the kids were hooked on cigarettes. I specifically did not say this.
There are plenty of kids out there who have received all of the
information about the health risks of smoking, can recite it chapter
and verse, yet still decide to start smoking.
According to what you have posted, you have no problem with letting
these kids go right ahead an smoke. You have no reason to try and
keep kids away from situations that are potentially damaging, as long
as they have all of the information before they make the choice.
|
| 20.8096 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 19:12 | 37 |
| RE: .8095 Rocush
> Please don't add things to my notes that I didn't say. I never said
> the kids were hooked on cigarettes. I specifically did not say this.
> There are plenty of kids out there who have received all of the
> information about the health risks of smoking, can recite it chapter
> and verse, yet still decide to start smoking.
Ok, so these kids have made the decision to smoke but aren't actually
smoking yet? You could be talking about a period of minutes or seconds
here.
> According to what you have posted, you have no problem with letting
> these kids go right ahead an smoke.
Who is "LETTING" these kids smoke? They aren't asking for permission,
and they aren't doing it in places where adults can grab the cigarettes
out of their mouths.
> You have no reason to try and keep kids away from situations that are
> potentially damaging, as long as they have all of the information before
> they make the choice.
Providing information is all we can do (before and after kids make
their decisions about smoking.)
My son was told in pre-school that cigarettes were dangerous. He told
my Mom (when he was 3 years old) that she'd better stop smoking or her
heart would turn black. (He was a little confused about the details
of the danger, obviously.)
My son doesn't smoke but most of his friends do. Their parents didn't
"LET" them do it, nor did any other adults. They did it when adults
weren't around, in spite of the information provided about the dangers.
What power do you think you have over kids such that you can control
their actions when adults aren't present?
|
| 20.8097 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 11 1997 19:26 | 23 |
| .8096
So you believe that once the information has been provided there is no
other action that can be taken? At least that is what I got out of
your note.
If that was the case, then why is there the effort to remove Joe Camel
from ads, keep ads out of certain magazines, not allow the Marlboro
logo to be seen on TV during th Super Bowl. I can go n and on, but I
think you get the point. There is a lot that can be done to discourage
an activity far, far beyond just providing the information.
This also, as far as cigarettes go, to set up sting operations to catch
and fine those shop owners who sell cigarettes to minors.
According to your philosophy all of the above is useless and
counter-productive. It also is an intrusion into personal choice and
nobody's business but the individual.
At what point will you be complaining about the over-intrusive
government and do-gooders that want to stop people from enjoying
themselves once they've been given all of the appropriate information.
|
| 20.8098 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 19:56 | 57 |
| RE: .8097 Rocush
> So you believe that once the information has been provided there is no
> other action that can be taken? At least that is what I got out of
> your note.
You keep providing the information - the process doesn't stop as
long as new kids keep being born.
> If that was the case, then why is there the effort to remove Joe Camel
> from ads, keep ads out of certain magazines, not allow the Marlboro
> logo to be seen on TV during th Super Bowl. I can go n and on, but I
> think you get the point. There is a lot that can be done to discourage
> an activity far, far beyond just providing the information.
Tobacco companies TARGET kids as new smokers to replace the ones they
kill every day. They spend billions in this very direct effort to sell
KIDS on the idea of smoking (even though something like 1/3rd of these
kids will have to be replaced by other new smokers when they are killed
by smoking later.)
No other industry spends billions to entice children (IN PARTICULAR)
to become direct money-spending consumers for a product which has a
good chance of killing them directly. It's understandable to want
to regulate how these companies are allowed to market to children.
> This also, as far as cigarettes go, to set up sting operations to catch
> and fine those shop owners who sell cigarettes to minors.
Selling cigarettes to minors is illegal. Lots of sting operations
are set up to catch illegal activities.
> According to your philosophy all of the above is useless and
> counter-productive. It also is an intrusion into personal choice and
> nobody's business but the individual.
We can't control what kids do when adults aren't around, but when
an industry spends billions to convince children to spend money on
their very lethal products, it's useful to use the law to control
what the companies themselves can do.
Companies aren't individuals - if Proctor and Gamble started
advertising for kids to eat their cleansers, we'd do something
about their marketing practices. We can control what companies
can do legally.
> At what point will you be complaining about the over-intrusive
> government and do-gooders that want to stop people from enjoying
> themselves once they've been given all of the appropriate information.
Companies' marketing practices can be regulated in certain ways.
Rocush, I realize what you're trying to imply about my statements,
but you're on the wrong track here. I could try to help you figure
it out, but I'm not sure you'd accept the help.
So I guess you're going to be stranded in space for awhile.
|
| 20.8100 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 20:38 | 46 |
| Rocush, it seems that you believe that I'm suggesting we do absolutely
nothing to influence people (pro or con) about any personal choices
they may wish to make in life.
My position is that health issues (such as birth control, abortion,
smoking, drugs, cholesterol, etc.) should be treated as health issues,
NOT moral issues.
We provide the information about the health risks involved and we keep
the dialogue open with teenagers, especially, about their concerns.
It doesn't mean that we remain neutral on all issues - obviously,
something like smoking has very, very severe health risks with no
methods to prevent specific individuals from facing the fatal
diseases that can come with it, so the health messages will always
be very strong about smoking. It's a drug, and drug addictions can
be broken.
Sexual relationships most commonly do NOT result in pregnancy and
diseases (especially if couples take certain precautions), and
we have to be honest about this, too. It's important for people
to know about the precautions enough to use them properly.
As we've discovered from the Netherlands, it's possible for
the use of such precautions (as a widespread cultural practice)
to reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions to a rate that is
1/10th the U.S. rate per capita.
The main thing is that we address these things as health issues.
The Netherlands won their battle with huge campaigns to influence
people on the basis of the health issues involved, and their
approach worked.
I'm not saying that we have no possible way to influence anyone
(ever) by promoting a certain stand - I'm just saying that the
real solution is to work on these problems as the health issues
they truly happen to be, rather than moral issues.
Both sides of the issues about teen sexuality want the instances
of unplanned pregnancies to be reduced (as they have been in the
Netherlands.) If we approach this as a health issue (the way they
did), then we can work for the same goal together. If we approach
it as a moral issue (with the health aspects being tossed aside for
fear that such frank discussion amounts to support for activities
that some consider immoral), then we'll never make any headway with
this issue at all.
|
| 20.8101 | Take care... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 11 1997 22:27 | 6 |
| Steve Leech - perhaps we'll find a topic someday where we have
the same point of view. Surely there's something we see the
same way... :>
Peace,
Suzanne
|
| 20.8102 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 12 1997 02:19 | 3 |
|
I know the topic! You both want your pets to do well!
|
| 20.8103 | Perhaps I could purchase a goldfish... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 02:27 | 4 |
|
Thanks, Glen - would this mean that I'd have to acquire a pet,
though? :>
|
| 20.8104 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 12 1997 10:51 | 5 |
|
You have 2 of them..... I thought you knew that. One is named Rocush
and the other is named Leech. And an occasional stray called EDP stops by for a
visit every now and then. :-)
|
| 20.8105 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 12 1997 11:43 | 13 |
| .8093
I didn't say I was leaving the topic... once again you refuse to read
what I write - even when it is something simple. I do not have the
time to swap 100+ line replies with you... especially when they are
going nowhere.
Oh, and in the next three notes (unless someone enters a note before I
can finish), I will repost what Eric said regarding your notes... you
seem to leave out pertinent details.
-steve
|
| 20.8106 | first one | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 12 1997 11:48 | 62 |
| ================================================================================
Note 20.7760 Abortion 7760 of 8104
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." 43 lines 4-FEB-1997 11:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re .7709:
> If you can make the case that most everyone else's morals are NOT firm
> because society's so-called morals aren't firm, than the same thing
> can be said about you (since you are as much a part of society as
> any other human being within it.)
You show such peccable logic, how can anybody resist it? Your passage
above is mere wordplay, clearly not what Steve Leech's words really
meant. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^
[It seems obvious to Eric that your version of what I said is simply
not what I said at all. This most certainly points towards the fact
that you do not read my notes as they are. Either you deliberately
misrepresent me, or you are not reading my notes for comprehension.]
Re .7737:
> If you truly believe that most people engage in behaviors based
> on societal whims, . . .
Again, that is not what Steve Leech wrote. It is quite possible
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
physically for a person to believe one day that bank robbery is okay
and to believe the next day that it is not without changing their
behavior in any way on either day.
[Again.]
Re .7738:
> According to this, "MOST" Americans should be gay now (if your claims
> about moral leanings and the acceptability of homosexuality are both
> true.)
Again your logic is peccable. If people believe it is moral or
^^^^^
acceptable to be homosexual, that does not mean they are homosexual.
[And again.]
Steve Leech may be wrong, but your unfair attacks discredit you, lend
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
an undue air of credence to his notes, and weaken the presentation of
others who would accurately criticize Leech.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
[And he certainly is not on my side of this debate. He can, however,
read my notes as they are, rather than reading into them any personal
bias (should there be any).]
|
| 20.8107 | second one | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 12 1997 11:51 | 30 |
| ================================================================================
Note 20.7780 Abortion 7780 of 8104
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." 17 lines 4-FEB-1997 13:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re .7762:
I read Steve Leech's words about what Steve Leech says.
I read your words about what Steve Leech says.
I have no trouble deciding which more accurately represent what Steve
Leech says.
There is no need to engage in the disingenuous wordplay you use when
Steve Leech's statements are so faulty. Your arguments do great harm
to your position.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
[ Once again, he feels my words are faulty, but he sees that you are not
representing my words properly within the argument. Once again, this
is either a lack of reading comprehension, or if you do understand
them, it is deliberate misinterpretation. Which is it? (I like to
assume the best of you and say that your personal bias against me and
my moral code is coming into play, causing you to read things into my
notes that are not there.) ]
|
| 20.8108 | last one | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 12 1997 11:53 | 36 |
| ================================================================================
Note 20.7789 Abortion 7789 of 8104
RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." 26 lines 4-FEB-1997 13:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re .7787:
> I've quoted Steve Leech directly from his .7521 note.
You quoted from a subjunctive clause.
[Not an uncommon thing for you to do in this string, when responding to
my notes.]
> Whether anyone likes it or not, he did state his belief in society's
> ability to "alter behaviors" and he did make explicit statements about
> his belief that Americans "went along for the ride" when society's
> morals changed.
Your wordplay is merely wordplay. I can see for myself what was
written and will not believe anything you write about it that
contradicts what is plain to see.
[Word play, according to Eric. Is it deliberate misinterpretation, or
do you simply not understand what I have written?]
> I'm just playing around with the absurdities I happen to see in
> his views.
See to your own vision before that of others.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.8109 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 12 1997 11:54 | 5 |
| .8095
>Please don't add things to my notes that I didn't say.
<chuckle> Good luck with *this* request.
|
| 20.8110 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 12 1997 12:02 | 18 |
| .8101
What are your views on welfare? 8^) 8^)
If I had the time, we could swap some more "mean-spirited" notes 8^) ...
that's what makes the box so much fun. What's the fun if everyone
agrees with you, right? I'll be reduced to snippet noting for a
while... though I have found a few minutes this morning to post a
string of short notes. I'm sure you will enjoy them. 8^)
Although we never seem to be on the same side of a given topic, I do
always have a good time arguing with you (if I didn't, I wouldn't have
kept this string going for so long).
Keep your keyboard warm... I'll certainly be back for more. 8^)
-steve
|
| 20.8111 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Feb 12 1997 12:13 | 6 |
|
.8110
oh, I'm giddy for the next round of tag team noting.
Conlon/Leech/Rocush. I'm breathlessly awaiting the next rematch,
yes I am.
|
| 20.8112 | Ilk Ilk Ilk Ilk!! :-) | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Feb 12 1997 12:23 | 11 |
| Suzanne:
What baffles me in all this is you (and others of your ilk),
consistently tell the likes of Al and Steve to mind their own business
yet you continually shout from the rooftops that we as a society need
to show more social responsibility, e.g. welfare...that sort of thing.
Why the inconsistencies???
-Jack
|
| 20.8113 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 12 1997 12:51 | 31 |
| jack,
I don't see the inconsistancy at all. Educate your children to be as
moral as you would have them, do community work to helpkids see
something more worthwhile than having babies at a young age, and be
prepared to help pick up the pieces and save the lives of those who
slip.
Prenatal care and encouraging breastfeeding is one the the cheapest
ways to protect children while saving lives. Providing training,
childcare, and continued health care while moving people from
dependancy to work is not just socially responsible, it is one way to
end abortions, prevent future unwanted pregnancies, and reduce the size
of the underclass in the US. On the other hand, leaving people with no
prenatal care, encouraging people to formula feed (cost is 2.50/day at
the bottom end of formula prices) costs me money as my hospital costs
also cover the indigent who have sick babies and kids and can't pay
their bills. Telling people that their babies and they can starve is
going to lead more pregnant women to abort to protect what livelihood
they and any other children they have, will increase the underclass and
homeless and lead to serious barbarians at the gates IMO.
I believe abortion should be left out there as an option, but not
because I rejoice in every aborted poor fetus. I know that abortion
has been there, will continue to be there regardless of legality, and
is the best choice some people feel they can make for themselves and
their families at times. I also believe that a person who chooses life
for an unplanned pregnancy should be given every ounce of support a
community can come up with.
meg
|
| 20.8114 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 13:38 | 24 |
| Steve, your limitations are still showing, not to mention your
desperation. Although you started getting my sympathies yesterday
(and continue to have them to some degree today), I'll try to help
you out here.
When people are having a written conversation, more is involved than
the process of reading what another person writes.
You're still very rigid with your ideas about what can go amiss when
someone responds in a way that is unacceptable to you. In your mind,
it must be the reading process and nothing else. You are totally and
completely closed off to any other possibility.
When others object to a response as not precisely mapping to some words
written, you quite rigidly make the assumption that the only possibility
is that these others were talking about the reading process, too.
Your mind is totally closed to every other possibility.
It's a problem for you and I hope you can solve it at some point.
Meanwhile, if you have faith that this discussion worked out well
for you, then you have nothing left to complain about, right?
Good.
|
| 20.8115 | RE: .8113 | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 13:43 | 4 |
| Great note, Meg!
You're absolutely right.
|
| 20.8116 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 16:15 | 28 |
| .8100
You seem to think that there is only one way to address a problem, and
that is through information. The information regarding the health and
emotional dangers involved in different activities has been around for
decades, and has not reduced the rates. As has been pointed out
previously, the majority of teens and adults know all there is to know
about the issues. They choose to ignore it or not let it influence
their decisions.
I tend to think that there is more than one way to address a problem.
I do not look at it as an either/or issue. I have never even hinted at
eliminating the information being provided, or even increased. I do,
however, based on the failure so far, believe that we can try other
approaches as well. One of which is to stress strong societal morals.
this would then give two different thrusts to solving the problem. One
would be the information and the second would be to clearly let it be
known that society expects certain behaviors. We need to identify
these and support them.
You once again have used the figures from the Netherlands and claim
that they are 1/10th the US level. 1/10th of what US rate? The
current unacceptable rate that three decades of information has not
reduced but increased, or the US rate in the 30s, 40s or 50s? I tend
to think it is the current rate, not the prior rate. If possible,
please identify the Netherland's rate today with the US rate from a
period prior to the 60s.
|
| 20.8117 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 16:19 | 6 |
| .8113
I don't think anyone has ever said that some women and their children
should starve. If you have specific information to the contrary, I
would be interested in seeing it.
|
| 20.8118 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 16:52 | 76 |
| RE: .8116 Rocush
> You seem to think that there is only one way to address a problem, and
> that is through information.
Although I've certainly stressed the importance of distributing
information about the health issues we've been discussing, I've
never said it's the only way. In fact, I made a point of clearing
up this issue for you yesterday when I explained that we do have
some other avenues to pursue (such as controlling the way some
companies can market lethal products to children, etc.)
Also, I pointed out to you that the Netherlands doesn't simply hold
some big cache of information about health issues in their country
- they held campaigns which implored people to take precautions to
avoid the dangers of the health issues involved. This is clearly
far more than providing information, and it worked extremely well.
> The information regarding the health and emotional dangers involved
> in different activities has been around for decades, and has not
> reduced the rates.
The idea of the information is to encourage people to protect
themselves ***IF*** they do decide to engage in sex.
The main problem in the U.S. is that the precautions which could
prevent pregnancy and diseases are labeled as immoral by some.
The recommendation of precautions is also seen by some as outright
"permission" to engage in sex. This works against the use of such
precautions.
The Netherlands' success is based entirely on their population being
willing to protect themselves whereas our population is not. As long
as we have groups *working very hard against* these precautions, we'll
never see their success ourselves.
> As has been pointed out previously, the majority of teens and adults
> know all there is to know about the issues. They choose to ignore it
> or not let it influence their decisions.
Our culture gives very mixed messages with this information, though.
Part of our culture implores people to use precautions *if* they do
engage in sex, while other parts of our culture make it sound as if
the use of these precautions is proof that they set out to commit
sins by being prepared.
> I tend to think that there is more than one way to address a problem.
> I do not look at it as an either/or issue.
Hopefully, you realize by now that I don't see this as a 'one way'
situation, either.
I'm absolutely positive we'll disagree on the appropriateness of the
'other' methods, though.
> One of which is to stress strong societal morals. this would then
> give two different thrusts to solving the problem. One would be
> the information and the second would be to clearly let it be
> known that society expects certain behaviors. We need to identify
> these and support them.
We will ***NEVER*** agree on what these morals should be, though.
The health risks are objective - we can state these with a great deal
of confidence (at least to the point of our current medical knowledge
in these areas.)
We could spend eternity disagreeing about the precise moral code
which should be presented to our society.
Clearly, this only makes the issue and the problems not solvable when
one side demands that health issues be treated as moral issues (when
it's clear that the rest of society will never agree to this.)
Cut your losses about the moral stuff and work with the rest of society
on the health aspects of this issue.
|
| 20.8119 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 17:01 | 21 |
| As for the Netherlands' having an abortion rate which is 1/10th the
U.S. rate per capita (with an unplanned pregnancy rate which is
roughly 1/10th the U.S. rate as well...)
The Netherlands allowed legal abortions with a very similar abortion
rate per capita as the U.S. when they set out to solve the problem.
They reduced their rates to be 1/10th our rate per capita using a
very planned approach which implored people to use precautions to
protect themselves from pregnancy and diseases.
In this campaign, men were given responsibility for this equally with
women, and both sexes were implored to use their own form of protection
even if their partners were protecting themselves as well. They call
this "Double Dutch" (where both partners use a protection method and
each acts as backup to the other in case of failure.)
It worked. They all but completely eliminated this problem in the
Netherlands. In the U.S., we'll never make it past the point of
arguing about whether morals should be part of the approach to solving
the problem.
|
| 20.8120 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Feb 12 1997 17:18 | 4 |
|
"Double Dutch"?? Has someone informed them they should be offended by
that that term?
|
| 20.8121 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 17:21 | 20 |
| .8118
Very few people, and I am not one of them, want to treat health issues
as moral issues. there are moral issues that impact health issues.
As long as you want to keep these two eternally separate, you will see very
little change.
Once it is accepted that the US had, and to a certain extent, still has
a rich tradition of religious beliefs, then progress will be made in
magnitudes. If there are those who would rather argue about whether
moralistic information should be provided with conduct information, we
will continue to wallow in the present situation.
What you are saying, it appears, is that people know all there is to
know about the health issues, but because there are those feel certain
actions are immoral, these same knowledgeable people will not keep
themselves safe because someone else thinks it's immoral. that's just
plain silly.
|
| 20.8122 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 17:22 | 8 |
| .8119
You have stated the results of the Netherland's program numerous times.
My question is what rates are being compared. the current Natherland's
rate with the current US rate, or the US rate in the 30s, 40, and 50s.
There is a big difference depending on which rates are being compared.
|
| 20.8123 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 12 1997 17:48 | 25 |
| Current rates, last I heard.
If you dig through this string, there was quite bit of information on
the Netherlands successful efforts in reducing sexually active teens,
unwanted pregnancies, STD's and abortions by giving out factual
information and teaching people that contraception and disease
prevention fall on both partners. Never ceases to amaze me what a
country can do by providing factual information instead of "just say
no," one of several failed social experiments of the '80's, and
unfortunately continuing into the '90's.
Knowlege of the proper use of condoms could have prevented two more
dead-beat daddies and a single teen mother of two next door to me. She
was raised with "just say no" as were her boyfriends. (My opinions
about teens boffing is another matter, but I am not her, and I don't
live in her skin.) As it was they allowed themselves to be carried
away by the moment (I didn't want him to think I'm a slut) and the
resulting conceptions are now my and your responsibilities until she
finishes school and finds a way to support herself and her kids.
How much better, if along with abstinence education, she AND the boys
involved had learned contraception.
meg
meg
|
| 20.8124 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 17:58 | 40 |
| RE: .8121 Rocush
> Very few people, and I am not one of them, want to treat health issues
> as moral issues. there are moral issues that impact health issues.
> As long as you want to keep these two eternally separate, you will see
> very little change.
See what I mean. You'd rather see no progress at all in this area
than give up the prospect of promoting a moral code in all this.
(So much for the lives that might be saved, literally or figuratively.)
> Once it is accepted that the US had, and to a certain extent, still has
> a rich tradition of religious beliefs, then progress will be made in
> magnitudes. If there are those who would rather argue about whether
> moralistic information should be provided with conduct information, we
> will continue to wallow in the present situation.
As long as the promotion of moral codes matters to you more than the
lives which we could help together if we could only agreed to approach
the very real health dangers as health issues, then we will not solve
the problems.
> What you are saying, it appears, is that people know all there is to
> know about the health issues, but because there are those feel certain
> actions are immoral, these same knowledgeable people will not keep
> themselves safe because someone else thinks it's immoral. that's just
> plain silly.
Rocush, if I were saying this, you would have quoted me directly.
What I said (quite clearly) is that some in our culture work against
the very precautions that would help prevent pregnancy and disease.
It's the precautions which have all but eliminated the Netherlands'
abortion problem with the rates which were once very close to ours.
As long as we have some in our culture who work against the very
things that could prevent unplanned pregnancies and diseases, we're
going to continue to have serious problems in this country with these
health matters.
|
| 20.8125 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:04 | 19 |
| RE: .8123 Meg
> Current rates, last I heard.
Correct. They had a problem very similar to ours and they eliminated
all but around 10% of it.
Rocush will tell us "big deal" now (as if ending the need for 90% of
the abortions in our country simply wouldn't be impressive enough
to suit him.)
It seems significant to me that they started out where we are now,
and they reduced the need for abortions to a rate which is now
1/10th the U.S. rate per capita.
Personally, I'd be thrilled with an improvement like this (if it
were possible.) It isn't, of course. We'll never get past the
point of arguing about whether or not the main goal ought to be
the promotion of a particular moral code.
|
| 20.8126 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:07 | 11 |
| .8123
Are you really saying that the kids next door to you are really
ignorant about where babies come from and don't know anything about
contraception? Or is the fact of the matter that all parties involved
knew all there was to know and chose to ignore what they knew.
Please tell me how more information would have made these kids make a
different decision. they already had all of the information necessary
and ignored it any way.
|
| 20.8127 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:09 | 8 |
| Rocush, so here's where we stand now...
You demand that these issues be addressed with the promotion of a
moral code, and I don't agree that the rest of our society will
ever submit to this.
So, we're back at square one where the problems will never be
adequately addressed or solved.
|
| 20.8128 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:09 | 1 |
| You mean it's over? {sob!}
|
| 20.8132 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:14 | 1 |
| You mean it's not over? {sob!!!!}
|
| 20.8131 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:14 | 16 |
| Meg's 'kids next door' are the result of mixed messages from our
society.
Part of our society implores people to protect themselves if they
do have sex, while the other half suggests that birth control is
one sin and sex is another.
It's always easier to engage in sex without using precautions of
any kind - so some decide to half-listen to each side by having
sex without protection.
We need to give a solid message which says, "For goodness sake,
if you're going to have sex, please, please, please protect
yourselves from pregnancy and disease."
We don't do this now, and never have.
|
| 20.8133 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:19 | 4 |
|
aagagag. gerald, you're adorable. ;>
|
| 20.8134 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:20 | 23 |
| .8124
See what I mean. You'd rather see no progress at all in this area
than give up the prospect of discussing a moral code in all this.
(So much for the lives that might be saved, literally or figuratively.)
What I keep hear you saying is that you will not tolerate, under any
circumstances, a public discussion and support of a standard that
stress morals, values, character and self-respect. The only acceptable
alternative is to keep pumping out more information and acceptance.
Your way has not been effective, contrary to your contention. There is
not anyone around who does not know all information necessary.
Are you afraid that a public discussion and promotion of values, etc
may actually be effective, in combination with information, and this
would be totally unacceptable to you. What would you say if a
combination of efforts was successful and the rates dropped 90%. Would
you say that it doesn't count because values and morals were included
in reducing the rates. I thought the point was to reduce the problem,
not reduce the problem according to your rules only.
|
| 20.8135 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:23 | 8 |
| .8125
If, indeed, it is compared to current rates, what happened to increase
the rates so significantly. How do the rates compare to the US rates
in the 30s, 40s and 50s when there was so little information and
acceptance. If today's rate in the US is higher then there seems to be
a problem not related to the amount nor availabilty of information.
|
| 20.8136 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | T minus 2 days and counting | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:25 | 6 |
| >We need to give a solid message which says, "For goodness sake,
>if you're going to have sex, please, please, please protect
>yourselves from pregnancy and disease."
This is exactly what I have taught both of my sons from a very young
age. It has worked wonderfully and it fits any moral code.
|
| 20.8137 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:27 | 17 |
| Back in the '70's I remember a friend who worked at the local woman's
health clinic say "It seems its only the 'nice girls' who come in here
pregnant. The 'bad girls' come in for contraception, and rarely for
pretgnancy tests."
The neighbor didn't want to be thought a slut by her boyfriends or
others by using her own protection, and didn't want to be so forward as
to insist on a condom in one case, where in the other, the boy did
provide a condom, but didn't put it on correctly and it broke. She
still wasn't using her own contraception, since she was telling the
adults in her life that she had learned her lesson with the first baby
and wasn't going to engage in sex again until she was married. This
time, at least she is getting Depo shots every three months, and
hopefully will keep up with them, so we don't have a third baby in the
near future.
meg
|
| 20.8138 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:27 | 9 |
| .8134
I'm all for character, morals, and so on. I am not all for pushing
them down people's throats in the context of religion. There are
things that are right no matter whether you worship Jesus or whether
you worship lint that grows in Queen Elizabeth's navel. Turn off the
emphasis on religion, and maybe you can contribute substantively to the
discussion. Failing that qualification, you are merely being turned
off.
|
| 20.8139 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:30 | 6 |
| RE: .8133 Di
> aagagag. gerald, you're adorable. ;>
Agreed! :>
|
| 20.8140 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:31 | 7 |
| .8131
That's just about the silliest excuse I've ever heard. Gee, I know
what I need to do. If I don't, I really will be unable to hide the
fact. But I really know I shouldn't do it in the first place. so,
what the heck, I'll just get pregnant anyway.
|
| 20.8141 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:36 | 12 |
| Many people don't get pregnant or pick up STD's with occasional
unprotected sex, unless they are unlucky. The two kids' conceptions
were not from a first time encounter, just egg and sperm happened to
meet at a time and place that was conducive to conception. It still
amazes me that biology courses don't even explain natural human cycles
to kids.
No the message is if you get carried away in love its OK that you had
sex without protection, and that having some form of contraception says
you will make use of same.
meg
|
| 20.8142 | As Meg said, people often have many encounters w/out pregnancies... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:39 | 10 |
| RE: .8140 Rocush
> That's just about the silliest excuse I've ever heard. Gee, I know
> what I need to do. If I don't, I really will be unable to hide the
> fact. But I really know I shouldn't do it in the first place. so,
> what the heck, I'll just get pregnant anyway.
People don't usually expect to engage in conceptions when they don't
wish to do so.
|
| 20.8143 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Wed Feb 12 1997 18:44 | 10 |
| >It still
>amazes me that biology courses don't even explain natural human cycles
>to kids.
I recall a certain teacher who drilled this little tidbit into our heads.
He had a way of presenting the information in a educational fashion
but making sure its practical application and implications were also
well understood.
|
| 20.8144 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:04 | 24 |
| .8138
I don't seem to remember expressing support of any particular version.
Also, dismissing a very large percentage of the population because they
hold religious beliefs, which conflict with the opinion of, anytime,
anywhere, just be careful, seems to be in direct opposition to the
stated goal of eliminating the problem.
Once again, it seems as if the problem can only be solved if it 's
solved your way. Seems to be rather unproductive to me, and
particularly hypocritical of those who say they want to solve the
problem, but only if it's done their way.
Seems to bring the whole discussion round to the topic. Absolutley no
progress on the issue of abortion can be made unless those who believe
there are logical and reasonable restrictions that can be discussed,
drop their point of view. Unless those who think that anyone, anytime,
anywhere, for any reason seems a bit extreme change their position,
they will be unable to participate in the discussion.
This attitude may make you feel good, but it does nothing to address
the problem and it will not go away. Despite what the religion-bashers
would like everyone else to believe.
|
| 20.8145 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:23 | 10 |
| .8144
> I don't seem to remember expressing support of any particular version
> [of religion].
See .8118. Your third paragraph. It doesn't matter what variety of
religion you push - the very pushing of religion is the problem. You
cannot make other people believe what you believe so long as you base
your beliefs on something - anything - whose validity they reject a
priori.
|
| 20.8146 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:26 | 29 |
| Dick:
How would you respond if somebody were to put in the following replies?
"All drugs should be legalized, the federal government should not be
involved or shove their morality down anybody's throat. If you so
choose to overdose on heroin or any other kind of drug...please, take
your drugs, go to a crack house, do your thing and just....just die for
crying out loud...just die...please. Enough of your whining."
"All adults who so choose not to better yourselves....please, just go
someplace...curl up into oblivion and just....die. Get out of my
hair." Free country, you made choices....deal with the ramifications
of same...and good luck."
See Dick, this isn't a matter of the religiosos shoving anything down
throats....we are all getting our own share of throat cramming. We
have Meg shouted from the high hills that society is culpable for the
stupidity of peoples choices...and we have our beloved Suzanne
acknowledging this FDR governmental interference with glee.
Apparently it is a matter of whose throat is being stuffed. Laws are
ideologies...so it is a matter of whose ideology is more accepted or
lobbied. You piss and moan when the average conservative promotes an
idea like...maybe...government has no role in beurocratic charity but
God forbid should a person with some religious conscience suggest that
abortion is systemic sin.
-Jack
|
| 20.8147 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:40 | 17 |
| .8145
Let me see if I get this right. If I hold certain believes, values,
standards, etc, and I hold them because of my religious beliefs, I am
precluded from expressing my opinions as long as I indicate that they
are faith based.
This ultimate public sin of expressing religious beliefs is sufficient
to eliminate any discussion of a solution.
Let's see. You, as a generic you, have effectively eliminated any
values discussion of the last several years, if they can be idenitified
as having any religious basis at all. During that same period of time,
teen pregnancy, single parents, abortion, drug and alcohol abuse and
numerous other social ills have skyrocketed. Is there any correlation?
Perhaps, but closing any discussion is probably counter-productive.
|
| 20.8148 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:46 | 5 |
| Al:
And the amazing this is when one says, "okay...fine...go ahead and live
in abject misery you fool", the shriekers of liberalism will look at
you like you have committed the unpardonable sin.
|
| 20.8149 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:51 | 10 |
| .8146
Jack, I'm afraid that if you cannot perceive that morality is not
congruent with religion, you are beyond help. Both may involve similar
concepts of behavior, but they do not necessarily involve similar
concepts of spiritual belief. When you say, "My morality is a product
of my religion," the response of an areligious person, and also maybe
that of a religious person of another faith, is, "Okay, fine. Your
religion is wrong; therefore, since your morality comes from your
religion, your morality must be wrong, too. So go suck an egg."
|
| 20.8150 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:53 | 13 |
| .8148
What just kills me is that there are those who will say that I must
accept their positions and values, which seem to be based more and more
on situational ethics. If, on the other hand, I believe that my values
have merit and should receive equal consideration, that is out of the
question since I base my beliefs on my faith.
It seems an awful lot like, accept my values because they are right and
I care, but I don't need to give yors the time of day.
Gee, I wonder why we face the problems we do.
|
| 20.8151 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:54 | 13 |
| .8147
See .8149. And take note of what the Curmudgeon's Dictionary says
about religion:
religion n. An attempt to understand and obey the whims of
whatever sort of being one imagines one's God to be; hence, one
man's excuse for starting a war, and the next man's excuse for
refusing to fight in it.
All religions look equally silly from the outside.
-- Robert A. Heinlein, _Time Enough for Love_
|
| 20.8152 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:55 | 9 |
| > When you say, "My morality is a product
> of my religion," the response of an areligious person, and also maybe
> that of a religious person of another faith, is, "Okay, fine. Your
> religion is wrong; therefore, since your morality comes from your
> religion, your morality must be wrong, too. So go suck an egg."
So if my belief that it's wrong to murder is a product of my religion,
the areligious person or the RPoAF will say my belief in the immorality
of murder is wrong?
|
| 20.8153 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:55 | 6 |
| .8150
Maybe we face the problems we do because people get tired of people
like you, with your tunnel vision and continual whining that religion
is the only way to save us from the mess that everyone except you is
responsible for.
|
| 20.8154 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:57 | 7 |
| .8152
If you hang your belief re murder strictly on your religion, then the
areligious person or the RPoAF may well turn you off before you get to
the point of discussing the morality of murder. Most people have good
information filters in their brains, when they choose to turn them on,
and IGNORE is one of the best.
|
| 20.8155 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 19:58 | 9 |
| .8149
I get it. since my beliefs have the failing of being based on
centuries of teachings and faith, I can be dismissed as irrelevant.
Others who base their morality on their personal beliefs should have
center stage and be accepted. Of course they can change their beliefs
based on the next popular philosophy to come along, since it's strictly
personal, but they should have greater access toth epublic discussion.
|
| 20.8156 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 20:02 | 8 |
| .8153
Please identify where I have stated that religion is the only way to
save us from the mess.......
You seem to have a problem with any discussion that doesn't start and
end with your beliefs and solutions.
|
| 20.8157 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Feb 12 1997 20:03 | 11 |
| Dick:
I can make the distinction between morality and religion...no doubt
there are atheists out there who have a strong moral code.
My contention is that faith based morality is just as viable as any
other foundation of morality...and stating so is not shoving religion
down one's throat. I don't recall anybody saying, "God is going to get
you for this"!
-Jack
|
| 20.8158 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Wed Feb 12 1997 20:14 | 28 |
| .8156
> You seem to have a problem with any discussion that doesn't start and
> end with your beliefs and solutions.
If you'll put down your mirror and look at someone else, maybe we can
have a meaningful dialogue. My beliefs happen to be that the right way
to cut abortion is to preach abstinence except within marriage, with
heavy emphasis on the sanctity of marriage as a commitment between two
individuals, and to make it clear what the consequences of failing to
abstain can be. But unlike you, I'm not fool enough to assume that
youngsters are going to believe me all the time, every time. So I also
recognize the wisdom of making hard information available that might
prevent conception by those who choose not to hear me.
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will
not depart from it." Start with kids, and if your teaching is effective
they'll be the adults of tomorrow.
Coupled with the above beliefs, I also hold a belief that I have no
right to FORCE my morality, wherever it comes from, on others. I can
only teach and hope they'll listen. This is where I differ from most
anti-choice people. As long as the law treats the unborn differently,
there will be argument over abortion. Outlawing abortion per se is a
mistake. Changing the law to consider unborn embryos and fetuses to be
persons in the eyes of the law is different - with that change would
follow the legal position that abortion is murder - which, at present,
it is not.
|
| 20.8159 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 12 1997 20:22 | 20 |
| .8158
Please let me know where I have said anything other than what you just
stated. the only difference is that I have no problem, nor should I,
instating that my beliefs are faith based.
Please identify where I have said that religion needs to be forced down
anyone's throat. I have no problem with using whatever means or
methods may be effective. If education and information is effective
for some, then we need to that. If faith based morals are effective
for others, we should do that also. If something else is effective for
others, then we need to do that also.
I see moral instruction as a piece of a total solution. You want to
keep any faith based moral instruction in the closet, whether it could
be effective for some or not.
That's where we differ. Other than that you have stated exactly what I
believe.
|
| 20.8160 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Ebonics Is Not Apply | Wed Feb 12 1997 20:28 | 14 |
| Dick:
Ditto...I do however believe that the right to dissent should be
honored in this country. I find most of the feminist leadership in
this country to be ghastly low lifes but I do and always have respected
their right to publicly denounce Ronald Reagan and picket Florida
Orange growers for advertising on Rush.
In spite of the truths you've taught me on the Civil War, the
abolishionists must have played some role in changing the paradigms of
the accepting of slavery. I see the anti choice people in the same
light.
-Jack
|
| 20.8161 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 12 1997 21:02 | 15 |
| It's so easy for some to think of throwing morality at a problem with
the thought that people would **have** to go along with a certain plan
of behavior if you just tell them that the alternative is naughty and/or
if you just threaten them with eternal damnation. This throws unnecessary
complications into the mix.
Real health problems have dire enough health, social and economical
difficulties that throwing harsh moral judgments into these matters
is counter-productive at best, and severely damaging at worst.
We all agree (both sides) that the health issues exist. We'll never
agree on the issue of whether or not to bring morality into it (or
even *which* morality would be best, if morality were brought into it)
- so the only way we can make progress is to meet where we can both
address these things as health issues. It's the only common ground.
|
| 20.8162 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Feb 12 1997 21:47 | 6 |
|
.8161 nicely put.
|
| 20.8163 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 12 1997 22:41 | 7 |
|
Jack... you took the cake with that last reply. How do you get through
the day without at least one person smacking you? Or is this what happens?
Glen
|
| 20.8164 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Feb 13 1997 11:34 | 31 |
| Glen,
Hitting people with brain injuries doesn't make them any smarter or
more responsive, it just makes them blather more.
Whose morality? I am a pagan, a tradition that predates Christianity
by several centuries in Europe and in the US. Your so-called morality
caused the deaths of several thousands of people, or if you go back
further to the religion of your founder several hundreds of thousand of
deaths. While I might find some of the basic teachings of your founder
to be worthwhile, I certainly find the practice by many of his
so-called followers reprehensible.
Yes I believe in treating drugs, gambling, prostitution, and sexuality
in a health-related, rather than legal realm. This does mean that the
junkie who wants to go clean should have the support of the state, the
pregnant person should have access to the best prenatal care and
nutrition we can spare, the prostitute licensed and health checked,
support for the chronic gambler when he or she admits a problem. It
makes for a healthier society, rather than a sicker one, with
progressively more disabled people living under bridges, aborting,
spreading TB and STD's into the general population, and the cost of
heroic neonatal care that costs you and me a small fortune, not to
mention raising our insurance rates. The malnourished fetus becomes a
malnourished, disabled person, requiring large amounts of my money for
education and training. The person who needs to feed their hungry kids
may start eyeing my mite and deciding it should be theirs. Wht is
wrong with providing support while helping the person out of a life of
dependancy? You prefer living behind barricades?
meg
|
| 20.8165 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 13 1997 12:30 | 16 |
| .8161
Gee, that sounds so nice. Unfortunately what you propose is exactly
what we have done and the problem just keeps getting worse. Just about
everyone knows the health risks and what they should and should not do
to protect themselves from all of the ills. Information, knowledge and
education has not done anything to reduce the problem.
Let's propose a hypothetical. If, as you say, the goal is to reduce or
eliminate the problems and the current efforts have been ineffective.
Assume that, in total desparation, a national movement to stress faith
based morals is undertaken and the rates drop to zero. would this be
unacceptable to you since the goal was not achieved in the manner in
which you want? Is the goal solving the problem or solving the problem
your way?
|
| 20.8166 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 13 1997 12:36 | 11 |
| .8164
You ask the question about what is wrong with helping a person out of a
life of dependancy. I ask the question what created the environment
that led a person to a life of dependancy.
If I can use an analogy. YOu want to keep rebuilding and repairing a
wall that is being rotted because of water damage. I would prefer to
find the source of the leak and repair the leak. Once the source is
identified and corrected, a repair can be permanent.
|
| 20.8167 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Feb 13 1997 13:06 | 37 |
| Rocush,
We have not been doing what I recommended, not by a long shot! with
the exception of some parents children are learning nothing but
abstinence and a bare course in the mechanics of sex. They are not
learning about contraception. The kids pegged as most at risk are
maybe givin a "Baby Think it Over" doll for three days. They aren't
told how to avoid making that baby, except for don't do "it." Boys are
completely ignored, although it takes two people to make a conception
happen.
We don't have provisions for meaningful employment training written
into the current Welfare deform, and don't have provisions or extra
money written in for child care, a definite need in moving people from
welfare to work. The training offered here will get a person a job
that pays about the same as Mac Ducks, not even enough to pay rent on
an efficiency apartment, let alone provide for food, daycare, Dr
visits, medicines, clothing to go to work in.... the minor things that
can get a person off welfare and keep her off.
Drug abuse is treated as a legal issue, we are cramming low-level drug
abusers into prisons and making them serve more time than rapists,
baby-rapers and murders. The same with prostituion, except for some
enlightened counties in Nevada. Gambling is even sponsored by many
states, including mine, yet there are no provisions for the person who
spends their paycheck on lotto tickets, when they realize they are
going under in a big way.
What has been done during the last 15 years while teen pregnancy has
skyrocketed? "Just say no!" the idea of educating people about proper
condom use, (not rocket science, but failure to use one properly
results in horrific numbers of unwanted conceptions and STD's) gives
some people the screaming fantods. At least when I was in school they
allowed people to talk about contraception and pregnancy options while
emphasizing abstinence as the one best method to prevent same.
meg
|
| 20.8168 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 13 1997 13:34 | 17 |
| .8167
"Just say No" was an anti-drug program, not a teen pregnancy program.
Also, despite your claims, the majority, which obviously excludes some,
know about contraception and proper use. Many areas have provided
graphic demonstrations of proper use of condoms.
What are you going to do about those parents who believe that
information and eduction is inappropriate for their child. they
believe that their personal faith based morals is what their child
needs. Are you saying that these parents will have no say in how their
child is raised and what values get presented. Please don't say that
this is something that should be kept in the closet at home. If
parents alone could perform this task, then why do you want to say that
they aren't capable of teaching personal behavior ans society needs to
take over that role from the parents.
|
| 20.8169 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Thu Feb 13 1997 13:43 | 23 |
| .8159
> the only difference is that I have no problem, nor should I,
> instating that my beliefs are faith based.
So that works for you. I've already explained twice why it may be
counterproductive in discourse with other people. If you can't see
that, it's your problem, not mine.
> Please identify where I have said that religion needs to be forced down
> anyone's throat.
In .8118 you said that things will get better as soon as it's
recognized that we have a religious heritage. That's all I need to
infer that you are interested in pushing that heritage. If that's not
your agenda, perhaps you might wish to clarify - and perhaps you might
wish to admit that pushing morals does not require any mention of
religion whatever.
I don't want to keep faith-based moral instruction in the closet - but
unlike you I am not fool enough to insist that morals come part and
parcel with my brand of faith. There, it would seem, is the kernel of
our difference.
|
| 20.8170 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Feb 13 1997 13:51 | 24 |
| "Just say no" was not just an anti drug problem. It also became the
buzzword for sex ed during the '80's.
As far as the parents who believe it is inappropriate for a
14-year-old to learn about contraception, I have the neighbors as an
example. I have no desire to see more people having to make serious
life-choices at the ripe old age of 15, but my 17-year-old neighbor had
to make some pretty radical ones, starting at 14. I would have
preferred she didn't start out that early in sexual experience, but far
better that if she was that she had been using good contraception and
her boyfriend a condom. she wouldn't have been a slut to me, just a
careful, thoughtful person.
Yes she was raised by your moral standards in an extremely moral
church, which promptly abandoned her and her mother when she started to
bulge. Couldn't have that little girl corrupting others, you know.
Obviously they hadn't taken "Love them Both" to heart. thank goodness
for Life Support who doesn't abandon children, and does know that we
members of PP also believe in supporting families who choose to carry
to term.
meg
|
| 20.8171 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Thu Feb 13 1997 14:10 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.8164 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>
| Hitting people with brain injuries doesn't make them any smarter or
| more responsive, it just makes them blather more.
I agree. That's why I said hit him in the head, not his butt! :-)
|
| 20.8172 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 13 1997 15:17 | 30 |
| RE: .8165 Rocush
> Gee, that sounds so nice. Unfortunately what you propose is exactly
> what we have done and the problem just keeps getting worse.
No, it's what the Netherlands has done with tremendous success.
What we do (too often) in this country is to make it seem like the
information distribution itself is immoral, along with all the ways
to prevent pregnancy and diseases (except abstinence.)
> Just about everyone knows the health risks and what they should and
> should not do to protect themselves from all of the ills.
Too many in this country promote the precaution methods as immoral
themselves, so some people find it a lot easier to resist using the
precautions than to resist the sex.
> Information, knowledge and education has not done anything to reduce
> the problem.
It reduced the problem by 90% in the Netherlands because they did it
correctly. They have plenty of extremely religious people in their
culture, too, but they kept the discussions of this issue in the realm
of HEALTH, not an argument about morality.
If we could ever do what you claim we've done already, we could follow
in the Netherlands' footsteps on this - we probably wouldn't get as
much success as they've gotten, but we'd be a lot better off than where
we are now.
|
| 20.8173 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 13 1997 19:19 | 26 |
| .8172
You contradict yourself. You claim that we don't provide the
information and then write:
"Too many in this country promote the precaution methods as immoral
themselves, so some people find it a lot easier to resist using the
precautions than to resist the sex."
So you yourself admit that they know what the precautions are, but
choose not to use them.
Essentially what you are asking is that, although people already know
what to do and choose not to, the very significant proportion of the
people in this country ignore their value system and morals and conduct
the discussion on the health issues. Of course, we already know the
health issues but choose to ignore the precautions.
Once again I ask, even though it has been ignored thus far, what is the
goal? Solving the problem or solving on your terms. If it's solving
the problem then I would think you would be willing to accept any
methods that can accomplish the goal. If the goal is making sure that
no public discussion of faith based morals never be conducted or
presented outside of a closet in the house, then make that the goal,
but don't confuse the two.
|
| 20.8174 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Feb 13 1997 19:43 | 24 |
| RTocush,
If you have been told, sex is immoral, and planning for sex is even
more immoral, what is a girl to do?
The neighbor thought that being prepared was being a slut. Only nasty
girls took the pill, or used other contraceptives. Being a nice girl
who fell in lust with a classmate, she wound up pregnant. Being a nice
girl who had made a mistake, she again didn't use precautions because
she had told the adults in her life that she knew where babies came
from and had no plans for sex until after marriage again. Then
wonderful boy number two came into her life. HE didn't know how to use
a condom, and being a nice girl who wasn't having sex with boys
anymore, didn't know how to tell if it was on correctly. Funny thing
about condoms, you can blow them up incredibly huge with no fear of
breakage, but leave air in the resevoir tip and they tend to fail
catastrophically on ejaculation. The thing came out in shreds and nine
months later a 7 pound 2 oz baby boy also came out. If she had been
using at least a spermicide the latter outcoming might not have
happened. But she is a good girl.
|
| 20.8175 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Thu Feb 13 1997 19:50 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.8174 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>
| If you have been told, sex is immoral, and planning for sex is even
| more immoral, what is a girl to do?
Be more like a guy... don't plan it, just expect it.... :-)
|
| 20.8176 | lets see, now where does this go? | KERNEL::FREKES | Like a thief in the night | Thu Feb 13 1997 19:56 | 4 |
| A guy not knowing how to use a condom?
One would have thought that would be pretty obvious.
Steven
|
| 20.8177 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 13 1997 20:02 | 21 |
| .8174
I have no reason to doubt the facts as you presented them. I do,
however, question whether any amount of education would have made a
difference with this girl She knew exactly what to do, she had
thresults living and breathing of a prior mistake. this girl needed
more than just more information.
If the point of this is that her parents were terrible for expecting
her to remain chaste until marriage, then look somewhere else for
support on that theory. Her parents have an obligation to do
everything they can to instill and support their values. Because a kid
will do whatever they want to spite the parents is not a reason to say
throw out all of that religion stuff because it doesn't work
I can present an enormous number of girls and guys who chose not to be
sexually active because of the religious morals they were taught. Both
elements need to be part of the solution, if you are really interested
in solving the problem as opposed to removing religion from the public
discussion.
|
| 20.8178 | Would YOU be willing to deal with a proven health-related effort | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 13 1997 21:35 | 72 |
| RE: .8173 Rocush
> You contradict yourself. You claim that we don't provide the
> information and then write:
What I wrote is that we don't provide the information *correctly*
(with consistent messages about the importance of using precautions.)
It's not a contradiction at all. It's quite true.
The Netherlands does provide consistent information and messages
about it, and it works extremely well for them. In our country,
too many people fight this effort. They consider the information
and/or the precautions to be immoral themselves, so our society
sends mixed messages (such as the notion that it's less sinful
if you have the sex but don't use the sinful precautions which
can prevent pregnancy and diseases.)
>> "Too many in this country promote the precaution methods as immoral
>> themselves, so some people find it a lot easier to resist using the
>> precautions than to resist the sex."
> So you yourself admit that they know what the precautions are, but
> choose not to use them.
Using precautions is more of a hassle than having sex without any
protection at all. When a certain segment of society says they
are immoral, it's even easier not to bother to do something which
was a hassle in the first place.
> Essentially what you are asking is that, although people already know
> what to do and choose not to, the very significant proportion of the
> people in this country ignore their value system and morals and conduct
> the discussion on the health issues. Of course, we already know the
> health issues but choose to ignore the precautions.
If I'd said this, you would have quoted me directly.
What I'm really saying is that our society complicates this issue
when some people toss morality at it, rather than dealing with the
health issues on their own merit. As I wrote earlier, the health
risks are dire enough on their own to merit a health-related approach
to this problem.
Instead, our society is in a big fight over the morality of the
precautions, the information provided about sex *and* sex itself.
Talk about a counter-productive situation...
> Once again I ask, even though it has been ignored thus far, what is the
> goal? Solving the problem or solving on your terms.
This has been my question to you for quite awhile. Do you want to meet
on the common ground of the health issues involved, or do you DEMAND
that we complicate this by dealing with your insistence that we throw
your moral code at this problem?
> If it's solving the problem then I would think you would be willing
> to accept any methods that can accomplish the goal.
Ask yourself this same question. The Netherlands solved their problems
with a health-related approach. I would think this would would be
acceptable to you KNOWING that this has actually worked for an entire
western country.
> If the goal is making sure that no public discussion of faith based
> morals never be conducted or presented outside of a closet in the
> house, then make that the goal, but don't confuse the two.
Hey, let's discuss morals in public all you like. We can disagree
to our heart's content.
If you want society to adopt YOUR moral code (including stigmas),
you're out of luck. We simply aren't going to do this. No way.
|
| 20.8179 | Let's agree to consistent health-related societal messages... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 13 1997 21:40 | 21 |
| RE: .8177 Rocush
> I can present an enormous number of girls and guys who chose not to be
> sexually active because of the religious morals they were taught. Both
> elements need to be part of the solution, if you are really interested
> in solving the problem as opposed to removing religion from the public
> discussion.
Let parents teach their children whatever morals and religion they
choose to teach in their families, churches and social lives.
Our society needs to remain neutral on this issue, though (since
we don't all agree on the subjects of morals and religion.)
It's more appropriate for our society to stress the health risks
and the precautions which can reduce these risks. This way, all
parents are free to give the messages they wish to give to their
children without society interfering.
Let society handle the health risks aspect, while families, churches
and communities deal with morality and religion on their own terms.
|
| 20.8180 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 13 1997 22:13 | 17 |
| Rocush, think of the consistent health-related messages to be similar
to campaigns which ask people to use seatbelts.
We all know that seatbelts save lives, but a lot of people forget to
use them or consider them a hassle, anyway.
You could try telling people that they'll burn in hell for eternity
if they don't wear seatbelts (or they'll burn in hell for eternity
if they *DO* wear seatbelts, if we're making an analogy to birth
control.)
It only complicates the issue, though (especially if we spend decades
fighting over whether or not wearing seatbelts is immoral.)
The health issue is the common ground, and it's the key in both cases.
We just need to do a better job of promoting both of these as health
precautions.
|
| 20.8181 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 14 1997 12:19 | 32 |
| .8178
"This has been my question to you for quite awhile. Do you want to
meet on the common ground of the health issues involved, or do you
DEMAND that we complicate this by dealing with your insistence that we
throw your moral code at this problem?"
According to the above, you are saying that the only correct way to
solve this problem is the exclusive use of your approach. The fact
that some percentage of the population will not respond to your methods
means that we should not be allowed to attempt to reach these people in
any other fashion as part of the public discussion.
IN a subsequent note you indicate that the discussion of religious
morals should be confined to the family, church or community. this
will create the contradiction you abhor. Also, if you think the
family, church, etc is good enough to deal with the moral aspects, then
why not the health aspects as well and keep the public discussion out
of it completely?
Lastly, you make a reference to the use of seat belts as a safety issue
and yet many people do not use seat belts. there are, indeed, many
people who view seat belt laws as an infringement of their rights and
an overreaching of government. these same people may be reached on a
moral basis. some of them may respond differently if they were told
that their life is a precious gift from their God and to throw it away
is wrong. this approach may reach these people whereas all of the
campaigns stressing health and safety fall on deaf ears.
Once again, the issue is, solving a problem or solving only within a
certain framework.
|
| 20.8182 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 14 1997 12:32 | 17 |
| .8179
I disagree. A major part of the problem is that society remains
neutral to behaviors that can be very destructive. Society needs to
put across the message "you are stupid if you do this". Remaining
neutral is not the answer.
Now, this does not equate to pushing any specific moral code on
anyone... this is just a general social stigma (like the stigma
against drunk driving) to help lead people away from destructive
behaviors.
Society should not remain neutral, not when the cost of such behavior
is so high - both in dollars and social problems.
-steve
|
| 20.8183 | Move back to Earth... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 12:51 | 70 |
| RE: .8181 Rocush
"This has been my question to you for quite awhile. Do you want to
meet on the common ground of the health issues involved, or do you
DEMAND that we complicate this by dealing with your insistence that we
throw your moral code at this problem?"
> According to the above, you are saying that the only correct way to
> solve this problem is the exclusive use of your approach.
Only on YOUR planet, Rocush. On Earth, the above means "Let's not
complicate a health issue by tossing morality at it".
Please note that I'm not suggesting we limit our approaches to one
particular method at all.
> The fact that some percentage of the population will not respond
> to your methods...
*******
Ah, so you do admit that I'm not saying we only have ONE approach or
method for this problem. Good.
> means that we should not be allowed to attempt to reach these people
> in any other fashion as part of the public discussion.
Don't toss morality at a health issue, that's all. We'll never agree
on which moral code is best, so it's something to leave to families,
churches and communities to decide.
Or do you think society (like government) ought to tell people which
moral code to follow? So much for families, churches, and communities,
eh?
> IN a subsequent note you indicate that the discussion of religious
> morals should be confined to the family, church or community. this
> will create the contradiction you abhor.
In our society, FAMILIES, CHURCHES AND COMMUNITIES are where we live!!
Society is the collection of these places, but we all live and breathe
in the family, church and/or community components of this society.
> Also, if you think the family, church, etc is good enough to deal with
> the moral aspects, then why not the health aspects as well and keep
> the public discussion out of it completely?
Welcome back to the 1950s, eh?
The health issues are already in the public discussion. They won't
go away simply because we decide to make them do so.
> Lastly, you make a reference to the use of seat belts as a safety issue
> and yet many people do not use seat belts. there are, indeed, many
> people who view seat belt laws as an infringement of their rights and
> an overreaching of government. these same people may be reached on a
> moral basis. some of them may respond differently if they were told
> that their life is a precious gift from their God and to throw it away
> is wrong. this approach may reach these people whereas all of the
> campaigns stressing health and safety fall on deaf ears.
Telling people that they will burn in hell for not wearing (or for
wearing) their seatbelts only complicates the issue needlessly in
the same way that tossing morality can complicate any health issue.
It's a needless approach that will turn a lot of people off (even some
of those who already wear their seatbelts) - it's counter-productive.
If the family, church or community believes that not wearing seatbelts
is enough to get someone to burn in hell for eternity, let them preach
this within their own societal component. Simple enough, eh?
|
| 20.8184 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 13:00 | 16 |
| Sex outside of wedlock isn't necessarily stupid. Telling people
it's stupid *would* be very stupid, though.
We could say it's stupid to have sex outside of wedlock without
birth control or other precautions, but then we'd be stepping on
the feet of some moral codes within our society which consider
birth control to be immoral (and/or stupid) in and of itself.
So we remind people of the health risks, we implore them to use
precautions **IF** they decide to have sex (although it's safest
to refrain from having sex at all in some situations), and we
provide birth control at a reasonable cost to anyone/everyone
who wants/needs it.
We leave the "You're stupid" stuff to those who can't live without
saying such things within their own families, churches and communities.
|
| 20.8185 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 14 1997 13:02 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.8184 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
| Sex outside of wedlock isn't necessarily stupid. Telling people
| it's stupid *would* be very stupid, though.
I agree.
|
| 20.8186 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 14 1997 13:10 | 25 |
| .8183
"> The fact that some percentage of the population will not respond >
to your methods...
*******
Ah, so you do admit that I'm not saying we only have ONE approach or
method for this problem. Good."
Can you explain how you got your response out of what I wrote? I have
not seen any indication that you think there are alternatives to merely
preaching the health aspects of the problem, particularly as part of an
overall public approach to solving the problem.
Also, you stated that the health issues are already in the public and
we can't make them go away just because we choose to. We were very
effective in making the moral issues go away because some minority of
the public chose to.
Your insistence that there be only one public approach to solving the
problem will insure that the problem drags on interminably. there are
many ways to solve problems and the most enlightened way is to use as
many approaches as possible to solve the problem. YOu can find the
perimeter of a square by adding all four sides or multiplying one side
by four. You seem to think only addition is appropriate.
|
| 20.8187 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 13:21 | 49 |
| RE: .8186 Rocush
>>> The fact that some percentage of the population will not respond
>>> to your methods...
>>> *******
>> Ah, so you do admit that I'm not saying we only have ONE approach or
>> method for this problem. Good.
> Can you explain how you got your response out of what I wrote?
You used a second person pronoun with a PLURAL form of the noun "method".
> I have not seen any indication that you think there are alternatives
> to merely preaching the health aspects of the problem, particularly
> as part of an overall public approach to solving the problem.
You've missed them, that's all. Meg (especially) has offered many
approaches to this issue as well, not the least of which is providing
the precautions to anyone/everyone at reasonable costs.
> Also, you stated that the health issues are already in the public and
> we can't make them go away just because we choose to. We were very
> effective in making the moral issues go away because some minority of
> the public chose to.
The health issues are a matter of NEWS in this society. The impact
of these health matters can be measured in an objective way in this
country. Moral OPINIONS about all this are best left for families,
churches and communities to ponder and resolve.
> Your insistence that there be only one public approach to solving the
> problem will insure that the problem drags on interminably.
The Netherlands solved this same problem using the various approaches
I'm saying we should try, too.
You contradict yourself by calling my approach "METHODS" (plural),
then saying I only have one. It's your problem, though, not mine.
> there are many ways to solve problems and the most enlightened way
> is to use as many approaches as possible to solve the problem.
It's not enlightened to complicate the problem by throwing morality
at it when you know we'll never all agree on the parameters of your
moral code (nor on whether morality should be tossed at it in the
first place.)
It's counter-productive to complicate these issues.
|
| 20.8188 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 14 1997 13:31 | 21 |
| .8184
It's not JUST a health risk, it is also a social problem. And though
you may disagree, it *IS* stupid, IMO, to have sex outside of a
permanent relationship (a certificate from the state is not completely
necessary). There are far more implications to intimate relations
outside of a structured relationship, than simply abortion, dead-beat
dads, and STDs (though all of these are major issues, as well).
The easiest way to push the "you are stupid if..." message is to use
marriage as the basic foundation for such relations.
Things won't change over night, but if society would consistently push
this message, perhaps we can save a good portion of the next generation
from many of our current social problems.
[And I'm not saying that we should not address the health issues,
either, or education.]
-steve
|
| 20.8189 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 13:38 | 36 |
| RE: .8188 Steve Leech
> It's not JUST a health risk, it is also a social problem. And though
> you may disagree, it *IS* stupid, IMO, to have sex outside of a
> permanent relationship (a certificate from the state is not completely
> necessary).
So you *DO* acknowledge that sex outside of marriage isn't necessarily
stupid. Thank you.
> There are far more implications to intimate relations
> outside of a structured relationship, than simply abortion, dead-beat
> dads, and STDs (though all of these are major issues, as well).
If you're talking about emotional complications, then I think it's
up to the individual to judge these for him/herself.
> The easiest way to push the "you are stupid if..." message is to use
> marriage as the basic foundation for such relations.
No, it's much easier to say that it's STUPID in the first place to
try to get people to do something by calling them STUPID for something
which isn't necessarily stupid at all.
> Things won't change over night, but if society would consistently push
> this message, perhaps we can save a good portion of the next generation
> from many of our current social problems.
Society isn't going to push your "STUPID" crap on its members, so
give it up.
> [And I'm not saying that we should not address the health issues,
> either, or education.]
Right - you just want name-calling to be the first priority response.
Well, forget it.
|
| 20.8190 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 14 1997 13:51 | 34 |
| .8187
My use of the term "methods" referred to how your solution would be
implemented. I suppose I should have used sources instead of methods,
but I figured it was obvious. You still stress only one solution.
Information about health risks.
In addition, "moral OPINIONS" were part of the public discussion and
were effectively removed. Now you state that since they are not there,
they should be kept out. It seems to me, and a lot statistics support
this, that the more effectively any moral discussion was eliminated the
worse the problem became.
You also raise the issue of there being no agreement on using my moral
code. I have never proposed that as the only way. Personally use them
all.
Let me ask you this; if 95% of the messages we deliver is that we are
not going to express any opinion regarding your activities, just make
sure that you keep the health risks in mind and you can get whatever
protection you want at any time, at any place. Now there is a family
that really believes that this message delivers an acceptance of
behavior directly contradicting their morals. What do you think a kid
is going to do? Everyone but the stupid, square, out-of-touch parents
say it's OK, just be careful. Do you think that the kid is going to
have all sorts of internal justification to ignore the teachings of
their parents?
If so, do believe it is acceptable for society to make the job of
parents even more difficult by presenting an environment that is
contrary to the wishes of the parents. If you think that the 95% of
the messages can be offset with the 5% of the messages the parents are
trying to present, well then I guess we see the problem.
|
| 20.8191 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 14 1997 13:57 | 12 |
| .8189
Have you seen the anti-drug messages being delivered by various young
people. I have seen many of them that showcase popular young actors
that say it's stupid to do drugs.
They don't couch it in politically correct terms, they deliver the
message exactly as the target groups will understand it. Doing drugs
is stupid and presenting it clearly is not the problem. It may not be
all warm and fuzzy, but sometimes the direct approach is the best
approach.
|
| 20.8192 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 14:41 | 71 |
| RE: .8190 Rocush
> My use of the term "methods" referred to how your solution would be
> implemented. I suppose I should have used sources instead of methods,
> but I figured it was obvious. You still stress only one solution.
> Information about health risks.
Rocush, let's hope God came down in person and gave you the authority
to group my SOLUTIONS under one umbrella (against my will) which you
insist on calling ONE SOLUTION. Otherwise, you're full of shinola.
Aside from information campaigns about the health risks, it's important
to implore people (without the name-calling) to use precautions **if**
they intend to engage in sex, and to provide accessible precautions to
anyone/everyone who needs/wants them. It's also important to make early
health care available for those babies born when the precautions or the
intentions (to use precautions) failed. As a society, we also need to
make sure that we don't stigmatize people for their personal choices
such that they will be denied the social and economic opportunities to
recover from personal, private mistakes they may make.
> In addition, "moral OPINIONS" were part of the public discussion and
> were effectively removed. Now you state that since they are not there,
> they should be kept out. It seems to me, and a lot statistics support
> this, that the more effectively any moral discussion was eliminated the
> worse the problem became.
Societies are complex entities - you have no direct proof that the one
thing *caused* the other. You only have your opinions on this, while
everyone else is free to agree or disagree.
> You also raise the issue of there being no agreement on using my moral
> code. I have never proposed that as the only way. Personally use them
> all.
If you use all moral codes, then you can't say anything at all about
the morality of sex (since some moral codes do not consider sex outside
marriage to be immoral while others do.)
> Let me ask you this; if 95% of the messages we deliver is that we are
> not going to express any opinion regarding your activities, just make
> sure that you keep the health risks in mind and you can get whatever
> protection you want at any time, at any place. Now there is a family
> that really believes that this message delivers an acceptance of
> behavior directly contradicting their morals. What do you think a kid
> is going to do? Everyone but the stupid, square, out-of-touch parents
> say it's OK, just be careful. Do you think that the kid is going to
> have all sorts of internal justification to ignore the teachings of
> their parents?
So you want society (perhaps the government) to step in for parents?
If the parents are not enough to convince kids to hold to certain
morals (even though the parents see these kids every day), why do
you think society will have better luck convincing kids to have
certain morals? And which moral code would society be expected
to present? If it's "all codes", then society would have to include
the moral codes which differ from the parents' code, too.
> If so, do believe it is acceptable for society to make the job of
> parents even more difficult by presenting an environment that is
> contrary to the wishes of the parents. If you think that the 95% of
> the messages can be offset with the 5% of the messages the parents are
> trying to present, well then I guess we see the problem.
If society doesn't address the moral issues at all, then parents are
left to guide their children on these matters on their own (without
society overriding them.)
Or do you really think it's the place of a society or a government
to take the place of parents when it comes to moral education?
|
| 20.8193 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 14:45 | 20 |
| RE: .8191 Rocush
> Have you seen the anti-drug messages being delivered by various young
> people. I have seen many of them that showcase popular young actors
> that say it's stupid to do drugs.
> They don't couch it in politically correct terms, they deliver the
> message exactly as the target groups will understand it. Doing drugs
> is stupid and presenting it clearly is not the problem. It may not be
> all warm and fuzzy, but sometimes the direct approach is the best
> approach.
Drug use hasn't gone down since kids have been called stupid, though.
While I certainly applaud people who "use their popularity for a good
cause" (to quote Alicia Sliverstone in a certain movie) to help combat
drugs, I'm not sure name-calling is the best way to go.
I'd like to know what the California anti-smoking campaign was like
before Pete Wilson gutted it - apparently, it was extremely effective.
|
| 20.8194 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 14 1997 17:38 | 9 |
| If you say "doing drugs is stupid", are you really name-calling? I
don't look at it in this manner, but to each his (or her) own.
I'd be more than willing to alter my wording a bit, and say "having sex
outside of a permanent relationship is stupid" (note I didn't use the
word "marriage", either).
-steve
|
| 20.8195 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Feb 14 1997 17:43 | 3 |
| 'stupid' is a term fit for usage by erstwhile teenagers,
not mature adults. i learned this from the doctah a few
days ago. /hth
|
| 20.8196 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Fri Feb 14 1997 17:52 | 5 |
| .8195
mature adult == erstwhile teenager
(Check a good dictionary. Or even the crap AHD.)
|
| 20.8197 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Feb 14 1997 17:55 | 4 |
|
gee, not all the adults i know are mature.
|
| 20.8198 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Fri Feb 14 1997 17:56 | 1 |
| Did I suggest that they were?
|
| 20.8199 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Feb 14 1997 17:58 | 4 |
|
gee, i don't think so, did you?
|
| 20.8200 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Fri Feb 14 1997 17:58 | 2 |
|
Do we have a reading comprehension problem here ????
|
| 20.8201 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Feb 14 1997 17:59 | 4 |
| .8196
see, that's what happens when you use big words.
|
| 20.8202 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:01 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.8197 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>
| gee, not all the adults i know are mature.
(waves hand)
|
| 20.8203 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:01 | 4 |
| >'stupid' is a term fit for usage by erstwhile teenagers, not mature
>adults.
Ah, the hazards of half-listening...
|
| 20.8204 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:02 | 19 |
| RE: .8194 Steve Leech
> If you say "doing drugs is stupid", are you really name-calling? I
> don't look at it in this manner, but to each his (or her) own.
Much of your target audience is already doing drugs - you want them
to stop. In this case, you're calling them 'stupid', which probably
isn't going to help the situation much. If you care, that is.
> I'd be more than willing to alter my wording a bit, and say "having sex
> outside of a permanent relationship is stupid" (note I didn't use the
> word "marriage", either).
You're stuck on the word "stupid", though.
You may want to ask yourself why you're so determined to use this
particular word to people you hope to influence in some way.
Sounds kinda...well, I won't say it. :>
|
| 20.8205 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:06 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.8204 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
| You may want to ask yourself why you're so determined to use this
| particular word to people you hope to influence in some way.
You don't think that if you call someone stupid that you won't
influence them in some way? :-)
|
| 20.8206 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:07 | 5 |
| .8203
/Ah, the hazards of half-listening...
Oh really, Mark, sometimes you're too much.
|
| 20.8207 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:10 | 4 |
|
.8206 yah, especially when he gets to jabbering.
|
| 20.8208 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:12 | 1 |
| expound expound expound.
|
| 20.8209 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:14 | 3 |
|
Pontificate! Pontificate!
|
| 20.8210 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:25 | 36 |
| .8192
Let me put this in terms that, hopefully, you can understand, and
surprisingly will tie directly to this topic.
There are many parents who, because of their religious moral beliefs,
believe abortion is killing a human being. this is what they believe
and teach at home. Now you have stated many times that it is
impossible to stop kids from having sex. The best we can do is give
them information. Based on that it is going to be almost impossible to
stop a kid from having sex and potentially becoming pregnant.
What may be keeping this girl from following her sexual drives are her
parents teachings and an inability to argue the points.
What is being presented by society is the concept that; it is your
body, your decision, it's not really a human being, etc. These are all
influences that are going to carry a lot more weight than the parents'
teachings.
What would be wrong with a public approach that says you have a
constitutional right to have an abortion as defined in Roe v Wade.
Keep in mind, however, that this is a serious medical procedure that
carries potentially serious medical and emotional risks. There are
also amny people who believe the baby you carry is a human being and
ending the pregnancy through abortion would be considered killing the
baby.
Now you have given the girl all the information about the legal rights
and at the same time let her know it is not a simple procedure without
risks. You have also supported the teachings of the parents. This is
not religious based as atheists and agnostics are opposed to abortion
as well. You have given a fair presentation and recognized both sides
to the issue and truly let someone make a decision based on all of the
information.
|
| 20.8211 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:28 | 10 |
| .8210
SUPERFLUOUS WORD ALERT!!!
> There are many parents who, because of their religious moral beliefs,
^^^^^^^^^
> believe abortion is killing a human being.
Would a nice scalpel enable you to separate "religious" from "moral"
without doing youself harm?
|
| 20.8212 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:40 | 16 |
| .8204
I used the term "stupid" here in the box, because it is morally
neutral. 8^)
And I disagree that the target audience are those who already do drugs.
The target audience for this particular slant are those who are not yet
doing drugs, but are exposed to or are thinking about experimenting
with drugs. You will not sway those determined to use drugs, so you
may as well direct your efforts at *prevention*.
I would suggest a different tact for those already doing drugs, in
addition to calling such an act "stupid".
-steve
|
| 20.8213 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:42 | 79 |
| RE: .8210 Rocush
> Let me put this in terms that, hopefully, you can understand, and
> surprisingly will tie directly to this topic.
Rocush, it was really stupid of you to start out this way. This is
where you would lose your target audience if you ever tried to throw
morality at our populace in general. This is why society will never
let you do it.
> There are many parents who, because of their religious moral beliefs,
> believe abortion is killing a human being. this is what they believe
> and teach at home. Now you have stated many times that it is
> impossible to stop kids from having sex. The best we can do is give
> them information. Based on that it is going to be almost impossible to
> stop a kid from having sex and potentially becoming pregnant.
Stupid move on your part, again. Even after I've given you repeated
lists of the things we can do, you're still saying FOR me (against
my will) that I'm saying that 'information' is all we can do.
We must implore people to protect themselves from pregnancy and diseases,
along with making the precautions AVAILABLE to people for reasonable
costs. If we do this in a non-judgmental way, we will be following
the very successful campaign launched by the Netherlands.
> What may be keeping this girl from following her sexual drives are her
> parents teachings and an inability to argue the points.
> What is being presented by society is the concept that; it is your
> body, your decision, it's not really a human being, etc. These are all
> influences that are going to carry a lot more weight than the parents'
> teachings.
The parents see her every day. If she won't listen to them, then they
have to work this issue within their own family.
> What would be wrong with a public approach that says you have a
> constitutional right to have an abortion as defined in Roe v Wade.
> Keep in mind, however, that this is a serious medical procedure that
> carries potentially serious medical and emotional risks.
Childbirth is medically riskier, though. We need to be honest about
this, too. Childbirth also has its own emotional risks, too.
> There are also amny people who believe the baby you carry is a human
> being and ending the pregnancy through abortion would be considered
> killing the baby.
You could say, "Some people are morally against abortion as the ending
of the life of a fetus."
> Now you have given the girl all the information about the legal rights
> and at the same time let her know it is not a simple procedure without
> risks.
Childbirth isn't a simple medical process without risks, either.
> You have also supported the teachings of the parents.
If the parents support abortion rights, it's supporting their stand
to simply state that some others are against abortion on moral grounds.
> This is not religious based as atheists and agnostics are opposed to
> abortion as well.
Christians and Jews support abortion rights as well. You've seen many
such individuals right here in this notesfile, in fact.
> You have given a fair presentation and recognized both sides to the
> issue and truly let someone make a decision based on all of the
> information.
Make a reference to some being morally against abortion, but leave
out the words "killing the baby" (because these words do not support
the beliefs of some parents), and we could be close to a deal.
A mere mention that the moral issue exists without expanding on it
would probably be acceptable.
|
| 20.8214 | | USPS::FPRUSS | Frank Pruss, 202-232-7347 | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:43 | 1 |
| Boooor-ing!
|
| 20.8215 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:45 | 11 |
| RE: .8211 Dick Binder (to Rocush)
>> There are many parents who, because of their religious moral beliefs,
^^^^^^^^^
>> believe abortion is killing a human being.
> Would a nice scalpel enable you to separate "religious" from "moral"
> without doing youself harm?
I'd like to see the answer to this one, too...
|
| 20.8216 | Your societal msg must NOT make harsh statements about abortion... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:47 | 6 |
| Rocush, please don't forget that many parents support abortion rights.
Whatever message you want to send out through society must support
the stands of these parents, too.
|
| 20.8217 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 14 1997 18:58 | 13 |
| .8211
I am sure this was an attempt at humor or something, but why would I
want to separate the two words. My intention was to speak about those
people who specifically have a religious moral issue. There may indeed
be those who have a moral issue which is not religion based. My
question was not stated to address those people. It was specifically
for those who have a moral stance based on their religious beliefs.
Sorry you have a knee-jerk reaction to the word religion, but my
question was very specific. Not that you couldn't remove the word and
still amintain the same question, but that was not my question.
|
| 20.8218 | Society should stay neutral between the two groups of parents. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 19:01 | 7 |
| Rocush, please state for the record that your message would also be
supportive of those parents who DO support abortion rights.
The only way to support the parents on both sides of this issue would
be to state that a moral question exists without expanding on the
arguments for either side.
|
| 20.8219 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 14 1997 19:07 | 24 |
| .8213
This was really just too precious to let go.
"RE: .8210 Rocush
> Let me put this in terms that, hopefully, you can understand, and >
surprisingly will tie directly to this topic.
Rocush, it was really stupid of you to start out this way. This is
where you would lose your target audience if you ever tried to throw
morality at our populace in general. This is why society will never
let you do it."
I started my note stating that hopefully you would understand what I
was writing since I was trying not to be ambiguous. I did not use any
derogatory words or terms. Your response, after taking Steve to task
for his use of the word "stupid" is to claim that it was "stupid" of me
to .....
You then repeat the word later. A bit of confusion going on in my
mind. You can go after someone for saying something is stupid, but
you can do the same and it's OK.
|
| 20.8220 | The only language you probably understand... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 14 1997 19:18 | 20 |
| RE: .8219 Rocush
Let me explain this in a way that even YOU can understand, Rocush. :>
Now, think hard. Concentrate. See if you can get the gray matter
between your ears cranked up enough to be prepared for an actual
thought.
Are you ready? Are you sure? Are you absolutely positive?
Ok let's go. (Let me know if this hurts you, though.)
Society will never agree to express culture-wide
messages with harsh judgments or disparaging comments
about the intelligence of the target audience.
It's counter-productive.
Are you ok? Should I call 911?
Let me know.
|
| 20.8221 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 14 1997 19:23 | 7 |
| .8220
That's odd... society seems to agree with the "don't be stupid, don't
do drugs" messages (and this is verbatim from a commercial on the
toob).
-steve
|
| 20.8222 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Feb 14 1997 19:28 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.8221 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| That's odd... society seems to agree with the "don't be stupid, don't
| do drugs" messages (and this is verbatim from a commercial on the
| toob).
Steve, can you produce the society stats? Or is this just your
perception?
Now Steve, you do know that there is a difference in telling a bunch of
viewers on tv to not be stupid, and telling someone they are stupid, right? One
doesn't call out anyone specifically while the other does.
Glen
|
| 20.8223 | Christian? Abstinence? Get outta here | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Sat Feb 15 1997 23:16 | 31 |
|
School Rejects Sex-Abstinence Program
MILWAUKEE (AP) A student Christian group whose St. Valentine's Day
sex abstinence program was forbidden by a high School principal sued
him in US District Court.
Students at the Milwaukee school district's High School of the Arts
said the refusal to allow a "True Love Waits" program violated their
right to free speech.
Principal Eugene Humphrey, named with the district in the lawsuit
filed Thursday, said he forbade the program after consulting with other
administrators.
The program's plan included displaying pledge cards to abstain from
premarital sex.
"We had to keep a separation between church and state," Humphrey said
last week.
The lawsuit on behalf of three Christian Fellowship Club students was
filed by their parents and the Liberty Counsel, a Civil Liberties organiz-
ation in Orlando, Florida.
|
| 20.8224 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Sun Feb 16 1997 03:54 | 6 |
|
Humphrey made the correct call
|
| 20.8225 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Sun Feb 16 1997 12:51 | 2 |
|
Go figure ...
|
| 20.8226 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Sun Feb 16 1997 14:29 | 4 |
| Wait a minute, what does pledging abstinence have to do with the
separation of church and state? I see absolutely nothing wrong with
this. If a group wanted to distribute condoms on Valentine's day I'm
sure this would have been encouraged by that principal.
|
| 20.8227 | | NETRIX::"walters@ddraig.zk3.dec.com" | | Sun Feb 16 1997 19:02 | 6 |
| I guess necco hearts are out of fashion these days.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 20.8228 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Sun Feb 16 1997 19:17 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 20.8226 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Patented Problem Generator" >>>
| Wait a minute, what does pledging abstinence have to do with the
| separation of church and state?
If they want to state they are a religious group, then there is the
crux. An example of this is if I go into the Christian conference and say i am
a Christian, it stays. If I go in there and say I am a gay Christian, it goes
away. Don't announce your group and it is ok.
Glen
|
| 20.8229 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Sun Feb 16 1997 19:53 | 2 |
| I'll bet it's not the crux. If a church group was having a special
condom day, we never would have heard a thing.
|
| 20.8230 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Feb 17 1997 00:19 | 8 |
|
So much for a legitimate attempt to reduce teen aged sexual activity.
Jim
|
| 20.8232 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 17 1997 00:59 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 20.8229 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Patented Problem Generator" >>>
| I'll bet it's not the crux. If a church group was having a special
| condom day, we never would have heard a thing.
First, that would never happen. But if it ever did, why wouldn't it be
brought up?
Glen
|
| 20.8233 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 17 1997 01:11 | 10 |
| No, the principal did _not_ make the correct call.
A Federal judge overturned the school's pan. The students were allowed to
put up their posters and sign up program participants Friday afternoon.
See 33.2580, 33.2581, and 33.2582 for more details.
(This discussion belongs in the Separation of Church and State topic.)
/john
|
| 20.8234 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 17 1997 10:01 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.8233 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
| No, the principal did _not_ make the correct call.
I believe he did. Judges can make bad decisions. Or does that not apply
here because it is something you are in favor of?
Glen
|
| 20.8235 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 17 1997 11:19 | 1 |
| My reply to .-1 is at 33.2584.
|
| 20.8236 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Feb 17 1997 14:07 | 10 |
| >| No, the principal did _not_ make the correct call.
>
> I believe he did. Judges can make bad decisions. Or does that not apply
>here because it is something you are in favor of?
And a principal can't? What part of church activities were encroaching on the
school? Or was it just that a bunch of church goers wanted to spread the
message? Would it have been different if it was a group of atheist?
Doug.
|
| 20.8237 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 17 1997 16:21 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.8236 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>
| Would it have been different if it was a group of atheist?
Yes. There is no law seperating athiest and state.
|
| 20.8238 | Be thankful you aren't a lawyer Mr. Silva ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Feb 17 1997 16:24 | 0 |
| 20.8239 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Feb 17 1997 16:27 | 1 |
| I'm thankful he's not a sign painter.
|
| 20.8240 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 17 1997 16:29 | 3 |
| Saw a billboard this morning that says one out of every three
pregnancies is aborted in the US. Seems like we still have too many
contraception failures in this world.
|
| 20.8241 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 17 1997 16:29 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.8239 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
| I'm thankful he's not a sign painter.
But why?
|
| 20.8242 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Feb 17 1997 16:31 | 1 |
| Spelllling.
|
| 20.8243 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 17 1997 16:37 | 16 |
| > Seems like we still have too many
> contraception failures in this world.
Abstinence failures. Probably a small minority of those 1.5 million abortions
involved the use of contraception.
And it's rather unlikely any significant number of those who didn't bother
to use contraception would have been encouraged to do so by any sort of
"safer sex" education program.
How often is there a letter in the local paper's advice column "My boyfriend
won't use a condom because he says it doesn't feel as good." These are
obviously people who know about contraception, know about pregnancy, and
just don't care.
/john
|
| 20.8244 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 17 1997 16:43 | 7 |
| John,
60% of unplanned pregnancies had one partner using some form of
contraception, according to Guttmaker. We really need better
contraception choices in this country.
meg
|
| 20.8245 | What's the relationship? | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 17 1997 16:45 | 4 |
| If it's 60% of unplanned pregnancies, does that make it 30% of aborted
pregnancies?
/john
|
| 20.8246 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 17 1997 17:44 | 5 |
| John,
Guttmacher's studies show that 40% of unplanned pregnancies are
aborted. I have no idea on the number of planned pregnancies which
are, but I would imagine the percentage is pretty low.
|
| 20.8247 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 17 1997 17:52 | 12 |
| That means then that 76% of all aborted babies are the result of conceptions
where contraception was not in use.
I think it's quite unlikely that very many of these people would have been
helped by more education from people who also approve of abortion as one
means of controlling birth rates.
But they might have been helped by stronger moral upbringing encouraging
them to abstain from sex unless willing to accept the responsibility of
raising a child.
/john
|
| 20.8248 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 17 1997 17:59 | 9 |
| John,
which is more sinful? To consciously use contraception to avoid a
pregnancy or to abort a pregnancy and go on from there, believing this
is a one time thing? I knew a fairly devout person who felt the former
was the greater sin, despite the fact that she was on a medication that
would have killed any fetuses conceived.
meg
|
| 20.8249 | John... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:00 | 5 |
| You're entitled to your opinions about what would or would not have
helped people to do something different in their personal, private
lives. Others are just as entitled to disagree.
Where precisely did you come up with "76%" in your statement?
|
| 20.8250 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:33 | 13 |
| Deliberately and unnecessarily taking an innocent life one time vs. repeatedly
using contraception?
I'm not going to second-guess someone else's answer in the "A" is more sinful
than "B" game.
The price of forgiveness is the same for everyone.
> Where precisely did you come up with "76%" in your statement?
From the numbers Meg supplied.
/john
|
| 20.8251 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:36 | 1 |
| I keep trying to reply, but keep getting the boot. Oh well.
|
| 20.8252 | Again, where precisely did you come up with "76%"? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:37 | 8 |
| RE: .8250 John
>> Where precisely did you come up with "76%" in your statement?
> From the numbers Meg supplied.
As many teachers request of students, please show your work.
|
| 20.8253 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:38 | 3 |
| 100% - (40% x 60%) = 76%
/john
|
| 20.8254 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:38 | 5 |
|
> That means then that 76% of all aborted babies are the result of conceptions
> where contraception was not in use.
That's a stretch. You are implying that contraception is 100% effective?
|
| 20.8255 | Meg's numbers: 24% of abortions are from contraceptive failure | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:40 | 3 |
| re .8254 see .8253
/john
|
| 20.8256 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:43 | 13 |
| >> Where precisely did you come up with "76%" in your statement?
>From the numbers Meg supplied.
Then you must have added a boatload of assumptions to even attempt to
solve the problem based on her single fact. Garbage math.
>Deliberately and unnecessarily taking an innocent life one time vs. repeatedly
>using contraception?
Using contraception is taking an innocent life? That's an extreme
position, even for one who typically is extreme on the subject. I don't
think the Church even goes that far.
|
| 20.8257 | Meg provided two facts | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:45 | 13 |
| > Then you must have added a boatload of assumptions to even attempt to
> solve the problem based on her single fact. Garbage math.
Baloney.
Meg said that 60% of unwanted pregnancies are from contraceptive failure,
and that 40% of unwanted pregancies are aborted.
Therefore 24% of aborted pregnancies are from contraceptive failure.
Pretty simple math.
/john
|
| 20.8258 | If you read, Meg asked about abortion vs. contraception! | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:46 | 5 |
| > Using contraception is taking an innocent life?
I didn't say that.
/john
|
| 20.8259 | High Success Rate | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:47 | 5 |
| I don't mean to speak for John, but absinence seems like if
it really was practised, it would probably have a high degree
of success.
Tony
|
| 20.8260 | Abstinence | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:47 | 1 |
|
|
| 20.8261 | | EVMS::MORONEY | UHF Computers | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:49 | 13 |
| >Baloney.
>
>Meg said that 60% of unwanted pregnancies are from contraceptive failure,
>and that 40% of unwanted pregancies are aborted.
>
>Therefore 24% of aborted pregnancies are from contraceptive failure.
>
>Pretty simple math.
No. It means that 24% of unwanted pregnacies are from contraceptive failure
and end in abortion.
|
| 20.8263 | | EVMS::MORONEY | UHF Computers | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:52 | 10 |
| >No. It means that 24% of unwanted pregnacies are from contraceptive failure
>and end in abortion.
I should clarify that this assumes the result of abortion is independent
of whether the unwanted pregnacy is the result of contraceptive failure.
No info whether that is true or not was mentioned.
If it is true (likely), 60% of aborted pregnancies are from contraceptive
failure.
|
| 20.8264 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:53 | 12 |
| >Meg said that 60% of unwanted pregnancies are from contraceptive failure,
>and that 40% of unwanted pregancies are aborted.
>Therefore 24% of aborted pregnancies are from contraceptive failure.
Wrong. You are not taking several factors into account. The number of
abortions performed for other reasons than "unwanted pregnancy", such
as those performed to save the life of the mother and those performed as a
result of a congenital abnormality. Furthermore, you are assuming that
the ratio of abortions performed for unwanted pregnancies that result
from failed contraception tpo those performed for unwanted pregnancies
resulting from no contraception is 1:1.
|
| 20.8265 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Mon Feb 17 1997 18:54 | 1 |
| If eating breakfast was practiced, it would be successful.
|
| 20.8266 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 17 1997 19:14 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.8242 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
| Spelllling.
Your write!
|
| 20.8267 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 17 1997 19:16 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.8259 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| I don't mean to speak for John, but absinence seems like if
| it really was practised, it would probably have a high degree
| of success.
The BIG word is....IF.... can you honestly say right now Tony that
everyone will?
|
| 20.8268 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 17 1997 19:17 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.8260 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| -< Abstinence >-
You corrected that, Tony..... but didn't correct, 'practised'? :-)
|
| 20.8269 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 17 1997 20:35 | 18 |
| .8220
Nice attempt at sarcasm, but it really doesn't address the question
asked. YOu did exactly what you accused others of and you seem to
think it's OK and have no need to justify it. I really didn't expect
anything else.
As far the other note asking how those who support abortion should be
addressed, if any ads would point out the moral issues so that all
parents could convey their beliefs. Right now those parents who favor
or support abortion are well represented in the public debate. Those
parents who view abortion as taking a life are not. Once thier views
are presented in the public debate, then you will have an honest
presentation with all sides represented.
Until then, the agenda of the pro-choice folks is the only one
validated in the public discussion.
|
| 20.8270 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 17 1997 20:47 | 10 |
| Scuse me?
I don't know where you live, but here in the neo-bible belt, the
anti-choice side has more than there fair share of inputs on sex ed and
health education, biology, what t-shirts can be worn, and have
attempted to completely take any and all laws around parenting and
childraising out of the hands of anyone but the parents. (this
includes the laws around medical neglect and treatment)
|
| 20.8271 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 17 1997 20:59 | 27 |
| RE: .8269 Rocush
> Nice attempt at sarcasm, but it really doesn't address the question
> asked. YOu did exactly what you accused others of and you seem to
> think it's OK and have no need to justify it. I really didn't expect
> anything else.
Nonsense. I didn't send this note out as a societal message to anyone.
I disagree that society should use such tones in culture-wide stances
to our population, nor have I done this myself.
Since you DO want our society to take such a "non-PC" stance (even if
it does sound a bit harsh), you shouldn't mind seeing people take this
stance with you in particular - right? Or would you prefer PC treatment?
> Right now those parents who favor or support abortion are well
> represented in the public debate. Those parents who view abortion
> as taking a life are not. Once thier views are presented in the
> public debate, then you will have an honest presentation with all
> sides represented.
It isn't a "fair representation" when one side accuses the other side
of advocating murder (no matter how strongly you happen to believe it.)
The only way to represent both sides fairly is to indicate that there
is disagreement on the moral questions involved with this issue without
specifying the disparaging remarks that go with this difference of opinion.
|
| 20.8272 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 18 1997 13:01 | 9 |
| .8270
"and have attempted to completely take any and all laws around
parenting and childraising out of the hands of anyone but the parents.
(this includes the laws around medical neglect and treatment)"
Was the above presented as a bad thing? Just who do you think should
be responsible for parenting and childraising?
|
| 20.8273 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Feb 18 1997 13:03 | 3 |
|
Why the village, of course!
|
| 20.8274 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Feb 18 1997 13:05 | 8 |
| Rocush,
A parent has a diabetic (insulin dependant) child and refuses to
provide insulin, preferring prayer. Is this an OK thing? How about
not taking a child with contagious life-threatening diseases to the
doc's and continuing to send that child to school?
meg
|
| 20.8275 | Its A Heart Problem and Thats Where The Solution Mainly Lies | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 18 1997 13:05 | 39 |
| Hi,
I think that even though religious thought can't help but get
involved, peoples of probably every culture have the notion
that sexual intimacy ought be preceded by a union of heart
between the two people that are going to be sexually intimate.
Taking this idea all the way is the moral notion that is that
the heart untion ought be a a tremendous love and a sense of a
desire for a lifelong commitment to each other.
My main thought is that the prevalence of outward acts is caused
by the prevalence of a corresponding status of people's hearts.
People do stuff because their characters are what they are.
In the case of unwanted pregnancy, I fear that our morality around
things related to this has been largely responsible for instilling
a status of heart in young people that finds sexual intimacy (outside
of the idea of much of any heart union) to be totally acceptable.
Its not a perfect world and I don't know what the answer is, but
when condoms are made available in public places and when abortion
is used sometimes as a means for contraception and as people are
changed by beholding and our children are beholding these statements
of value, we are producing a certain status of the heart.
Outward acts are preceded by the choice of the will which is preceded
by the status of one's heart.
I think we are largely trying to solve a problem by attacking it
well after the point of cause.
I think this is primarily a moral problem and as such its solution
is primarily an appeal of a system of value to people's hearts.
Our system of value that we have appealed to people with has been
a plague. We can't possibly measure the destructive cost.
Tony
|
| 20.8276 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 18 1997 13:06 | 16 |
| .8271
You are the one that has put forward the position that people should be
very judicious in the statments they make or run the risk of offending
the other party or turning them off. apparently you think that this is
a flexible standard and if it can be effective then it is fine. Your
contradictions keep mounting.
I did not make any claim that the term murder should be part of the
information presented. I stated that the difference in views should be
presented clearly without any hyperbole. That is why I specifically
used the term kill a human being so that those who truly feel this way,
and there is a very significant portion of the population that believes
this, can have this information presented in a clear, factual fashion
as is the present abortion at all times, cases, places and person.
|
| 20.8277 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 18 1997 13:22 | 16 |
| .8274
I may not agree with the beliefs of certain religions that believe
prayer is the only thing necessary to affect physical ills, but I would
not begin to put the state into the mix of making that decision. If
you believe that it is appropriate for the state to take control to
protect a child, then I am somewhat surprised that you do not support
those who oppose abortion as they are asking the state to protect a
child.
Also, your point about a child with something contagious is rather
valid. Any responsible person would take the appropriate steps to make
sure that an illness is not spread. the difference is what is the
appropriate treatment. Keeping an ill child out of school is
completely different than mandating what the treatment should be.
|
| 20.8278 | Quit whining, Rocush... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 18 1997 14:46 | 29 |
| RE: .8276 Rocush
> You are the one that has put forward the position that people should be
> very judicious in the statments they make or run the risk of offending
> the other party or turning them off. apparently you think that this is
> a flexible standard and if it can be effective then it is fine. Your
> contradictions keep mounting.
My position has been against your wish to promote societal messages
which could turn off millions of people.
You're the one who likes these harsh-but-at-least-NON-PC messages,
so you're one of the last people who should be complaining about
such messages when they're aimed at you. If you do want me to be
PC when I address you, just say so.
> I did not make any claim that the term murder should be part of the
> information presented. I stated that the difference in views should be
> presented clearly without any hyperbole. That is why I specifically
> used the term kill a human being so that those who truly feel this way,
> and there is a very significant portion of the population that believes
> this, can have this information presented in a clear, factual fashion
> as is the present abortion at all times, cases, places and person.
Then you won't mind if the pro-life argument is presented as an attempt
to 'enslave human beings' by trying to force women to subject their most
personal and private decisions to a bunch of total strangers who want
to control the most intimate parts of women's bodies. A lot of people
truly feel this way about it, too.
|
| 20.8279 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Feb 18 1997 16:48 | 9 |
| Rocush,
You believe it is ok for a parent to kill a living, breathing child in
the name of their religion, but that aborting a fetus should not be ok?
It appears that this is still a case of womb to cradle protection you
are espousing, and that kids don't count after they take a first
breath.
meg
|
| 20.8280 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 18 1997 18:46 | 10 |
| This debate is going along splendidly without me, I see. 8^)
The... interesting interpretations of what has been posted, make for
enjoyable reading. 8^)
re: .8275
Well said, Tony.
|
| 20.8281 | Thanks | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 18 1997 22:15 | 6 |
| Thanks Steve,
I've been pretty philosophical lately. Moral behaviors
will only be changed by moral statements.
Tony
|
| 20.8282 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 19 1997 01:15 | 15 |
| RE: .8281 Tony
> Moral behaviors will only be changed by moral statements.
The only western country to solve 90% of their problems with unplanned
pregnancies and abortions has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a
health-related approach works.
An entire society will never agree on a single moral guideline,
but almost everyone can agree on scientific evidence about health
risks and the precautions which can reduce or minimize these risks.
The Netherlands has demonstrated this extremely well. We'd be very
wise to look at their great success and learn from it (rather than
deliberately moving in the opposite direction.)
|
| 20.8283 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 19 1997 11:23 | 10 |
| You don't have to agree on a "single moral guideline". I'm not sure
why you keep bringing this up. The guideline suggested is not a
guideline isolated to Christianity, and I wish you'd quit dismissing
this part of the solution simply because 'not everyong will follow it'.
Guess what? Not everyone will follow your solution, either.
I find such "all or nothing" attitudes to be counterproductive.
-steve
|
| 20.8284 | | GMASEC::KELLY | It's Deja-Vu, All Over Again | Wed Feb 19 1997 11:24 | 9 |
| Suzanne,
Had you ever addressed Colin's point regarding the success of the
Netherlands program may indeed have much more to do with the way
gov't is structured; ie; socialized health, etc?
That may be badly paraphrased, but if I'm not mistaken, he indicated
that the program may have been so successful as more or less a direct
result to how the gov't runs things as opposed to the USA.
|
| 20.8285 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 19 1997 11:30 | 5 |
| OPther than the factor of socialized medicine making access to
contraception less expensive, I see no real connection between the
Netherlands success on reducing teen pregnancies, and abortions.
|
| 20.8286 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 19 1997 12:12 | 14 |
| .8278
In other words you will alter your words based on the audience you are
addressing. Seems like that was the point all along. Thanks for the
confirmation.
Also, the "enslave" message is already part of the discussion being
presented by the "pro-choice" crowd. It has not been removed, but in
fact, is a major part of the information already used. If your point
is that information already being presented hsould be presented, I
don't recall anyone addressing that point. The issue was to have fair
representation of all parties to the discussion and allow someone to
make an informed decision on all aspects and views.
|
| 20.8287 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 19 1997 12:18 | 16 |
| .8279
Once again, you are wrong and are allowing your own filter to affect
what is being said. Your question was around the firmly held religious
beliefs of a certain group of people. these people have a faith based
on the belief that only God can truly heal and that certain medical
procedures violate their religious beliefs.
I may not agree with their beliefs, but I would be very hesitant to
ever have the government step in and mandate just which aspects of
their religion they can follow. It has nothing to do with my personal
beliefs on how a child is protected. Please quit trying to put words
in my mouth or grap at straws to try and prove something that is
untrue. YOu are presently wrong, have been wrong and will continue to
be wrong as long as you continue with this line.
|
| 20.8288 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 19 1997 12:23 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 20.8283 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
| I find such "all or nothing" attitudes to be counterproductive.
I agree with this. But would you allow abstinence AND safer sex to be
discussed together?
|
| 20.8289 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 19 1997 12:25 | 19 |
| .8282
Isn't the Netherlands the same country that took the same enlightened
view toward drug use as well? If I am not mistaken they have indicated
that the same approach was an absolute disaster and did nothing but
encourage continued use by addicts and attract non-users. they are now
dealing with a horrendous drug problem.
Just because something worked in one country, under a specific set of
circumstances, is no reason to believe they will translate to other
locations.
If you'll remember the abortion and teen pregnancy rates in the 30s,
40s and 50s were probably about 90% lower than they are today. If you
believe in following and implementing successful programs, then we
already have our own success to use as a model. Why try an approach
that may or may not work, since it didn't work for a similar problem in
the same country, and ignore a solution that did work here.
|
| 20.8290 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 19 1997 13:00 | 13 |
| Rocush,
Teen pregnancies were actually higher in the '50's than they are now,
according to an article I read in JAMA last year. The only difference
is that those teens married, were hidden away at homes for unwed
mothers until their babies were taken from them, or had quiet surgeries
in often unclean rooms in a surgeon or midwife's home.
If it is ok to kill a child with medical neglect after birth because of
a parent's deeply held religious beliefs, what is you problem with
another's deeply held belief that they are not ready for parenting?
|
| 20.8291 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Feb 19 1997 13:08 | 7 |
| > If it is ok to kill a child with medical neglect after birth ...
I don't see anyone saying this; in fact Rocush has repeatedly denied
saying that this is ok. Why do you keep using this strawman that no one
agrees with?
/john
|
| 20.8292 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 19 1997 13:24 | 16 |
| .8290
If teens get married and establish families and take full
responsibility for their families and personal decisions, I am all in
favor of it. to claim that teens pregnancy rates were higher because
people were married is really rather silly. If 90% of all teen
pregnancies were to married or engaged partners, what is your point.
Also there is a significant difference between what you happen to think
about someone's parenting abilities and the firmly held religious
beliefs of major, recognized religious sects. According to your logic,
if it were determined that pork products contained vital elements that
are necessary to combat medical problems, you would have no problem
demanding that orthodox Jews be required to provide this meat to their
children.
|
| 20.8293 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 19 1997 14:22 | 15 |
| Rocush,
I still see you saying it shouldn't be against the law for a parent to
kill a born, breathing child to avoid conflict with their beliefs, but
at the same time wanting to ban abortions. I don't get it.
Teen pregnancy rates were higher in the '50's as were shotgun
marriages, not exactly the best way to start out a relationship that
should be there for life. One factor we have now is that there is
little or no legal way for a teen couple to make enough money to
support themselves and children now. What has happened in the last
few years is not so much a change in behaviors, but a change in the
economy which makes young marriages less than attractive.
|
| 20.8294 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 19 1997 15:03 | 24 |
| .8293
First of all, I opposes any direct action that kills a child. Taking a
position that respects valid religious beliefs is a completely
different issue. I alos believe that it is appropriate to discuss the
options with these parents to help them decide if their beliefs can be
investigated and specific treatment provided to the child. All
information needs to be provided, not just one side.
This has been my position on abortion. All sides need to be
represented and a truly informed decision made. Right now there is no
valid discussion being presented to enable, particularly young people,
make an informed decision.
As far as teens being able to make a living today, the prospects today
are better than they were years ago. A teen faced just as many
obstacles then, and held low paid jobs. the opportunities for these
people to ever make progress was very limited indeed. Today a kid can
start out ina relatively equally paid positiona dn have numerous
opportunities to advance, but both start at the bottom of the hill in
difficult situations. The differenc ewas that the majority of people
faced their responsibilites and decisions, even if not totally
voluntarily. they did not kill them.
|
| 20.8295 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 19 1997 15:17 | 8 |
| Rocush,
Howe do you explain my nieces grandmother's experience in GYN wards in
the '50's and '60's if abortions didn't happen? Women in their teens
and twenties being treated for infections, uterine perforations, and
excessive bleeding were just a product of her imagination?
meg
|
| 20.8296 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 19 1997 15:27 | 26 |
| RE: .8289 Rocush
> If you'll remember the abortion and teen pregnancy rates in the 30s,
> 40s and 50s were probably about 90% lower than they are today.
"Probably"?? You have no idea what they were, do you.
We don't have accurate records of those rates since such things were
entirely 'in the closet' back then.
> If you believe in following and implementing successful programs,
> then we already have our own success to use as a model.
We've **never** been through the experience of reducing our unplanned
pregnancy and abortion rate by 90% in this country. We have no such
success to use as a model for anything.
> Why try an approach that may or may not work, since it didn't work
> for a similar problem in the same country, and ignore a solution
> that did work here.
You're out of your mind, Rocush. We've never found nor implemented
a solution which has reduced pregnancy and abortion rates by 90%.
The Netherlands has done this, not us. They are the successful ones,
not us. Your claim of such a U.S. solution is an outright lie.
|
| 20.8297 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Feb 19 1997 15:31 | 4 |
|
The Netherlands sounds like quite the paradise..
|
| 20.8298 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 19 1997 15:50 | 5 |
| They don't share the view I do on Gun control in the Netherlands which
causes me heartburn, but their view of "harm reduction" seems to be a
much better way to go than continuing to bleat about morals.
meg
|
| 20.8299 | | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Feb 19 1997 15:50 | 30 |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday February 19 10:51 AM EST
High Court Upholds Some Abortion Clinic Limits
WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld fixed restrictions
on protesters at abortion clinics, but struck down so-called "floating
buffer zones" for violating free-speech rights.
The high court upheld part of an injunction in upstate New York which
banned demonstrators within 15 feet of the clinics, but declared
unconstitutional the floating part requiring demonstrators stay 15 feet
away from anyone who does not want to talk to them.
"The floating buffer zones are struck down because they burden more speech
than is necessary to serve the relevant governmental interests," Chief
Justice William Rehnquist said for the court in the 26-page opinion.
He explained that the floating buffer zones prevented demonstrators from
communicating a message from a normal conversational distance or from
handing out leaflets on public sidewalks.
However, Rehnquist upheld the fixed restrictions barring demonstrators from
near the clinic doorways, driveways and entrances, saying these limits were
necessary to ensure that people and vehicles have access to the clinic.
The restrictions had been imposed by a federal judge in 1992 because
protesters previously engaged in a campaign to harass abortion-seeking
women and obstruct access to the clinics in Buffalo and Rochester.
|
| 20.8300 | Taken from ap reports | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 19 1997 15:51 | 12 |
| A reproductive health clinic in Falls Church VA has been heavily
damaged by fire. A man found inside the burning building has been
charged with arson and burglary.
the fire heavily damaged the first floor of the clinic, as well
as smoke damage to the second floor. Police discovered the fire
while investigating a report of a person throwing bricks at the
clinic windows.
The fire is the latest in a string of recent attacks on abortion
clinics around the country. Clinics in Atlanta and Tulsa, Okla., were
firebombed earlier this year.
|
| 20.8301 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Feb 19 1997 18:13 | 10 |
| Interesting.
Reuters title:
High Court Upholds Some Abortion Clinic Limits
AP title:
Court expands free-speech rights for anti-abortion protesters
|
| 20.8302 | | BUSY::SLAB | Be gone - you have no powers here | Wed Feb 19 1997 18:14 | 5 |
|
Covert title:
Abortion is bad. Repent, ye sinners!!
|
| 20.8303 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 19 1997 18:55 | 7 |
| .8295
Did I ever state that these things did not happen or did I state that
they happened significantly less? There were drug addicts then as
well, but no where near as many as today. Did abortions happen, sure.
1.3 million? I don't think so.
|
| 20.8304 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 19 1997 18:59 | 16 |
| .8296
I will try to filter out the emotional rantings in your note and
address the facts. We have information on the rates for prior periods.
YOu can chose to believe them or not, but the information is available.
Also, my point was not that we reduced the rates, but rather created a
society and environment that did not create the problem in the first
place. this makes a program to reduce the rates unnecessary.
I would suggest you look into exactly what caused the rates to
skyrocket from the 60s to today. Once you have identified the causes,
you can go about suggesting a solution. throwing another countries
solution at a problem that you have not identified the cause of, may
just be a waste of time.
|
| 20.8305 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 19 1997 20:17 | 30 |
| RE: .8304 Rocush
> I will try to filter out the emotional rantings in your note and
> address the facts. We have information on the rates for prior periods.
> YOu can chose to believe them or not, but the information is available.
You haven't offered such information, of course. You made a statement
about what the rates "PROBABLY" were, compared to today, that's all.
> Also, my point was not that we reduced the rates, but rather created a
> society and environment that did not create the problem in the first
> place. this makes a program to reduce the rates unnecessary.
So we had success in the creation of a society several centuries back.
It's not the same thing as having the experience of fixing a late
20th century situation. The Netherlands has had this success, not us.
> I would suggest you look into exactly what caused the rates to
> skyrocket from the 60s to today. Once you have identified the causes,
> you can go about suggesting a solution. throwing another countries
> solution at a problem that you have not identified the cause of, may
> just be a waste of time.
The Netherlands experienced the same rise in rates per capita as we
experienced - the difference is that they reduced their rates by
90% *AFTER* the rates had gone up. THEY knew how to do this and
THEY did it, not us.
They are the experts with all the success, but you want our country
to do precisely the opposite. Talk about a waste of time...
|
| 20.8306 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 19 1997 20:36 | 32 |
| .8305
I never made any claim for exact numbers. If someone wanted to prove
me grossly in error they could easily find the information. I believe
they would find that my statement is fairly accurate.
Once again, you bring up the Netherlands. they are a completely
different society, with a completely different social history. What
was acceptable in most of Europe was not, and to a certain extent, is
not acceptable in the US today.
My point, once again, is that the American society has a different
point of reference and trying more of an attitude that has not been
successful here is really not worth it. I ask again, what were the
societal and cultural changes since the 60s that has led to the current
problem. Correct these and you go along way toward correcting the
problem.
The problem with your approach is a lot like what's wrong with our
welfare state. Some people believe that because a little bit helped,
alot more will be even better. Such was not the case, therefore our
prsent culture of dependency. All brought about because someone
thought more would be better. It wasn't and isn't.
I'm not willing to go down that path until something else is given a
fair chance to succeed. If at that point we are still facing the same
problem or worse, then I will be more than happy to lead the charge.
But not until another way is tried first.
Remember, the Netherlands also ahd athe same approach to drus and are
now tyring to dig out from under.
|
| 20.8307 | Nope. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 19 1997 22:23 | 43 |
| RE: .8306 Rocush
>>> We have information on the rates for prior periods. YOu can chose
>>> to believe them or not, but the information is available.
>> You haven't offered such information, of course. You made a statement
>> about what the rates "PROBABLY" were, compared to today, that's all.
> I never made any claim for exact numbers. If someone wanted to prove
> me grossly in error they could easily find the information. I believe
> they would find that my statement is fairly accurate.
You expect your wild guess to be accepted as truth until proven
otherwise, meanwhile. Don't you wish you were king of the world
and could make this stick? :>
> Once again, you bring up the Netherlands. they are a completely
> different society, with a completely different social history. What
> was acceptable in most of Europe was not, and to a certain extent, is
> not acceptable in the US today.
The Netherlands is a western society, like the U.S.A. Europe is often
more advanced than we are - for example, the women's movement started
in Europe in the late 1700s and didn't make it to the U.S. until around
1848 - but we still have a great deal in common with Europe (as do the
other societies which were ALSO created by Europeans.)
> I ask again, what were the societal and cultural changes since the
> 60s that has led to the current problem. Correct these and you go
> along way toward correcting the problem.
The Netherlands went through the same changes that we went through,
and they've already found a solution for the problems. Let's follow
their lead.
> Remember, the Netherlands also ahd athe same approach to drus and are
> now tyring to dig out from under.
When you find a western country that has solved their drug problem,
we'll take their advice about that issue.
Meanwhile, the Netherlands has solved the problem under discussion in
this topic, so we'd be very wise to follow their lead on this one.
|
| 20.8308 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Thu Feb 20 1997 12:40 | 8 |
| What lead to our current difficulties, Suzanne? Until you can answer
this question, you really can't solve the problems. Preaching the
Netherlands example, in the light of not being able to define the
problem's root cause, is a rather odd approach. It is an approach that
lacks a very fundamental aspect of problem solving.
-steve
|
| 20.8309 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Feb 20 1997 12:59 | 16 |
| Steve,
One thing we hve a problem with in the US, is that men forgot their
role in contraception. The Netherlands has been reminding young men
that they also should use contraception and not depend on strictly a
woman's method. given that the use of two forms of contraception
minimizes the risk of contraception failure, this would probably
significantly reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate for a very low cost.
Even expensive condoms are still less than a dollar a piece,
significantly less expensive than Depo or the pill, or most spermicides.
Condoms aren't the greatest thing in the world from a sensation aspect,
according to my hubby, but they are a damn sight easier on the wallet,
my health, and our sanity than another pregnancy would be at this time.
meg
|
| 20.8310 | Meg's absolutely right about the diff in men's roles, too... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 15:08 | 12 |
| Complex societal changes (including things like a greatly increased
mobility along with national and global communications) brought us
where we are today.
We can't move backwards in time to recapture one or two aspects of
life in the 1930s while we keep everything else that's changed.
We have to deal with western civilization as it is now.
The Netherlands did this, and they solved late 20th Century problems
with late 20th Century solutions.
If we were wise, we would follow their lead.
|
| 20.8311 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 15:13 | 10 |
| Let's say you owned a computer company that used to make bundles of
money but wasn't doing so well anymore. Some other companies were
doing extremely well, though.
Would you do the opposite of these other companies? Would you insist
on trying to move back to the late 1970s (when your computers were
selling like jelly beans)?
Or would you look at the market conditions as they exist NOW and plot
a strategy to be successful in today's world?
|
| 20.8312 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 20 1997 15:31 | 20 |
| .8311
I would spend a lot of time looking at exactly why I got into the
situation and what I needed to do. Taking your computer company
example, I could look at the fact that the companies that are doing
well are providing proprietary hardware running proprietary software.
this is a formula for failure not much further on down the road.
What got the company in trouble was not understanding what was
necessary, but more importantly letting the competition dictate the
terms of engagement. this allowed them to position their proprietary
solution as being better than another comapanies proprietary solution.
The campanies that are doing well now, will be in very serious trouble,
and some of it is already showing up, unless they recognize that their
solution, though fine previously are the current seeds for failure.
I guess that really does put the idea of using the Netherlands solution
in perspective.
|
| 20.8313 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 16:09 | 17 |
| Rocush, I notice that you don't advocate returning to the 1970s,
though. Good for you.
As for the computer companies - don't look at ALL the companies
which are doing well. Look at the one which is doing far, far,
FAR better than all the rest (by a landslide.)
The Netherlands isn't just doing well. They are doing far, far,
FAR better than all the rest of the western countries (by a
landslide), too.
You may not like the most successful computer software company,
nor do you seem to like the Netherlands - but doing exactly the
opposite of what they've done to win their tremendous success
would be very, very foolish.
Deal with today's world and plot a strategy that will work today.
|
| 20.8314 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 16:18 | 5 |
| Actually, Rocush, we should be plotting a strategy that will work in
the early 21st Century (since it will take some time to implement it.)
Look forward, not 60-80 years backward.
|
| 20.8315 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Thu Feb 20 1997 17:12 | 38 |
| Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat its failures.
We know what will fix the problems of today... the answers are simple.
The difficulty is in the implementation, as people are not always
willing to follow behavioral patterns that are in their, and society's,
best interest.
The solutions put forward may have some merit, but they are a bandaid
that only addresses the open wound, not the behavior that created the
wound to begin with. Neither do they address the reasons that said
behavioral patters have proliferated.
Rather than push for a consistent ethical behavioral change, I see
people approaching this problem from a defeatist standpoint - a
standpoint that says "we know you can't help yourselves, so here use
this". Society should demand that certain behavioral standard be
adhered to... and that when broken, that those who broke the standard
be held accountable for any resultant effects.
Instead, we say "go ahead, kill your unborn", we know you didn't intend
for this to happen. <hand slap> "Oh, you've had another kid and chose
to keep it, when you can't even support the first one? Here, have some
money... we know you can't control yourself." <hand message> "What?
You've fathered your third child with your third lover in the last 6
months? Well, if you made any money, we'd confiscate it for child
support, but since you don't have a job or any money, HERE, have some
money from those who DO take resonsibility for themselves, who do have
a job and have to work for a living." <hand slap>
What do you expect to happen when no one is held responsible for their
actions? Of course the problems will get worse. Maybe we are so far
gone already that we need to take the same approach as the
Netherlands... I don't know. I'm not against reducing peripheral
damage, but I do not like the idea of pushing more of the same
mentality that got us into this situation to begin with.
-steve
|
| 20.8316 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 17:32 | 98 |
| RE: .8315 Steve Leech
> Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat its failures.
Those who want to return to the past are doomed by wanting something
they can never have.
> We know what will fix the problems of today... the answers are simple.
And the Netherlands has already proven they work!
> The difficulty is in the implementation, as people are not always
> willing to follow behavioral patterns that are in their, and society's,
> best interest.
The Netherlands has shown that people will indeed listen to health
warnings issued in non-judgmental ways (along with imploring people
to protect their health and providing inexpensive access to the
precautions which help people of both sexes protect themselves from
the risks.)
> The solutions put forward may have some merit, but they are a bandaid
> that only addresses the open wound, not the behavior that created the
> wound to begin with. Neither do they address the reasons that said
> behavioral patters have proliferated.
In the Netherlands, the health-related approach convinced most teens
to wait until adulthood to have sex.
Being responsible during sex is a hassle - most teens in the Netherlands
wait until they are older to go through it.
This is what you want, isn't it, Steve? Well, the Netherlands has done
this already. But you want to dismiss their success in this area, too.
> Rather than push for a consistent ethical behavioral change, I see
> people approaching this problem from a defeatist standpoint - a
> standpoint that says "we know you can't help yourselves, so here use
> this".
Rubbish. You're casting YOUR 'sex is dirty, euuuuuuuuuuuw' attitude
onto others who think sex is a natural part of life, so why bother
trying to tell others when to have it (or not have it) at all.
> Society should demand that certain behavioral standard be adhered
> to... and that when broken, that those who broke the standard
> be held accountable for any resultant effects.
Take this attitude and stuff it. You may care when people have sex
but most of society considers it a private matter for people to decide
for themselves. The main thing is to eliminate the associated problems
that can occur as the result of sex.
If the unplanned pregnancies and abortions were reduced by 90%, people
could do the horizontal mambo to their hearts' content as far as I'm
concerned.
Sex is not the problem. The results of sex can sometimes be a problem,
so you work on how to prevent these results. That's the work which
needs to be done.
If you care so much about other people having sex, it's your problem,
not theirs.
> Instead, we say "go ahead, kill your unborn", we know you didn't intend
> for this to happen. <hand slap> "Oh, you've had another kid and chose
> to keep it, when you can't even support the first one? Here, have some
> money... we know you can't control yourself." <hand message> "What?
> You've fathered your third child with your third lover in the last 6
> months? Well, if you made any money, we'd confiscate it for child
> support, but since you don't have a job or any money, HERE, have some
> money from those who DO take resonsibility for themselves, who do have
> a job and have to work for a living." <hand slap>
We'd rather not step over dead bodies in our streets, that's all.
We used to do this a lot in the 19th century (tens of thousands of
children died in the streets from hunger, rape and murder when their
parents could no longer afford to care for them or when their parents
died.) It wasn't fun. As a society, we decided that the whining from
someone like you was easier to take than watching our own citizens die
in the streets.
> What do you expect to happen when no one is held responsible for their
> actions? Of course the problems will get worse. Maybe we are so far
> gone already that we need to take the same approach as the
> Netherlands... I don't know. I'm not against reducing peripheral
> damage, but I do not like the idea of pushing more of the same
> mentality that got us into this situation to begin with.
Most people don't envy the poor so much that they'd jump into a
horrendous life situation simply because we don't stomp on the poor
to add insult to injury.
All we have to do is to work on the health-related aspects of this
issue (because these are the problems we face.) If people want to
have sex without getting pregnant or spreading diseases, so what.
Sex itself is not the problem, except for you.
|
| 20.8317 | Sex is a natural part of life and not a problem itself. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 17:42 | 16 |
| Steve, it absolutely blows your mind (doesn't it) to realize that most
people wouldn't care how many others in society had sex (or how often)
if the problems associated with many unplanned pregnancies and diseases
didn't occur. Why would most of us care at all (if not for the possible
problems?)
In your mind, you think people who insist on having sex by their own
decision "can't help themselves", when (in reality) it's simply their
call to make, not yours (and not society's.)
Never in a million years would I care in the slightest about who has
sex (and who doesn't) if unplanned pregnancies, abortions and diseases
were kept as low the per capita rates in the Netherlands.
Imagine not caring who has sex - I'll bet this is totally outside your
ability to contemplate...
|
| 20.8318 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 20 1997 17:45 | 27 |
| .8313
"You may not like the most successful computer software company, nor do
you seem to like the Netherlands - but doing exactly the opposite of
what they've done to win their tremendous success would be very, very
foolish."
It never ceases to amaze me exactly where you come up with these
things. Where did you get the idea that I do not like the Netherlands,
or that I would advocate doing the exact opposite?
My basic position is that you can not copy something and expect it to
be exactly the same unless you were to copy into the exact same
environment. The culture, history and composition of the US is quite a
bit different than the Netherlands. Their success may be impressive,
but does that mean that we could expect the same results. AS an
example you can look at our attempts to implement Japanese managment
techniques and styles into American manufacturing. At best, they were
marginally successful.
That having ben said, I have no issue with making sure that people have
the information they need to make decisions. Moral character is part
of the information that needs to be included. As long as there is a
refusal to permit this information to be included in the public
discussion, there will be an equal refusal to abandon the field to the
moral relativists.
|
| 20.8319 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 17:55 | 42 |
| RE: .8318 Rocush
> My basic position is that you can not copy something and expect it to
> be exactly the same unless you were to copy into the exact same
> environment.
Elsewhere in this topic, I've stated that I don't think we'd enjoy
precisely the same level of success as the Netherlands has achieved
with this issue.
For one thing, our society is a hell of a lot sicker (i.e., hung up
badly on sex being dirty, etc.) than the Netherlands. As a healthier
society, they have advantages we'll never have.
I just don't want us to get any sicker (more hung up on sex being
dirty) than we are already. It won't help us.
> That having ben said, I have no issue with making sure that people have
> the information they need to make decisions.
In addition to this, we must implore people to use precautions when
they do engage in sex. We must also make the precautions available
as inexpensively as possible.
> Moral character is part of the information that needs to be included.
Making moral judgments about people will only complicate things.
The health-related aspects of sexual activity are the problem areas.
These are the things that need to be addressed.
> As long as there is a refusal to permit this information to be included
> in the public discussion, there will be an equal refusal to abandon the
> field to the moral relativists.
Preach your moral stuff in the appropriate place, that's all.
Don't expect the rest of us to go along with it (even if you happen to
believe that your code will save us all.)
The only common ground we have is in the health-related aspects of this.
This is where we should work together to reduce these health problems.
|
| 20.8320 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 20 1997 19:15 | 33 |
| .8319
How do you take what I have said and interpret that as "making moral
judgements". I have not said anything about judgements, but rather
teaching moral character. This is an issue that is getting more focus.
Even Bill Clinton, who could only know about character by its absence,
talked about teaching character in schools. Well, unless someone has
figured out how you teach character without morals, even Clinton knows
we have a serious problem in this area.
Anyway, since you believe that we would probably not have the same
success as the Netherlands, just what do you think the success rate
would be? If it wouldn't match the rate you seem to think so highly
of, it would be better to look to an alternate solution. YOu seem to
disparage and despise America for having a strong tradition of sexual
restraint. All of your complaining to the contrary will not change
such a basic structure. As a matter of fact, a lot of the problems are
that a minority of people hold a similar view and loudly oppose any
other approach. the end result is that you keep slipping further and
further and opposition intensifies.
Also, in an earlier note you wrote:
"Being responsible during sex is a hassle - most teens in the
Netherlands wait until they are older to go through it."
this seems to go against a prior note that said kids won't use condoms
or other precautions because it was too much of a hassle. Your
statement above seems to contradict prior information, and frankly,
goes against normal behavior. If something that you really want to do
is too much of a hassle to do one way, and another way is easier, most
people will follow the easier way.
|
| 20.8321 | Dutch teens wait to have sex (as I've noted before...) | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 19:30 | 77 |
| RE: .8320 Rocush
> How do you take what I have said and interpret that as "making moral
> judgements". I have not said anything about judgements, but rather
> teaching moral character.
So, you want people to have whatever morals they choose to have, as
long as they have some. Fine. So, a moral code which does **not**
consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral would suffice.
In this case, it isn't necessary to bring it up when discussing the
health problems that need to be solved.
> Anyway, since you believe that we would probably not have the same
> success as the Netherlands, just what do you think the success rate
> would be? If it wouldn't match the rate you seem to think so highly
> of, it would be better to look to an alternate solution.
We can't achieve their success because our society is sicker than
theirs. Making it even sicker won't help.
> YOu seem to disparage and despise America for having a strong tradition
> of sexual restraint.
No, YOU despise America for moving into the 20th Century. You want to
change it now, not me. I just want to reduce some health problems.
> All of your complaining to the contrary will not change such a basic
> structure.
All of your complaining will not throw us back to the 1900s or the
early 20th Century.
> As a matter of fact, a lot of the problems are that a minority of
> people hold a similar view and loudly oppose any other approach.
> the end result is that you keep slipping further and further and
> opposition intensifies.
So you believe you've won already. Why try to talk the rest of us
into changing things then?
> Also, in an earlier note you wrote:
"Being responsible during sex is a hassle - most teens in the
Netherlands wait until they are older to go through it."
> this seems to go against a prior note that said kids won't use condoms
> or other precautions because it was too much of a hassle.
Kids in which country? Find the exact quote or shut up.
The kids in the Netherlands *DO* use precautions when they have sex.
Mostly, though, they wait until they are older (because being responsible
is not as much fun as just having sex without worrying about it.)
> Your statement above seems to contradict prior information, and frankly,
> goes against normal behavior.
Rocush, find my earlier statement, then make accusations about it.
Otherwise, I must presume you're lying again.
> If something that you really want to do is too much of a hassle to do
> one way, and another way is easier, most people will follow the easier
> way.
In the Netherlands, kids make commitment to themselves that **IF** they
are going to have sex, they will use precautions. Pure and simple.
However, precautions are a hassle. So, most decide not to have sex.
The KEY is that they promise themselves that they will not do one
without the other (no sex without precautions.) If the precautions
are not as much fun, they wait until they are older to do either one.
Simple concept, and it works. They have the lower teen sexual activity
rates, the lower unplanned pregnancy rates, and the lower abortion rates
per capita to prove it.
|
| 20.8322 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Thu Feb 20 1997 19:32 | 10 |
| .8320
moral, adj. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or
badness of human action and character
- Crap AHD
Morality has nothing to do with sex. Morality has to do with what the
person doing the judging thinks is evyl. Character is different from
morality.
|
| 20.8323 | Wouldn't this be great to have teens do in the U.S.? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 19:37 | 13 |
| Rocush, what the Netherlands has done with their teens is very simple.
Dutch teens promise themselves that sex and precautions against unplanned
pregnancy and diseases go together. If you have sex, you use protection.
If you don't like the protection, then you don't have sex.
When Dutch kids don't want to hassle with the protection, they wait until
they are older to have sex.
If they do have sex as teens, they don't get pregnant or spread STDs.
It's as simple as that.
Most Dutch teens decide to wait.
|
| 20.8324 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 19:43 | 14 |
| The other really huge difference between the Netherlands and the U.S.
(with regards to this issue) is that Dutch MALES actually consider it
their responsibility to prevent pregnancy, too.
What a concept!
In this country, it's considered the woman's responsibility even though
two people are having the sex.
In the Netherlands, BOTH men and women protect themselves at the same
time, so one method acts as backup to the other. It's rare to see a
mistake when men are as committed as women to preventing pregnancy.
They're way, way, way ahead of us in this.
|
| 20.8325 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 20 1997 19:46 | 7 |
| In the U.S., telling kids "*IF* you have sex, please use precautions"
is considered consent to have sex by some people.
You'd rather that they get pregnant, have abortions and/or die from
AIDS rather than make it seem as though you're saying that sex is
ok - right Rocush?
|
| 20.8326 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Fri Feb 21 1997 11:36 | 4 |
|
<---- i can't believe you actually believe that second paragraph,
Suzanne. You should really end this debate before you look even
more foolish.
|
| 20.8327 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Feb 21 1997 12:28 | 8 |
| Battis,
It appears that way from my perspective also. If we aren't giving out
the information or are making it so downight immoral to use, we are
contributing to AIDS, unplanned pregnancy, abortions and the deaths of
newborns.
meg
|
| 20.8328 | the continuing blame game | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Feb 21 1997 12:37 | 18 |
| >It appears that way from my perspective also. If we aren't giving out
>the information or are making it so downight immoral to use, we are
>contributing to AIDS, unplanned pregnancy, abortions and the deaths of
>newborns.
It seems to be equally the case that if you aren't encouraging
abstinence then you are "contributing to AIDS, unplanned pregnancy,
abortions and the deaths of newborns." It is disingenuous to claim that
others are promoting those things because they are attacking the
problem from an angle you don't care for. They are trying to stop such
scourges by preventing people from engaging in sex until such time as
they are prepared to be monogamous. You are saying it's ok to have all
the sex you want, as long as you use a condom. In point of fact,
abstinence is the most effective means of preventing STDs and unplanned
pregnancies. So claiming that those who are working to promote
abstinence as a solution to the problems you cite as actually making
the problem worse while failing to acknowledge your own contribution to
the problem is incredibly self-serving.
|
| 20.8329 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Fri Feb 21 1997 12:39 | 5 |
|
Gee, thanks, Doc. Due to your injection of a little sense
and logic into this slamfest, my head is now spinning.
|
| 20.8330 | run away...run away... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Feb 21 1997 12:40 | 4 |
|
doc, you disappoint me - go back to next unseen
bb
|
| 20.8331 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Feb 21 1997 12:48 | 7 |
| Mark
I do agree that abstinence is the single best prevention, but I also
believe that the next levels of prevention also need to be stressed and
taught. I have seen too many kids who ignored the first lesson and
didn't have full understanding of the second, to believe you can teach
one and not the other.
|
| 20.8332 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Feb 21 1997 12:55 | 7 |
| >I do agree that abstinence is the single best prevention,
Then your argument is more of tactics and not substance. This being the
case, refraining from accusing people whose tactics are to stress the
"single best prevention" of encouraging <list of ill effects from sex>
will help generate a light/heat ratio that no longer appears to be an
asymptote to 0.
|
| 20.8333 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Feb 21 1997 13:09 | 7 |
|
.8332 wha'd he say?
- Barbie
|
| 20.8334 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Fri Feb 21 1997 13:15 | 6 |
|
re .8332
<swoon>
|
| 20.8335 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Feb 21 1997 13:23 | 2 |
| Alas, but not <swoon> enough to get you to come to Sierra's instead of
going to the same place you go every other friday... ;-)
|
| 20.8336 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Fri Feb 21 1997 13:31 | 3 |
|
Bingo!
|
| 20.8337 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 21 1997 13:32 | 118 |
| re: .8316 (Suzanne)
> Those who want to return to the past are doomed by wanting something
> they can never have.
Of course, no one said they wanted to return to the past. I've stated
over and over that we should *learn* from the past, which is quite
different that your continual misinterpretations on this particular
issue.
> In the Netherlands, the health-related approach convinced most teens
> to wait until adulthood to have sex.
That's great. The same approach is not working here, however, and more
of the same is not likely to change things.
> This is what you want, isn't it, Steve? Well, the Netherlands has done
> this already. But you want to dismiss their success in this area, too.
The same sort of social pushes (condom message, education, etc.)
doesn't seem to be working. The only thing I keep hearing is that we
just haven't gone far enough. I doubt this conclusion is accurate,
especially since this same attitude of free sexuality has created the
problem to begin with. Of course, maybe peripheral damages can be
reduced in this manner; but so far, 10 years of the condom message
and more graphic sex education in schools hasn't done much to change
our current course.
> Rubbish. You're casting YOUR 'sex is dirty, euuuuuuuuuuuw' attitude
> onto others who think sex is a natural part of life, so why bother
> trying to tell others when to have it (or not have it) at all.
This is your false conclusion to what I said. I don't have a "sex is
dirty" attitude. What I have is a "sex is a wonderful thing within the
confines of a commited relationship, but can cause grievous harm when
misused" attitude.
No one is suggesting that we promote a "sex is dirty" kind of attitude.
This is a strawman of your own creation.
> > Society should demand that certain behavioral standard be adhered
> > to... and that when broken, that those who broke the standard
> > be held accountable for any resultant effects.
> Take this attitude and stuff it.
I see the idea of personal responsibility and accountability for one's
own actions, does not sit well with you. Most curious.
> You may care when people have sex
> but most of society considers it a private matter for people to decide
> for themselves.
Another well-stuffed strawman.
Who says I care when people have sex? I never said that. I said
that society has a stake in creating an environment that promotes
responsible behavior. You cannot be convincing in this when you don't
hold people responsible for their own actions.
Change the behavior and you solve the problem.
> The main thing is to eliminate the associated problems
> that can occur as the result of sex.
This should be done, too. But if you can alter the behavior, you
greatly reduce the need for this.
> If the unplanned pregnancies and abortions were reduced by 90%, people
> could do the horizontal mambo to their hearts' content as far as I'm
> concerned.
What they do is their own business... until it affects me personally.
There are so many ways that irresponsible sex affects me and everyone
else in society.
> Sex is not the problem.
And who said sex was the problem? Not me. Irresponsible sex, however,
is the root cause of the problems we are discussing.
> If you care so much about other people having sex, it's your problem,
> not theirs.
Another sentence that belongs in the "I've jumped to conclusions I
can't possibly back up with what has been posted" category.
> We used to do this a lot in the 19th century (tens of thousands of
> children died in the streets from hunger, rape and murder when their
> parents could no longer afford to care for them or when their parents
> died.) It wasn't fun.
Eh? Care to back this up? And please include a time-frame. Tell me,
how do tens of thousands (if true) compare to tens of millions?
> Most people don't envy the poor so much that they'd jump into a
> horrendous life situation simply because we don't stomp on the poor
> to add insult to injury.
You missed my entire point, or deliberately avoided it. I'm not
surprised.
> All we have to do is to work on the health-related aspects of this
> issue (because these are the problems we face.)
The health issues, though important, are not the entire ball of wax.
You have quite the tunnel-vision on this issue, forgeting how
irresponsible sex causes many more problems than what is immediately
visible.
> Sex itself is not the problem, except for you.
No, sex itself is not the problem. You keep repeating this, and now
you have the gall to suggest that I have somehow taken this position.
Bad form, Suzanne... actually, it's quite the cheap debating tactic.
-steve
|
| 20.8338 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 13:35 | 20 |
| .8325
Your ability to reach new levels of silliness never ceases to amaze me.
Pleas identify where I have ever even hinted at such a position. If
not, I will assume it falls into the same category as so many of your
other responses.
As a strictly personal position, I would never advise anyone that I
thought sex outside of marriage was acceptable. this is based on many,
many factors, some of which are based on health reasons, some of which
are based on moral issues. My position has always been, and will
probably remain, that sex is an integral part of marriage and to treat
it as a cheap pastime is a disservice to both parties. I believe the
greatest gift you have is yourself and to give that away with only a
concern about health issues is unconscionable. that odes not mean that
people should not understand the consequences of disregarding health
issues, but they need to be as well informed and concerned about their
self-respect.
|
| 20.8339 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 21 1997 13:43 | 26 |
| re: .8317
> Steve, it absolutely blows your mind [...]
...how you can continually misrepresent my position. But that's part
of the charm when having a discussion with you.
> In your mind, you think people who insist on having sex by their own
> decision "can't help themselves", when (in reality) it's simply their
> call to make, not yours (and not society's.)
Here we go, you're in mind-reading mode again. Quit while you're
behind... your telepathic skills desparately need to be honed. In
fact, you *reading* skills need to be honed.
Not once have *I* suggested that people can't help themselves. If I
thought this, I would not be trying to promote a social message that
tries to alter sexual behaviors. Never have I suggested that it was
"my call", or even that society should pass a law to force anything.
You really do need to read my notes a bit more carfully... or at least
quit reading your imaginary issues into them.
-steve
|
| 20.8340 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Feb 21 1997 13:44 | 27 |
| Steve,
You don't have kids in school from what I have read here.
We have NOT attempted what the Netherlands has done in our schools, in
public service announcements or much of anything else. Sex ed here is
largely some biology, a very little bit on STD's and some on waiting to
have a baby, if the girl is considered "at risk" of an early pregnancy.
Never mind the fact that the "at risk" girl is already sexually active,
so telling her to just say no is ridiculous.
People still turn funny colors about the idea of telling boys that
wearing a condom in sex is a sign of caring, loving and manlyness.
That they are protecting their future as well as that of their
partners by using same. Telling them that even with a partner using
contraception and themselves using it there is still a risk of a double
failure, so it is better to wait.
Instead we still treat sex at the biological level, try to keep kids
from being interested in something they will be interested in, and give
them little-to-no information on contraception and where to get it. We
still treat sex as if it is something "dirty" instead of the wonderful
thing it is between two people who love each other. We try to deny the
sexuality and sensuoness that people are born with, instead of using
that same energy to refocus peopl on responsibility.
meg
|
| 20.8341 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 21 1997 13:47 | 5 |
| .8328
Good note. You said in a short note what I have tried to say in many
longer ones. Maybe you can take over here, and I'll go back to next
unseening. 8^)
|
| 20.8342 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 14:07 | 73 |
| RE: .8337 Steve Leech
>> In the Netherlands, the health-related approach convinced most teens
>> to wait until adulthood to have sex.
> That's great. The same approach is not working here, however, and more
> of the same is not likely to change things.
We haven't tried this approach yet. All we've done is to confuse the
issue by having some in our society claim that the precautions are as
sinful as the sex itself (which makes it very easy for some to skip
the precautions and sin less by having unprotected sex.)
>> This is what you want, isn't it, Steve? Well, the Netherlands has done
>> this already. But you want to dismiss their success in this area, too.
> The same sort of social pushes (condom message, education, etc.)
> doesn't seem to be working.
The Netherlands has teens who wait until adulthood to have sex. This
is precisely what you want, and they have achieved success with this
very thing by convincing teens to promise themselves not to have sex
unless they protect themselves first. The protections are a hassle,
so they wait until they are older.
They've done what you want, but you dismiss them anyway because of
how they did it. You deny that it can work even though they have
the proof of their success.
> I doubt this conclusion is accurate, especially since this same
> attitude of free sexuality has created the problem to begin with.
This "attitude" solved the problem in the Netherlands (although
I wouldn't characterize it as a 'free sexuality' approach as much
as a health-related approach.)
>>> Society should demand that certain behavioral standard be adhered
>>> to... and that when broken, that those who broke the standard
>>> be held accountable for any resultant effects.
>> Take this attitude and stuff it.
> I see the idea of personal responsibility and accountability for one's
> own actions, does not sit well with you. Most curious.
You're asking for a sanctimonious witch hunt against those who hold
different moral codes than you do. We've had enough people burned
at the stake in this country due to ignorance, thanks anyway.
>> All we have to do is to work on the health-related aspects of this
>> issue (because these are the problems we face.)
> The health issues, though important, are not the entire ball of wax.
> You have quite the tunnel-vision on this issue, forgeting how
> irresponsible sex causes many more problems than what is immediately
> visible.
Protected sex *is* responsible sex, especially when both parties are
using precautions (so that one methods acts as backup to the other.)
>> We used to do this a lot in the 19th century (tens of thousands of
>> children died in the streets from hunger, rape and murder when their
>> parents could no longer afford to care for them or when their parents
>> died.) It wasn't fun.
> Eh? Care to back this up? And please include a time-frame. Tell me,
> how do tens of thousands (if true) compare to tens of millions?
Oh, I forgot. Those children were born and breathing by the time they
were dumped into the streets to live and often die. They didn't count.
If you want more information about this, try AltaVista on the subject
"Orphan Trains".
|
| 20.8343 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 14:13 | 21 |
| RE: .8338 Rocush
> Your ability to reach new levels of silliness never ceases to amaze me.
How you read notes while staring at your small intestine close-up never
ceases to amaze me.
> As a strictly personal position, I would never advise anyone that I
> thought sex outside of marriage was acceptable.
This means you would never advise someone that if they *do* decide
to have sex, they should use precautions. You make vague mention
of people being informed about 'health' stuff, but you couldn't bring
yourself in a million years to simply say, 'If you're going to have
sex, please take precautions to prevent pregnancy and diseases.'
To you, this would be giving your permission to have sex.
Thus supporting my statement that you'd rather people have unprotected
sex (thus risking pregnancy, abortion, STDs, etc.) rather than make
it sound like you're accepting the sex.
|
| 20.8344 | You thought it was OK to try to read my mind, of course... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 14:18 | 19 |
| RE: .8339 Steve Leech
>> In your mind, you think people who insist on having sex by their own
>> decision "can't help themselves", when (in reality) it's simply their
>> call to make, not yours (and not society's.)
> Here we go, you're in mind-reading mode again. Quit while you're
> behind... your telepathic skills desparately need to be honed. In
> fact, you *reading* skills need to be honed.
Steve, you're quite the hypocrite.
*YOU* penned the phrase "can't help themselves" yourself and attributed
it to me (without my having written this or had any thoughts like this
about other people AT ALL.)
This phrase quite literally came from you, so you must be held
responsible for it. Or don't you believe in personal responsibility
for the things you do...
|
| 20.8345 | The common ground is the only place we'll meet on this issue. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 14:28 | 15 |
| Again, the only way we can ever agree on how to approach this issue
is on the only common ground which exists between us: the health
aspects of this matter.
If we agree that those who have sex should use as much protection
as possible when doing so, then we have a shot at some measure of
the Netherlands' success.
If some in our society continue to treat the precautions as sinful,
too, then we'll continue to have too many kids who suffer the
results of unprotected sex by deciding to commit ONE sin when they
have unprotected sex (rather than committing two sins by protecting
themselves.)
What we don't need in this country is another witch hunt.
|
| 20.8346 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 14:40 | 20 |
| Steve, just to help you put two thoughts together on something...
When people decide to have sex even though others ask them not to
do so, it's NOT that they "can't help themselves."
It happens because it's their decision, and no one else's.
All we can hope is that if people do decide to have sex (and it must
be their decision and no one else's), they will protect themselves
from pregnancy and disease while doing so.
The idea in the Netherlands is that such protection is considered
to be similar to 'Buckle Up' campaigns. They've convinced people
to use protection when they do have sex, so when the time comes to
make the decision, they do so with the conviction of avoiding the
health problems that can happen as the result of unprotected (or
failed protection) sex.
Both partners take this responsibility very seriously (not just
the women), and it works extremely well.
|
| 20.8347 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 14:56 | 25 |
| .8343
Gee, your first sentece was just so clever that I got all giddy reading
it.
"> As a strictly personal position, I would never advise anyone that I
> thought sex outside of marriage was acceptable.
This means you would never advise someone that if they *do* decide to
have sex, they should use precautions. You make vague mention of
people being informed about 'health' stuff, but you couldn't bring
yourself in a million years to simply say, 'If you're going to have
sex, please take precautions to prevent pregnancy and diseases.'"
Once again you make statements that you not only can not back up, but
also require an amount of insight to me that you certainly do not
possess. Let me tell you that you, once again, are not just wrong, but
incredibly wrong.
Any other information which I may have provided aside, I have always
stressed that an individual needs to have the highest level of
self-respect and truly understand the impact of the decisions they
make. Treating the sexual experience like the common cold devalues a
human being which, health issues aside, has devastating effects.
|
| 20.8348 | Show me that you can say this... I doubt very much that you can. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 14:59 | 10 |
| Ok, Rocush - say it.
Make the statement right now: "If you do have sex, please use
precautions which can help protect you from pregnancy and diseases."
If I was wrong to say that you couldn't bring yourself to make such
a statement, you can prove this right now by making this statement.
Go ahead. It's easy. I'd like very much to see you do this.
|
| 20.8349 | Abstinence is a health-related choice. And a good one. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 15:43 | 12 |
| If you're wondering if I can promote abstinence... Absolutely.
I've seen Meg promote it right here, too.
"Abstinence is the surest protection against pregnancy and
diseases. If you do have sex, please use precautions which
can help protect you from pregnancy and diseases."
No judgments. No moral tirades. No encouragement or permission
to have sex. Just the facts, with a request to do something which
can help protect them if/when they need such protection.
It's the only common ground we will ever share on this issue.
|
| 20.8350 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Fri Feb 21 1997 15:49 | 2 |
|
does that mean this battle is over?
|
| 20.8351 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Fri Feb 21 1997 15:51 | 8 |
|
Unless, of course, the Netherlands makes even more advances that we, thousands
of miles away, must follow.
Jim
|
| 20.8352 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Fri Feb 21 1997 15:53 | 7 |
| Suzanne:
One other area of common ground we should agree on...considering your
libertarian tendencies...
If you don't follow sound advice it is not the onus of society to
rescue you from your screw up. Fair enough?
|
| 20.8353 | Jim Henderson... We don't want to be copycats or anything. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 15:54 | 3 |
| Yeah, why on Earth would we want to reduce unplanned pregnancies
and abortions by 90% just because the Netherlands did it.
|
| 20.8354 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 15:56 | 8 |
| RE: .8352 Jack Martin
> If you don't follow sound advice it is not the onus of society to
> rescue you from your screw up. Fair enough?
We'll put the dying families on your lawn so you can step over them.
Fair enough?
|
| 20.8355 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Fri Feb 21 1997 15:56 | 4 |
| Maybe because the majority of that 90% lost were the doctors, ministers,
decent individuals and architects of a future society.
The illogic of waste Mr. Spock!
|
| 20.8356 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Fri Feb 21 1997 15:57 | 8 |
| Z We'll put the dying families on your lawn so you can step over them.
Z Fair enough?
No but how about some of the abandoned buildings in the inner cities?
I don't own them and they are currently unoccupied.
-Jack
|
| 20.8357 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 16:02 | 10 |
| RE: .8355 Jack
> Maybe because the majority of that 90% lost were the doctors, ministers,
> decent individuals and architects of a future society.
So you don't want unplanned pregnancies to be prevented or aborted, Jack?
The Netherlands reduced abortions by 90% by getting their citizens to
stop unplanned conceptions (which means that those doctors, etc.,
were stopped from being conceived in the first place.)
|
| 20.8358 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 16:05 | 12 |
| RE: .8356 Jack
>> We'll put the dying families on your lawn so you can step over them.
>> Fair enough?
> No but how about some of the abandoned buildings in the inner cities?
> I don't own them and they are currently unoccupied.
If they're going to be dying, it would be better to have them on
your lawn rather than being eaten by the rats in abandoned buildings.
|
| 20.8359 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Fri Feb 21 1997 16:07 | 3 |
|
Send them to the Netherlands.
|
| 20.8360 | Friendly, beautiful and quite spectacular, in fact... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 16:09 | 9 |
| RE: .8359 Jim Henderson
> Send them to the Netherlands.
Talk about encouraging people to have unprotected sex.
Jim, have you ever been to the Netherlands? Well, I have.
It's a gorgeous country!
|
| 20.8361 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Fri Feb 21 1997 16:16 | 4 |
|
<< Friendly, beautiful and quite spectacular, in fact...
yes, the box is all of that. What's your point?
|
| 20.8362 | Battis... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 16:17 | 3 |
|
:-)
|
| 20.8363 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Fri Feb 21 1997 16:55 | 21 |
| > Then your argument is more of tactics and not substance. This being the
> case, refraining from accusing people whose tactics are to stress the
> "single best prevention" of encouraging <list of ill effects from sex>
> will help generate a light/heat ratio that no longer appears to be an
> asymptote to 0.
What was that about disingenuity?
If their tactics were simply that of stressing "single best prevention"
there'd be a lot less complaint. But no, they attack and undercut
all other tactics as too immoral, when if there's one fact even more
glaring than that abstinence is "single best", that glaring fact is
that "single best" is INSUFFICIENT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Too many kids
and young adults reject abstinence. Arguing solely for abstinence
isn't the problem. Arguing AGAINST condoms and education is the
problem.
I don't mind anyone promoting abstinence. I mind their efforts to
derail other proven measures. Don't pretend they don't do that.
DougO
|
| 20.8364 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 21 1997 16:57 | 79 |
| .8342 (Suzanne)
> We haven't tried this approach yet.
No? There hasn't been condom messages blasting on TV for years now?
There hasn't been any sex education? There hasn't been a dramatically
heightened awareness of STD's (particurly AIDS)? Kids haven't yet
figured out that sex can cause pregnancies?
At no time in the past has this nation been so aware of the problems
associated with sex. We are literally BURSTING with awareness and
education... have been for some time, if you haven't noticed. Must be
something else wrong that has yet to be addressed.
> All we've done is to confuse the
> issue by having some in our society claim that the precautions are as
> sinful as the sex itself (which makes it very easy for some to skip
> the precautions and sin less by having unprotected sex.)
We? You got a mouse in your pocket? 8^) No, society as a whole has
not done this at all... quite the opposite. And those who do not
believe in contraception have not said that such protection is as
sinful as irresponsible sex. Your parenthectical statement is a
rationalization that is unprovable.
> The protections are a hassle,
> so they wait until they are older.
I'm not sure how the first phrase has a causal relationship with the
second. Putting on a condom is not a hassle. Must be something else
going on besides the "protection" message.
> They've done what you want, but you dismiss them anyway because of
> how they did it.
I haven't dismissed it. In fact, I said 'good for them', basically. I
do have my doubts that their methods will work here.
> You deny that it can work even though they have
> the proof of their success.
I don't deny anything. It worked for them. That does not mean that it
will work for us, as you keep insisting.
> > I see the idea of personal responsibility and accountability for one's
> > own actions, does not sit well with you. Most curious.
> You're asking for a sanctimonious witch hunt against those who hold
> different moral codes than you do. We've had enough people burned
> at the stake in this country due to ignorance, thanks anyway.
How do you jump to this conclusion? (this should prove interesting)
> > The health issues, though important, are not the entire ball of wax.
> > You have quite the tunnel-vision on this issue, forgeting how
> > irresponsible sex causes many more problems than what is immediately
> > visible.
> Protected sex *is* responsible sex, especially when both parties are
> using precautions (so that one methods acts as backup to the other.)
You have a very loose definition of "responsible", then. I also notice
that you didn't address the gist of what I was saying.
> Oh, I forgot. Those children were born and breathing by the time they
> were dumped into the streets to live and often die. They didn't count.
This does nothing to back up your statement. And your conclusion that
IMO "they didn't count", is quite false - which you would have realized
had you read what was written. My statement was that you back up your
claims (and a little context wouldn't hurt), then I asked how 10's of
thousands (assuming what you say is true) compare to 10's of millions.
Seems that I was indeed "counting" the 10's of thousands.
Thanks for the pointer in Altavistia... I'll give it a look.
-steve
|
| 20.8365 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 17:07 | 24 |
| .8348
Oh oh, now I'm intimidated. But I still hesitate. Perhaps if you
called me chicken or double-dared me to say it, I just might find the
courage to utter those words.
You are so absolutely clueless about how I operate and what I believe
as to be humorous.
I will say this, just to irritate you further, my children view sex as
a natural and normal part of the human experience. They also
understand that if carries with it emotional damage as well as
incredible health risks. they also recognize that sex outside of
marriage is sometimes difficult to avoid, but is not what one prefers.
Neither of my daughters has ever been pregnant, nor has my son gotten
anyone pregnant. they also have a healthy respect for the
religion-based moral values that have helped form them and given them
strenghth when giving in would have been easier and socially
acceptable.
Until you have a clue about me personally, I suggest you keep your
comments to the topic.
|
| 20.8366 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 21 1997 17:14 | 33 |
| re: .8344 (Suzanne)
<From .8315> The note where I brought up the infamous phrase...
Take another look at this note, as I was not addressing anyone
specifically. When I address someone's responses specifically, I will
normally cut and paste thier note, then insert my comments (as well as
posting a "re: .xxxxx" at the top).
Apparently, you think I was addressing you, and your position,
specifically. You are mistaken.
>> Rather than push for a consistent ethical behavioral change, I see
>> people approaching this problem from a defeatist standpoint - a
>> standpoint that says "we know you can't help yourselves, so here use
>> this". Society should demand that certain behavioral standard be
>> adhered to... and that when broken, that those who broke the standard
>> be held accountable for any resultant effects.
Here's the whole paragraph, verbatim. No mind reading here - not even
a comment that links you directly to what I was saying. You attached
yourself to this position by taking this to heart, personally (which I
find quite fascinating). And to top it off, you didn't even quote the
phrase in context.
Guess it's time for YOU to own up to your misquotes, eh? Or does your
moral code not include taking responsibility for what you've written?
(I'm sure it does, I just felt like tossing your favorite jab back at
ya.)
-steve
|
| 20.8367 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Feb 21 1997 17:20 | 23 |
| Steve,
You don't have kids in the schools system, have you gone into the bio
classes at the middle or high school level to see what passes for sex
ed? I have, having had one kid graduate and a couple more in the
pipeline for these classes. They stress abstinence and if CFV has
their way it will be nothing but abstinence. They go into mechanics,
but say nothing about pregnancy or STD prevention, other than don't do
it, or giving an at risk young woman a "Baby think it over" doll for
three days. Big whoop!
condoms are not being stressed for those who do not choose to remain
abstinent, nor are any of the other methods. Failure rates so a kid
can make an informed decision are not offered. The message is these
are std's, this is pregnancy, avoid it by not boffing. there are no
classes that stress the responsibilities of what can happen if you
choose to become Sexually active. At least until the pregnncy happens,
then they have parenting classes.
No it isn't a firm message, we haven't tried the netherlands method in
any school district I am aware of.
meg
|
| 20.8368 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Feb 21 1997 17:32 | 1 |
| Kids should go Dutch on every date. Ja.
|
| 20.8369 | and the wooden shoes are a pain... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Champagne Supernova | Fri Feb 21 1997 17:34 | 4 |
|
finger in the dike
bb
|
| 20.8370 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 21 1997 17:57 | 28 |
| After doing an altavista search for "Orphan Trains", I found a few
interesting links... none of them seem to mention 10's of thousands of
deaths of America's children, however. In fact, one did mention that
150k -200k children were relocated via "orphan trains", over a period
of approx. 80 years.
The news reports of the arrival of said trains were also interesting...
it seems that the destination towns went out of their way to see to it
that the children found good homes.
There is little difference between orphan trains and today's foster
care programs. And I'm willing to bet that we have many more children
in foster programs, per capita, than we did during the orphan train
days. The difference is, we also have welfare today, which is supposed
to deal with issues of keeping families together.
I'm still looking for the 10's of thousands of deaths that Suzanne
asserts in a previous note. So far, it looks like 10's of thousands
were relocated - and then over an 80 year time span (a fraction over
2k per year). If Suzanne has a specific link she's like me to
look at, I'll be happy to check it out.
So, we have 150-200K relocated children (living children) from 1854 to
1930 of yesteryear, vs. 34 million abortions from 1972 to present. No,
I really don't see how yesteryear was so infernally bad by comparison.
-steve
|
| 20.8371 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 18:21 | 11 |
| .8370
YOu just don't understand. No matter what you say there is only one
acceptable way to deal with this problem. this is acceptance and
information. anything else is unacceptable and will not be met with
even a reasonable attempt.
If you continue to raise conflicting opinions more misstatements and
out-of-context responses will be required until you are pummeled into
submission.
|
| 20.8372 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 21 1997 18:39 | 67 |
| Meg,
I didn't say that we have gone the path of the Netherlands. I said we
have adopted that mentality in part, and have implemented it in part,
and that it has not done much at all to reduce the problem.
You and Suzanne keep saying "let's take it the net step". I'm saying,
I have my doubts that it will work in THIS nation. The beginning steps
have arguably made matters worse.
Society has been pushing condoms like mad over the last 10 years. I
don't see a reduction in any of the sex-related problems we are
experiencing.
For some reason, society seems to be doing everything it can to skirt
the real issue - which is behavior. This may be because we don't want
to really change the behavior, even though it has cost this nation
billions and billions of dollars (and God only knows how much emotional
and mental harm to the populace).
I liken this to a man who has a behavioral problem of self mutilation
(let's say he like to cut himself with knives). Well, the first time
he cuts himself his wound gets infected. He goes to the doctor, who
cleans the wound, then tells the man that if he's going to cut himself,
at least sterilize the knife beforehand. Man says okie-dokie. His
wound begins to heal, then he cuts it open again...this time with a
clean knife. Unfortunately, he couldn't stop the bleeding, as he used
a dull knife that ripped the flesh (rather than a neat slice). Doctor
fixes him up with stitches, then tells him that in order to cut himself
safely, he will have to sterilize AND sharpen the knife (for a neat
cut).
Now, while the doctor has taken some of the danger of this
behavioral problem away, he has not fixed the problem itself. As long
as this man continues to cut himself, he takes the chance of future
infections and further scarring.
Society treats the problem of irresponsible sex in a similar way. The
doctors of our society laugh at those who say "why not try and change
the behavior that causes the cut to begin with", saying that it is each
individual's choice whether or not they will cut themselves. They
forget that if such behavior becomes widespread, that the cost of
medical insurance will go up, infections will be widespread, and many
will be permanently scarred, and some will likely kill themselves.
They forget than any such behavior, when it becomes
widespread, will inevitably affect the entire society in many different
ways.
Of course, if cutting oneself was the issue at hand, we could all agree
that the proper treatment is to alter the behavior in some manner.
Since sex is fun, something most in society wish to participate in,
we'd rather focus on the effects, rather than the cause. After all, if
we focused on the cause, while participating in irresponsible sex
ourselves, we would be hypocrites. We don't want to change our own
behavior, so how can we ask others to alter theirs?
Frankly, I'm appalled at how the act of making love has been cheapened
by today's society. We treat is as if changing partners was the
equivalent of changing oil in your car (something you should do
periodically)... and we blatently project this imigery to our children.
No wonder they think nothing of having sex these days... it's just a
normal part of everyday life, right? Hey, they all swap partners on
Melrose Place and Bevery Hills 90210 (or whatever), as well as just
about any other show you care to watch these days.
-steve
|
| 20.8373 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 21 1997 18:42 | 3 |
| .8371
8^)
|
| 20.8374 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Feb 21 1997 18:45 | 1 |
| he's got a real knack for imagery.
|
| 20.8375 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 18:51 | 60 |
| RE: .8370 Steve Leech
> After doing an altavista search for "Orphan Trains", I found a few
> interesting links... none of them seem to mention 10's of thousands of
> deaths of America's children, however. In fact, one did mention that
> 150k -200k children were relocated via "orphan trains", over a period
> of approx. 80 years.
Did these links happen to mention WHERE these children were living
before they went into "relocation"? Did they mention WHY such a
big effort was made to start and maintain a relocation program for
children?
Just for your info - when parents died or could no longer support
their children, the children were dumped (literally) onto the streets
of big cities like New York. Very young children were out there,
sometimes with siblings and sometimes with no one - even babies and
toddlers lived in the street.
Many survived by prostituting themselves to adults, while others
begged. They slept huddled together in the dead of winter like
rag dolls tossed into the trash. Many, many, many of them were
raped and murdered (while a great many others starved or froze to
death.) If you ever get a chance to go through the whole history
of this effort to "relocate" these children, you'll find that the
people who started this program were horrified by the deaths and
horrendous lives of these children.
The orphan trains *stopped* about the time that Welfare started.
> The news reports of the arrival of said trains were also interesting...
> it seems that the destination towns went out of their way to see to it
> that the children found good homes.
The children were paraded on stages in these towns like slaves (where
potential parents checked their teeth, etc.) Many parents essentially
purchased these children as unpaid workers.
Although some children were loved by their new parents, no one did
any follow-up work to check on how these kids were being treated in
their new homes. They were sent to farming country, so the vast
majority of them became farm workers (laborers) in their new homes.
> So, we have 150-200K relocated children (living children) from 1854 to
> 1930 of yesteryear, vs. 34 million abortions from 1972 to present. No,
> I really don't see how yesteryear was so infernally bad by comparison.
The man who started the Orphan Train effort gave eyewitness accounts
of seeing tens of thousands of children living on the streets of
New York in prostitution and as beggars. He reported the rapes and
murders of these children, too.
So you think it wasn't so terribly bad, eh? Imagine a 5 year old
living on the streets with a 3 year old sibling and a 1 year old
baby sibling. Imagine a 5 year old prostituting him/herself to
adults in order to get money to feed all three of them (while
they froze together on a filthy sidewalk at night.)
I've seen photographs of some of these kids, and I've seen interviews
with some of the surviving orphans from the trains. You haven't.
|
| 20.8376 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 18:55 | 13 |
| RE: .8365 Rocush
> Oh oh, now I'm intimidated. But I still hesitate. Perhaps if you
> called me chicken or double-dared me to say it, I just might find the
> courage to utter those words.
Well, I was right when I said that you couldn't bring yourself to say
those words.
You had the prime opportunity to prove you could say them, but you
couldn't bring yourself to do it.
I didn't expect you to be able to do otherwise, Rocush. It's ok.
|
| 20.8377 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 18:56 | 11 |
| .8375
Gee, so it was actually 10s of thousands living in the streets and not
dead in the streets. Isn't that a bit different than originally
written.
Also, did the people who organized this effort do so because of the
health issues or the moral issues? Actually, please don't answer that.
I don't think I could handle the logic, or lack thereof, that would
go into the response.
|
| 20.8378 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 18:59 | 8 |
| .8376
I guess sarcasm is wasted on you. Also, you apparently didn't read or
couldn't understand the rest of what I wrote.
Perhaps you ignored the rest of it since it would require something
other than your usual response.
|
| 20.8379 | | SMURF::BINDER | Errabit quicquid errare potest. | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:00 | 21 |
| The girl is huddled cold, forlorn, her face
A mask of hopeless misery. She draws
Herself against a bleak and battered wall
In what was once a bustling shop that stands
Now dead and empty, left to tumble down
In this, the hell of urban blight. The snow
Comes whistling in, on wings of screeching wind
That cuts through all the rags and papers clutched
About her shivering body, soon to be
A frozen corpse if no one comes to show
Her mercy. Here she sits, unable to
Provide herself the needs of life. No food,
No warmth is hers this day. A man looks in
And shakes his head and walks away with voiceless
Pity in his thoughts. What good is pity?
Others come, and go, and none will share
The gift of life with her. She can't survive,
And so it ends; her private living death
Is done. Her pain is gone, but what of those
She left behind, those frozen people gone
Their way to let a young girl die?
|
| 20.8380 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:05 | 29 |
| RE: .8372 Steve Leech
> Society has been pushing condoms like mad over the last 10 years. I
> don't see a reduction in any of the sex-related problems we are
> experiencing.
Baloney. Society has mentioned condoms while others in our society
characterize contraception as evil. Men are not encouraged to take
responsibility for their sperm (as one half of a sex partnership.)
Our society gives horribly mixed messages about all this.
> For some reason, society seems to be doing everything it can to skirt
> the real issue - which is behavior.
Steve, it's like trying to prevent car accidents by lecturing the
immorality of being in an automobile (to get people to abstain
from automotive transportation.)
Sure, the surest way to protect against being in a car accident is
to stay totally away from cars. It's not realistic, though. People
make their own decisions about these things, and a lot of people will
continue to use cars as transportation.
So you work on the things that can help make people safer when they
*DO* drive or ride in cars. It would be patently stupid to promote
automotive abstinence as the only safety measure (with attempts to
have campaigns about the immorality of automobiles.) The rest of
society will never go along with it, and you'd just confuse the real
issues.
|
| 20.8381 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:09 | 14 |
| RE: .8377 Rocush
> Gee, so it was actually 10s of thousands living in the streets and not
> dead in the streets. Isn't that a bit different than originally
> written.
Tens of thousands of children living in the streets AT ANY ONE TIME
over an 80 year period.
Well over tens of thousands of them died in the streets (raped, murdered,
starved to death or froze to death.)
What the hell is wrong with you?
|
| 20.8382 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:10 | 1 |
| is anyone getting my mail? eh?!?! is anyone getting my mail?!?!
|
| 20.8383 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:12 | 9 |
| RE: .8378 Rocush
> I guess sarcasm is wasted on you. Also, you apparently didn't read or
> couldn't understand the rest of what I wrote.
You lied, Rocush. So much for your moral code.
Society would do better to pass on your suggestions about such things.
|
| 20.8384 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:13 | 16 |
| .8380
Please cite those people who have a reasonable access to any media
sources that proclaim contraception as evil. Particularly those who
have ready access to teens.
Also, using your own example of automobile safety. How long was
information presented that gave people all of the information about the
health issues of seat belt use. Even with all of the information and
public service announcements, seat belt use remained very low. The
only way most states have gotten people to use seat belts was to pass
seat belt laws making it a moving violation not to use a seat belt.
So much for using health and safety as a motivator to get people to do
what is in their own best interests..
|
| 20.8385 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:16 | 7 |
| .8383
"You lied, Rocush. So much for your moral code."
You are so pathetic. Back up what you say. Identify the lie
specifically.
|
| 20.8386 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:17 | 10 |
| .8381
"Well over tens of thousands of them died in the streets (raped,
murdered, starved to death or froze to death.)"
What is the source for this. You made the statement, but the
information did not support your claim.
Back it up.
|
| 20.8387 | You're unaware that contraception is touted as sinful by some??? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:18 | 24 |
| RE: .8384 Rocush
> Please cite those people who have a reasonable access to any media
> sources that proclaim contraception as evil. Particularly those who
> have ready access to teens.
Surely you jest. Would you like me to name them by title or by
church location?
> Also, using your own example of automobile safety. How long was
> information presented that gave people all of the information about the
> health issues of seat belt use. Even with all of the information and
> public service announcements, seat belt use remained very low. The
> only way most states have gotten people to use seat belts was to pass
> seat belt laws making it a moving violation not to use a seat belt.
We never conducted a campaign like the Netherlands' campaign about using
precautions when having sex.
> So much for using health and safety as a motivator to get people to do
> what is in their own best interests..
Would you like to tell people that they will burn in hell if they don't
wear seatbelts? No. It would only confuse the issue.
|
| 20.8388 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:18 | 2 |
| i'd like steve to go on about the man
slitting himself with a dull knife.
|
| 20.8389 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:22 | 17 |
| RE: .8386 Rocush
> "Well over tens of thousands of them died in the streets (raped,
> murdered, starved to death or froze to death.)"
> What is the source for this. You made the statement, but the
> information did not support your claim.
Read the accounts of the man who started the Orphan Trains in the
decade prior to the Civil War.
I saw his accounts on a PBS documentary. They were accompanied by
photographs taken during several decades in the 1800s.
It was a worse situation than I've even described to you so far.
Read about it yourself if you don't believe me. The information
is available.
|
| 20.8390 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:35 | 1 |
| .8388 A little nick could make a vas deferens.
|
| 20.8391 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:43 | 1 |
| the analogy was so repugnant. dahmeresque, even.
|
| 20.8392 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:46 | 10 |
| .8387
Yes, I would like you to tell me just who has access on nightly basis
in various TV programs, movies and music that say contraception is
immoral. If it's done in a church, you're all wet.
Also, don't dodge the question on seat belts. No one used them, or
very few, until it was illegal not to. Information and health appeals
fell on deaf ears.
|
| 20.8393 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 19:48 | 9 |
| .8389
No doubt there were many on the streets. Please provide the
information on the 10s of thousands dying in the streets. Not expected
to, or could, but actually did, as you claimed.
Also, you didn't answer the question about why these kids were saved.
Was it health or morals that did this.
|
| 20.8394 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 20:02 | 22 |
| RE: .8392 Rocush
> Yes, I would like you to tell me just who has access on nightly basis
> in various TV programs, movies and music that say contraception is
> immoral. If it's done in a church, you're all wet.
Do you claim to be unaware that prominent groups and world figures who
hold such beliefs are covered in the national and global news?
Do you claim to be unaware that many of the protests about health
approaches to contraception, etc., are designed to spread messages
by acquiring news coverage for these efforts?
> Also, don't dodge the question on seat belts. No one used them, or
> very few, until it was illegal not to. Information and health appeals
> fell on deaf ears.
We didn't use the kind of campaign that the Netherlands used with such
great success to reduce their unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates,
as I said.
The Netherlands' approach is something we simply haven't tried yet.
|
| 20.8395 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 21 1997 20:04 | 5 |
| .8394
Please tell me how we would have had a different public program on seat
belts that would have been similar to the Dutch?
|
| 20.8396 | Welfare replaced the Orphan Trains. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 20:05 | 10 |
| RE: .8393 Rocush
> Also, you didn't answer the question about why these kids were saved.
> Was it health or morals that did this.
The Orphan Trains were conducted for the same reasons that Welfare
was started.
Orphan Trains stopped when Welfare started, actually.
|
| 20.8397 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 21 1997 20:11 | 16 |
| RE: .8395 Rocush
> Please tell me how we would have had a different public program on seat
> belts that would have been similar to the Dutch?
It would have been an all-out effort (not just a few messages here and
there with information) such that people would be promising themselves
that if they decided they didn't like seatbelts, they'd stay the hell
away from cars.
You just don't seem to understand the scope of the Netherlands'
campaign about contraception. It wasn't just a few public service
announcements and some pamphlets.
They went all-out on a scale that we've never even seen in this
country.
|
| 20.8398 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Fri Feb 21 1997 20:30 | 11 |
|
re: Steve from a few back
In response to 'society pushing condoms like crazy for the past
10 years' (paraphrased)........ hogwash. Society is too prudish
to allow condom ads anywhere but in doctor's offices, health
clinics and the like. Just very recently have condom ads
been allowed on TV and I think I've only seen 'em twice. How
can we push something like crazy and sweep it under the rug
at the same time?
|
| 20.8399 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Sat Feb 22 1997 20:14 | 8 |
| re .8380
Terry Randall, Phyllis Schlaffly, John Paul II, Jerry Falwell, Pat
Robertson, Will Perkins, Thomas Sowell, Don Feder, Cal Thomas, Mother
Theresa, several Senators, to name a few that I can think of right off
hand.
meg
|
| 20.8400 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Sat Feb 22 1997 20:15 | 2 |
| Rocush, check out Brazil where contraception is not readily available
and abortion is illegal.
|
| 20.8401 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Sat Feb 22 1997 20:33 | 38 |
| In victorian England so many babies suffered from their mothers
"rolling over on them and having them smother" it was illegal for
children to sleep with their parents. Seems a high percentage of
prostitutes babies died before they were two weeks old. I suppose
"Oliver", "Great Expectations", all were total fiction dreamed up in a
vacuum by Dickinson. The poor workhouses and awful orphanges never
existed, except in his imagination.
In Brazil, street children are routinely rounded up and shot. there is
no family to claim their bodies, they live in groups ranging in age
from 4-14 beggin, picking pockets, and sniffing glue until they are old
enough to sell their bodies and start the cycle with their offspring
anew. In Romania, the infant and maternal mortality rate has been cut
in half since Ceucesceu(sp) was forced out of office and contraception
and abortion are legal again. In Poland it was voted to relegalize
abortion in many cases, mostly because people couldn't stand the number
of abandoned and murdered babies, as well as the shredded uteruses of
women that couldn't afford to travel out of the country and took care
of things themselves or with a friend. but this is all fiction brought
to us by the feminist, liberal media conspiracy, it isn't really
hap[pening.
In Utah, another newborn has been abandoned in a pile of rags on church
steps. Baby Faith (found smothered near Horsetooth resevoir last
summer) has finally been buried after all attempts to find any family
have failed. Baby Hope was another dead newborn found by the Arkansas
river the same day last year, also wrapped in plastic and smothered.
Both babies lived about 2-3 days. No trace of either parent was ever
found. There are no baby Snowflakes, baby Noels, baby Valentinos, baby
Nicholases happening even today in the US. that is a figment of the
media as well. It seems that after a long decrease in these things
happening the last 7 yers, have seen an upswing in the number of
abandoned and murdered newborns. I wonder if it coincidental that the
number of family planning clinics that cater to low incomes, and the
number of abortion providors in the US has been falling during this
time.
meg
|
| 20.8402 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat Feb 22 1997 20:57 | 1 |
| Dickinson?
|
| 20.8403 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Sat Feb 22 1997 21:00 | 4 |
|
Oops dickens.
|
| 20.8404 | I think I need more soup | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Sun Feb 23 1997 05:32 | 17 |
| Life isn't sacred. You may believe it is, but it isn't. Trading one
form of death for another because it's expedient doesn't make it any
better, just different.
Meg, you make a very good point in pointing out how horrible the world
is for so many people. But is there any less suffering going on where a
"safe" abortion is concerned? I doubt it. The suffering has to be there
because life wants to live and when it can't it feels pain. Any life,
all life.
I can't believe that all life is sacred anymore because if I did, the
horrors being felt around the world would consume my entire being. So,
I don't see a solution, I just see life playing itself out with all the
pain/joy/love/hate that it has to offer. It isn't fair and it never
will be, but trading one form of death for another seems less than
noble. I do know one thing, death is inevitable. Some get a comfortable
reprieve, most don't.
|
| 20.8405 | "It Is Expediant..." | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Sun Feb 23 1997 17:05 | 3 |
| re: .8298
Ahh, the ends justifies the means...
|
| 20.8406 | Does Not Need To Imply That Sex Is Bad | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Sun Feb 23 1997 19:50 | 22 |
| re: .8316,.8317
Hi Suzanne,
I don't see that you have formulated an argument that proves
that sex is not destructive to the psyche of a person if the
person engages in it with no sense of commitment to his/her
partner.
For many years, societal morals have included the idea that
sex is immoral outside of the confines of lifelong commitment.
I admit that I have not proved that sex outside of commitment
is not bad for a person's psyche, but the notion that what is
immoral is bad for the heart coupled with centuries where many
people felt a certain way about casual sex is evidence of something.
Perhaps Steve was not saying sex is bad or wrong, just something
that is healthy psychologically when done under a certain set of
circumstances.
Tony
|
| 20.8407 | Just To Make Sure... | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Sun Feb 23 1997 20:09 | 30 |
| Reply: Note 20.8332
Hi,
I love what you're saying, but let me make sure I hear ya! ;-)
>I do agree that abstinence is the single best prevention,
*Then your argument is more of tactics and not substance.
In other words, the substance of her argument has just undergone
a radical shift as a result of her acquiescence. Substance has
changed and if its still felt that a certain emphasis on abstinence
is deemed too much emphasis, then we're much more in the realm of
tactics.
*This being the
*case, refraining from accusing people whose tactics are to stress the
*"single best prevention" of encouraging <list of ill effects from sex>
*will help generate a light/heat ratio that no longer appears to be an
*asymptote to 0.
Light - metaphor for enlightenment.
Heat - metaphor for dissension/fighting.
Refraining from accusation means, in relative terms, light is going
up and heat is going down. The value of the ratio light/heat is
increasing and thus is no longer asymptoting toward zero, right???
Tony
|
| 20.8408 | Couple Thoughts | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Sun Feb 23 1997 20:49 | 33 |
| Well, I've read all the recent replies and I have two main
thoughts. (Well, 3)
1) I just thought of the idea of one person staying sober so
as to drive a bunch of drunks home. Here is a case of making
allowances for people doing that which many consider wrong.
Adding the above to the mix does cause me to ponder...
I'm a sovereign by political belief. Even libertarian is a
bit too 'centralized' for me. The fed has no jurisdiction over
this, but I suppose I can see some sex ed at the state level.
I continue to see many call for a federal program, it seems.
Have the federal govt. do something. OK, so I'm a nutter.
We will see more and more the effects of an incredibly pervasive
federal govt. NWO and all of that. Its not a perfect world,
but the damage to socialism, I believe, far outweighs the damage
that would result from a system where sovereignty is vested in
"We the people." In other words, I am totally against a program
at the federal level.
2) I believe our morals are shot to hell. I wonder where the
'program' to espouse premarital abstinence belongs. I suppose
within the family and I would hope the private sector would
do more of this. Perhaps the state could also be expected to
voice a small range of moralities. State that some believe
abstinence is a choice that is a moral one. At least allow it
to be A voice.
3) I think Suzanne and Rocush secretly are quite enamored with
each other.
Tony
|
| 20.8409 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Sun Feb 23 1997 23:11 | 37 |
| RE: .8406 Tony
> I don't see that you have formulated an argument that proves
> that sex is not destructive to the psyche of a person if the
> person engages in it with no sense of commitment to his/her
> partner.
Many, many, MANY things in life could be considered destructive
to the psyche of human beings. How deeply do you wish to intrude
into the private lives of others in this country so that you can
decide (for them) which activities they should do or not do?
No matter what you ever say or do about it, people will make their
own decisions about their most private moments. They won't refuse
to listen to you because they "can't help themselves". They will
make their own decisions because the decisions are, in fact, theirs
to make (and no one else's.)
> For many years, societal morals have included the idea that
> sex is immoral outside of the confines of lifelong commitment.
Societal morals once considered slavery and not allowing women to
vote or own property to be moral while sex outside of marriage
was immoral. Society has wised up quite a bit since those days.
> Perhaps Steve was not saying sex is bad or wrong, just something
> that is healthy psychologically when done under a certain set of
> circumstances.
Steve isn't in a position to make a judgment about is healthy or
unhealthy for dozens of millions of strangers in this country.
Nor is anyone else.
People will make their own decisions about their private lives
because the decisions are theirs to make (and no one else's.)
There's nothing you (or Steve) can do to change this.
|
| 20.8410 | "I've got cancer, and only have 6 months to live ..." | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Feb 24 1997 11:18 | 13 |
|
Interesting article in this months Readers' Digest. A club was started
for teenage girls to get together and talk about sex, the pressure to
have it, and the lines boys use to get some. Seems the same lines are
being reported by many different girls and this helps them to see
through the lies.
It appears to be very successful in encouraging abstinence.
Seemed like a pretty straight forward program that lots of moms and
dads would go ballistic over.
Doug.
|
| 20.8411 | The Example of Schindler's List | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Feb 24 1997 11:22 | 92 |
| Reply: Note 20.8409 Suzanne
Hi Suzanne,
*Many, many, MANY things in life could be considered destructive
*to the psyche of human beings. How deeply do you wish to intrude
*into the private lives of others in this country so that you can
*decide (for them) which activities they should do or not do?
Deeply enough to convey a morality, but not so deep as to insist
upon it for others. Christ was a good model for this by the way.
He didn't make anybody do anything and He really did care for
people.
*No matter what you ever say or do about it, people will make their
*own decisions about their most private moments. They won't refuse
*to listen to you because they "can't help themselves". They will
*make their own decisions because the decisions are, in fact, theirs
*to make (and no one else's.)
I never said the decisions weren't theirs to make, but to be philo-
sophical about it all, conscious existence is effected by what is
SEEN. I would simply like for people to see a certain morality.
The media does this all the time. Schindler's List was a beautiful
example. I am glad for the oppurtunity for moralities to be communi-
cated to others. The media and government also provide what I consider
to be terrible examples of conveyance of moralities.
> For many years, societal morals have included the idea that
> sex is immoral outside of the confines of lifelong commitment.
*Societal morals once considered slavery and not allowing women to
*vote or own property to be moral while sex outside of marriage
*was immoral. Society has wised up quite a bit since those days.
I reject the reasoning that "Society thought A was OK even though
its really bad, therefore (on that basis) B is bad because society
also thought it was good. That is irrational. I'm not so sure
society has wised up all that much. Nazi Germany wasn't that long
ago.
> Perhaps Steve was not saying sex is bad or wrong, just something
> that is healthy psychologically when done under a certain set of
> circumstances.
*Steve isn't in a position to make a judgment about is healthy or
*unhealthy for dozens of millions of strangers in this country.
*Nor is anyone else.
I am unsure of the meaning you apply to the word judgment. I would
agree that no one ought condemn another person. I believe that
condemnation on moral grounds will ultimately be inherent and a
function of one's state of being.
How did you make the leap that desiring to convey a morality is
tatamount to judging another and making decisions for another???
I believe that conveying a morality is simply offering revelation
which can change a person's set of values (depending on how the
person processes that revelation) and thus impelling a person to
make different decisions in life.
If what I espouse is wrong, the media had no right showing Schindler's
List for that is EXACTLY what Spielberg wanted to do. He did not want
to adjust anyone's morality by denying free choice, he simply wanted
a forum for a certain morality to be conveyed so that free thinking
people could drink in that morality and perhaps be changed by that
morality (depending on how that revelation was received in the heart).
*People will make their own decisions about their private lives
*because the decisions are theirs to make (and no one else's.)
Yes, but moral decisions are made on the basis of one's morality. One's
morality can be changed by revelation in such a way that free choice
is not denied, but rather enhanced by the blessing of more sight from
which to enable more thoughtful value assessment.
*There's nothing you (or Steve) can do to change this.
We can speak and (I hope) we have a right to do so.
I don't know if you realize it Suzanne, but Steve is right in that you
have made some incredible leaps of logic. Please cite anywhere in any
replies I have made where I even hinted at denial of a person's choice
or insistence that my choice is made for them.
You have hinted at rejecting the notion of simply desiring to convey
a morality. This notion is extremely wrong in my book. Thank God
I have the oppurtunity to watch a movie like Schindler's List and
be changed by that wonderful revelation.
Tony
|
| 20.8412 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Feb 24 1997 12:00 | 3 |
|
Doug, that does sound like a good way to get the message out.
|
| 20.8413 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 12:31 | 35 |
| .8380 (Suzanne)
> Baloney. Society has mentioned condoms while others in our society
> characterize contraception as evil.
Who characterizes contraception as evil? I think you're missing the
message.
We have condom ads on TV, shows that encourage condom use, and
even some schools that pass them out to children. I've yet to see or
hear anyone say that "comdoms are evil".
> Men are not encouraged to take
> responsibility for their sperm (as one half of a sex partnership.)
> Our society gives horribly mixed messages about all this.
I agree.
> Steve, it's like trying to prevent car accidents by lecturing the
> immorality of being in an automobile (to get people to abstain
> from automotive transportation.)
No, it's not. This is an attempt at obfuscation.
A proper analogy would have context. No one is saying that having sex,
in itself, is immoral (with or without condoms).
> It would be patently stupid to promote
> automotive abstinence as the only safety measure (with attempts to
> have campaigns about the immorality of automobiles.)
No one is promoting this. All I'm promoting, if you insist on using
this analogy, is that people get their license before driving.
-steve
|
| 20.8414 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 12:48 | 50 |
| .8049 (Suzanne)
> Many, many, MANY things in life could be considered destructive
> to the psyche of human beings.
Irrelevant.
> How deeply do you wish to intrude
> into the private lives of others in this country so that you can
> decide (for them) which activities they should do or not do?
Please point to the note where Tony suggested that he wished to intrude
into the privacy of others, as well as where he stated that he wished
to decide "for them" which activities they should or should not do.
I'll save you the time and tell you that he never said this. You have
made a leap of illogic in the above.
Tony > Perhaps Steve was not saying sex is bad or wrong, just something
Tony > that is healthy psychologically when done under a certain set of
Tony > circumstances.
Exactly. And also that misuse of sex is a root cause of many of the
social ills we suffer with today.
> Steve isn't in a position to make a judgment about is healthy or
> unhealthy for dozens of millions of strangers in this country.
> Nor is anyone else.
Then we certainly should not push your health-oriented approach,
either. After all, no one is in a position to make a judgement about
what is healthy or unhealthy for dozens of millions of strangers,
right?
> People will make their own decisions about their private lives
> because the decisions are theirs to make (and no one else's.)
You keep stressing this, as if it were a very important point. I find
this odd, since neither I, or anyone else in this string, has suggested
that this was not the case...
> There's nothing you (or Steve) can do to change this.
... yet you continue to suggest that this little lie is true.
You have never heard me say that this decision does not belong on the
individual level. Please stop suggesting that I have said this.
-steve
|
| 20.8415 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 13:00 | 104 |
| RE: .8411 Tony
> I never said the decisions weren't theirs to make, but to be philo-
> sophical about it all, conscious existence is effected by what is
> SEEN. I would simply like for people to see a certain morality.
> The media does this all the time.
Then make a movie or write a book about it. Anyone who wants to see
it will have the opportunity to do so. No one is saying that you
aren't allowed to invest your time and money in a project that will
espouse your views.
>>> For many years, societal morals have included the idea that
>>> sex is immoral outside of the confines of lifelong commitment.
>> Societal morals once considered slavery and not allowing women to
>> vote or own property to be moral while sex outside of marriage
>> was immoral. Society has wised up quite a bit since those days.
> I reject the reasoning that "Society thought A was OK even though
> its really bad, therefore (on that basis) B is bad because society
> also thought it was good.
You'll notice above that I wrote no such thing at all.
I simply reject the idea that we must accept anything that society
has "included" in its morals on the basis that it must have been
right (when we know how very WRONG "society" has been about so many
other things at various times.)
> That is irrational. I'm not so sure society has wised up all that
> much. Nazi Germany wasn't that long ago.
You're being irrational. If you think society is unwise, then don't
base the wisdom of certain positions on the idea that they've been
part of this unwise society's morals.
> How did you make the leap that desiring to convey a morality is
> tatamount to judging another and making decisions for another???
You made this leap yourself. I don't mind how many desires you have
for the next several decades (about anything whatsoever.)
You will never convince the rest of society to agree to promote your
moral code, though. Best get used to this.
> I believe that conveying a morality is simply offering revelation
> which can change a person's set of values (depending on how the
> person processes that revelation) and thus impelling a person to
> make different decisions in life.
If you want to use your own time and money to convey this morality,
go for it. No one else can object to what you do with your resources.
If you want society's resources to do this, you must have the
agreement of society in general. You will never get this.
> If what I espouse is wrong, the media had no right showing Schindler's
> List for that is EXACTLY what Spielberg wanted to do.
Whose money did he use for this movie? The money he owned or raised
himself.
Spend your own money to promote your morality, and you're all set.
> Yes, but moral decisions are made on the basis of one's morality. One's
> morality can be changed by revelation in such a way that free choice
> is not denied, but rather enhanced by the blessing of more sight from
> which to enable more thoughtful value assessment.
Use all your resources to make this happen, if you'd like. You won't
be given society's resources to help you, though. Live with it.
>> There's nothing you (or Steve) can do to change this.
> We can speak and (I hope) we have a right to do so.
We have the right to disagree.
> I don't know if you realize it Suzanne, but Steve is right in that you
> have made some incredible leaps of logic.
You made the leaps above yourself.
> You have hinted at rejecting the notion of simply desiring to convey
> a morality. This notion is extremely wrong in my book. Thank God
> I have the oppurtunity to watch a movie like Schindler's List and
> be changed by that wonderful revelation.
HINTED? Where have I hinted that I care what your desires happen
to be? Desire anything you like. (That's the whole point - it's
your choice.)
If you have the millions it takes to produce a Schindler's List,
go for it. I can't promise that I'll spend my money at the theater
to watch it, but you never know. You certainly have the freedom
to spend your millions of dollars any way you like, and I'd never
try to stop you.
Most definitely, I'd never try to stop you from desiring anything
in your life. It's your personal, private realm - desire any kind
of world you'd like. Just don't expect society to make your dreams
come true for you.
|
| 20.8416 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 13:03 | 12 |
| RE: .8414 Steve Leech
> Then we certainly should not push your health-oriented approach,
> either. After all, no one is in a position to make a judgement
> about what is healthy or unhealthy for dozens of millions of
> strangers, right?
Wrong.
A health-related approach is based on science with data that can
be verified objectively.
|
| 20.8417 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 13:41 | 23 |
| .8416
You just don't seem to get it, or refuse to accept certain basic facts.
YOu keep stressing that a health based approach is the only approach
that everyone can agree on and will be effective.
The fact is that not everyone agrees that this is the only approach
that should be actively promoted and discussed. No amount of your
complaining will change the fact that a large proportion of American
society will not accept a health-only approach.
If you are truly interested in solving the problem, as opposed to
pontificating on a single view, you would be will to embrace multiple
approaches. I have not seen anyone express any opposition to
presenting all of the health related information and consequences. The
opposition arises when you insist this be done in a moral vaccuum in
the public discussion.
As long as you insist that the other views not be allowed to stand
side-by-side with your views, you will continue to encounter
well-deserved opposition. If you are willing to publicly include
others in the discussion, you may actually achieve results.
|
| 20.8418 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 14:56 | 50 |
| RE: .8417 Rocush
> You just don't seem to get it, or refuse to accept certain basic facts.
> YOu keep stressing that a health based approach is the only approach
> that everyone can agree on and will be effective.
The health-related approach is the common ground.
By no means does a general health-related approach boil down to any
*ONE* thing. It's an approach with many aspects to it.
> The fact is that not everyone agrees that this is the only approach
> that should be actively promoted and discussed. No amount of your
> complaining will change the fact that a large proportion of American
> society will not accept a health-only approach.
This is why we will fail. We can't even agree on the approach to use,
much less do the work needed to accomplish it.
The Netherlands is a far, far, far healthier society than we are, so
they agreed to a health-related approach and made it work.
> If you are truly interested in solving the problem, as opposed to
> pontificating on a single view, you would be will to embrace multiple
> approaches.
If you are truly interested in solving the problems, you will cease and
desist from using this issue to promote your own agenda (i.e., your
moral code.)
The health-related aspects are the common ground to solve the problems.
> I have not seen anyone express any opposition to
> presenting all of the health related information and consequences.
> The opposition arises when you insist this be done in a moral vaccuum
> in the public discussion.
Society will not promote your moral code for you. Give it up. Let's
solve the health issues as the health issues they truly are.
> As long as you insist that the other views not be allowed to stand
> side-by-side with your views, you will continue to encounter
> well-deserved opposition. If you are willing to publicly include
> others in the discussion, you may actually achieve results.
Who the hell has the power to keep your views from standing up?
Not me.
Our society will not hand this issue to you as a platform for your
religious and moral views, however. Learn to live with it.
|
| 20.8419 | Pontificating a 'HEALTH' agenda? Huh?? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 15:06 | 12 |
| Rocush, it's weird that you seem to think that "a health-related
approach" exists as a cause on its own almost as if it were its
own religion.
If we had no health issues in this country, I suppose you think
we'd invent some so that we could promote this approach, right?
The health aspects of health issues are simply the common ground
(where neither side gets to promote side issues such as differences
in moral codes.)
Can you understand this at all?
|
| 20.8420 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 15:18 | 25 |
| .8418
still refusing to accept reality. The health-related approach, by
itself, is not common ground. there is a general acceptance of the
health-related issues, but it is not common ground.
The common ground is that there is a problem that needs to be resolved.
Constant reference to the Netherlands has not, and will not, do much
other than point to part of the solution.
The reality is that a large majority of the population is not going to
present an amoral face to the problem. Learn to live with it.
If you really want to solve the problem, and I am beginning to get the
impression that you really aren't, you would be willing to try numerous
means. some of these will be more successful than others, but taken
together, just as you promote multiple forms of contraception to avoid
pregnancy, will have a high degree of success.
What would you say if the only public discussion was abstinence and
moral behavior, and rates of teen pregnancies and overall abortions
dropped by 90% and women's and family health improved correspondingly?
Would this be good or bad?
|
| 20.8421 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 15:20 | 8 |
| .8419
Health issues are only common ground when the source of the health
issues don't involve moral behavior. As soon as the two get
intertwined, you can not separate them.
YOu may not like this, but 'dems da facts.
|
| 20.8422 | When The Pot Calls The Kettle Black | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Feb 24 1997 15:32 | 101 |
| Reply Note 20.8415
Hi Suzanne,
>>> For many years, societal morals have included the idea that
>>> sex is immoral outside of the confines of lifelong commitment.
>> Societal morals once considered slavery and not allowing women to
>> vote or own property to be moral while sex outside of marriage
>> was immoral. Society has wised up quite a bit since those days.
> I reject the reasoning that "Society thought A was OK even though
> its really bad, therefore (on that basis) B is bad because society
> also thought it was good.
*You'll notice above that I wrote no such thing at all.
Yes, you're right. On the basis that it came after what I just
wrote sure seemed to imply it though!
> That is irrational. I'm not so sure society has wised up all that
> much. Nazi Germany wasn't that long ago.
*You're being irrational. If you think society is unwise, then don't
*base the wisdom of certain positions on the idea that they've been
*part of this unwise society's morals.
Excellent point. I'm not 100% sold on it though! I think we can
assess some things society did and see both vice and virtue and
can cite the past as some support for the present all the while
society can have had both (vice and virtue). I think we can discriminate
a little bit! So, I think its a good point and puts the whole
society thing in a grey area.
> How did you make the leap that desiring to convey a morality is
> tatamount to judging another and making decisions for another???
*You made this leap yourself. I don't mind how many desires you have
*for the next several decades (about anything whatsoever.)
I thought you made this leap. I believe you asserted that I am all
for the denial of free choice.
*You will never convince the rest of society to agree to promote your
*moral code, though. Best get used to this.
Perhaps this is the jugular. This may be where we mainly disagree.
You seem to suggest that society ought not convey morals. I mean,
if I can't convey mine, it would seem to follow that no one has a
right for 'society' to convey any. Do you see what I am trying to
say?
The problem I have with this is that I believe society IS conveying
morals!
*If you want to use your own time and money to convey this morality,
*go for it. No one else can object to what you do with your resources.
*If you want society's resources to do this, you must have the
*agreement of society in general. You will never get this.
But, as I said, is not society conveying *a* moral? Why shouldn't
THAT moral not be conveyed by society, but rather require private
financing?
In fact, I'm all for this! How about if the government stays out of
it completely? How about if they pass out no condoms? Pass out no
literature, hand over accountability to the individual and completely
stay clear from the 'conveying morality' business!??
As I write this, I think this is the jugular and the above is the only
'moral' solution. You don't want society to pay for my morality?
Fine! I DON'T WANT IT TO PAY FOR YOURS! And handing out condoms
(which implies a moral statement like it or not) is a conveying of
a morality.
The problem I see with your posture is your inference that what you
espouse is not a conveying of a morality. I think it is.
> If what I espouse is wrong, the media had no right showing Schindler's
> List for that is EXACTLY what Spielberg wanted to do.
*Whose money did he use for this movie? The money he owned or raised
*himself.
*Spend your own money to promote your morality, and you're all set.
And spend your own money on yours.
*Use all your resources to make this happen, if you'd like. You won't
*be given society's resources to help you, though. Live with it.
Then you live with it too.
Respect my morality enough by asking for society to also not respect
yours. And by society I think we mean taxpayer funded programs.
I anticipate you believe that what you espouse is not in any way
inclusive of a morality. On this I most certainly disagree.
Tony
|
| 20.8423 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 15:33 | 44 |
| RE: .8420 Rocush
> still refusing to accept reality. The health-related approach, by
> itself, is not common ground. there is a general acceptance of the
> health-related issues, but it is not common ground.
Well, I guess you define "common ground" differently on your planet.
> The common ground is that there is a problem that needs to be resolved.
> Constant reference to the Netherlands has not, and will not, do much
> other than point to part of the solution.
They are the only example of success in the Western world when it comes
to combating this problem. Dismissing them as only "part" of the
solution would be possible if they'd failed, but they didn't. They
have succeeded. We are the ones who have failed.
> The reality is that a large majority of the population is not going to
> present an amoral face to the problem. Learn to live with it.
People can THINK of this issue in whatever terms they like. When you
ask society to push your moral code as a solution to this issue, it
simply isn't going to happen. YOU need to learn to live with this.
> If you really want to solve the problem, and I am beginning to get the
> impression that you really aren't, you would be willing to try numerous
> means. some of these will be more successful than others, but taken
> together, just as you promote multiple forms of contraception to avoid
> pregnancy, will have a high degree of success.
Rocush, you're not interested in solving the problem. You have a
religion and a moral code to push, that's all. No more, no less.
> What would you say if the only public discussion was abstinence and
> moral behavior, and rates of teen pregnancies and overall abortions
> dropped by 90% and women's and family health improved correspondingly?
> Would this be good or bad?
If the Netherlands had proven that this approach worked for an entire
country of diverse people, I'd sit up and take notice (which is a lot
more than one could say about you.)
Instead, the most successful country kept side issues such as morality
out of it. They solved the problem by fixing the health issues.
|
| 20.8424 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 15:38 | 17 |
| RE: .8421 Rocush
> Health issues are only common ground when the source of the health
> issues don't involve moral behavior. As soon as the two get
> intertwined, you can not separate them.
You do define "common ground" differently on your planet, I see.
When people disagree about everything else (including things like
defining what is or is not moral), the "common ground" is the part
which is not in dispute. The health issues are the common ground
in the matter under discussion.
> YOu may not like this, but 'dems da facts.
You listed no "facts" above at all. Looks like you define these
differently on your planet, too.
|
| 20.8425 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 24 1997 15:54 | 8 |
| re .8413,
Steve,
did you completely ignore the list of people who say condoms and
contraception are evil things?
meg
|
| 20.8426 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 16:51 | 21 |
| .8423
I see you didn't answer the question, but that's Ok because I didn't
thinkyou would. Refering to the Netherlands again does not answer the
question.
.8424
The "health issues" exist because of behaviors. These are not
air-borne particles that attack an individual minding their own
business. since these are behavior related, the health issues are only
part of the issue.
Once again, you try to ignore the issue by unanswering questions or
re-defining the terms.
YOu keep stating that I want to push my moral code and religion on
people, yet I have never said that. the flip side is that you have no
problem pushing your moral code on others, and you proposals do just
that, whether you want to admit it or not.
|
| 20.8427 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 16:55 | 4 |
| OBTW, I see you are unable or unwilling to answer my note in .8385.
YOu can make charges, but can't back them up. How terribly pathetic.
|
| 20.8428 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 16:59 | 13 |
| .8416
And on this same note, we have a great deal of evidence that misuse of
sex is a cause of emotional dysfunctionalism.
And again, on this same note, we have absolute proof that sexual
misconduct causes divorce, unwanted pregnancies, STD's, etc.
Any health-related solution that doesn't take the above into
consideration is very shortsighted (not to mention quite incomplete).
-steve
|
| 20.8429 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:05 | 1 |
| We also have absolute proof that sexual misconduct causes marriage.
|
| 20.8430 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:08 | 8 |
| .8425
I have never heard any one of them say that contraception is evil. And
I'm willing to bet that I've listened to the lot of them more often
than you have.
-steve
|
| 20.8431 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:16 | 52 |
| RE: .8426 Rocush
> I see you didn't answer the question, but that's Ok because I didn't
> thinkyou would. Refering to the Netherlands again does not answer the
> question.
Would it be good or bad if your approach solved the problem? It would
be good if the Netherlands' approach *or* any other approach solved the
problem. However, theirs has been proven to work in an entire country
while yours has not.
No way will I take it on faith that you can solve the same problem
by doing the opposite of what the Netherlands did.
> The "health issues" exist because of behaviors. These are not
> air-borne particles that attack an individual minding their own
> business. since these are behavior related, the health issues are
> only part of the issue.
The **PROBLEMS** are the health issues themselves (i.e., unplanned
pregnancies and diseases.)
If no one was getting pregnant unexpectedly or catching/spreading any
diseases, we would not be having this discussion (because the problems
would not exist.)
You may consider "sex outside of marriage" to be a separate problem,
but I do not (nor does most of society.) Only the health issues
related to sex outside of marriage are problems we're looking to solve
as a society.
> Once again, you try to ignore the issue by unanswering questions or
> re-defining the terms.
The issue **IS** the health-related aspects of human sexuality.
> YOu keep stating that I want to push my moral code and religion on
> people, yet I have never said that.
Pushing the moral code is the only thing which seems to exist for you.
It's the center of your universe.
> the flip side is that you have no problem pushing your moral code
> on others, and you proposals do just that, whether you want to admit
> it or not.
Hogwash. Leaving morals out of a discussion about health issues
does precisely the opposite of pushing a particular moral code on
anyone.
It does stop you from pushing yours, though (which is an intolerable
situation for you.)
|
| 20.8432 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:22 | 27 |
| RE: .8428 Steve Leech
> And on this same note, we have a great deal of evidence that misuse
> of sex is a cause of emotional dysfunctionalism.
We have a great deal of evidence that marriage itself can be a cause
of emotional dysfunctionalism.
> And again, on this same note, we have absolute proof that sexual
> misconduct causes divorce, unwanted pregnancies, STD's, etc.
We have absolute proof that marriage causes divorce (no one who isn't
married can get one, after all.) Marriage also causes unwanted
pregnancies, STDs, etc.
> Any health-related solution that doesn't take the above into
> consideration is very shortsighted (not to mention quite
> incomplete).
I suggest you take a look at the problems caused by marriage, too.
As a married person myself, I happen to love my lifelong commitment
to my husband, etc. And I adore my husband.
But let's not kid ourselves that marriage is some sort of perfect
state that can cause no problems unless someone cheats. Marriage
itself (even a faithful marriage) can cause tremendous problems.
|
| 20.8433 | "I'm not trying to push morals. I just want to push morals!!" | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:28 | 9 |
| RE: .8427 Rocush
Oh, you are most definitely a liar, Rocush.
Even today, you claim that you're NOT trying to push a moral code on
our society even in the midst of a note where you argue that pushing
such a moral code on our society is the only way to solve the problems
under discussion.
|
| 20.8434 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:47 | 23 |
| Steve,
Are you daft, or just unwilling to read? The pope and the catholic
church both decry "artificial" contraception. this includes using
condoms for disease prevention.
Terry Randall (Randall Terry?) of Operation Rescue,has said that men or
women who use contraception are buying into the death and abortion
industry. He encourages people who have been sterilized to have their
sterilizations reversed as they are abortiong a fetus every time they
have sex.
As Mother Thersa also buys into the teachings of the Church, she is not
on to push contraception, other than NFP.
Phyllis believes that contraception leads to immorality and that if
young women were afraid of death, disease or giving birth to monsters
later on, they would behave morally.
Hopefully the notes search I am persuing will bring up the exact quotes
for you.
meg
|
| 20.8435 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:49 | 8 |
| .8431
"Hogwash. Leaving morals out of a discussion about health issues does
precisely the opposite of pushing a particular moral code on anyone."
Hogwash. Leaving morals out of a discussion about behavior related
health issues does precisely push a particular moral code on someone.
|
| 20.8436 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:54 | 7 |
| Morals never prevented a pregnancy or disease, abstaining from the
behavior that might cause it does.
Besides whose morals? do you want someone in the class talking about
how the three phases of the goddess makes it clear that waiting for full
womanhood, rather than maidenly age is the best way to avoid pregnancy
and STD's.
|
| 20.8437 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:57 | 8 |
| .8434
Still nothing about contraception being evil.
Keep trying.
[Here's a hint... I'm taking you to task on your sensationalized
verbiage. Your use of words is very misleading.]
|
| 20.8438 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:59 | 33 |
| .8433
I reprint your entire note here so that I do not mis-state any of your
words.
"RE: .8427 Rocush
Oh, you are most definitely a liar, Rocush.
Even today, you claim that you're NOT trying to push a moral code on
our society even in the midst of a note where you argue that pushing
such a moral code on our society is the only way to solve the problems
under discussion."
You are, indeed, incorrect unless words mean different things on your
planet. Gee, I always wanted to use that phrase - finally found where
it fits.
You are wrong because I did not say I was trying to push my moral code
on anyone. You don't know what my code is, because I have never stated
it. I have never stated any particular moral code. What I have said,
so you can get it right, is that I believe a healthy society requires a
strong moral character and code. Such is not promoted today. As a
matter of fact, as you so clearly prove, a discussion of morals in the
public sector is considered unacceptable.
So I guess on your planet - wow, I got use it again - you can take what
someone does not say, attribute your interpretation of what isn't said
and call them a liar. You can also make assuptions about what they
say, even if you're wrong, and then call them a liar.
How pathetic.
|
| 20.8439 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:02 | 16 |
| RE: .8435 Rocush
>> "Hogwash. Leaving morals out of a discussion about health issues does
>> precisely the opposite of pushing a particular moral code on anyone."
> Hogwash. Leaving morals out of a discussion about behavior related
> health issues does precisely push a particular moral code on
> someone.
Refraining from pushing a particular moral code *does* equate to the
pushing of a particular moral code?
It's Rocush-in-Wonderland.
Thanks for the quick tour of your planet.
|
| 20.8440 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:06 | 15 |
| .8436
Do you really mean that someone abstains from a behavior in a vaccuum?
Most people who abstain from various activites is because of their
morals. YOu really can't separate the two. YOu can try, you can spin
things all you want, but you can't separate them except as an
intellectual abstract, but not in personal application.
I think it might be interesting and helpful to have numerous people
stand up in class and indicate why they believe their moral code gives
them the strength to do what they do. I'm not sure if they would need
to identify the source of their beliefs, but that might be helpful too.
I would need to have more information before I could decide, but on the
surface, I'm not terribly opposed.
|
| 20.8441 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:09 | 10 |
| .8439
"Refraining from pushing a particular moral code *does* equate to the
pushing of a particular moral code?"
This is not what I said. Please go back and read what I wrote and read
it in context with what preceded it.
You really make this much too easy.
|
| 20.8442 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:14 | 52 |
| RE: .8438 Rocush
> You are wrong because I did not say I was trying to push my moral code
> on anyone.
You don't admit it - you simply **DO** try to push your moral code on
our society (then you deny it, which is an outright lie.) As I said.
> You don't know what my code is, because I have never stated
> it. I have never stated any particular moral code.
In another recent note, you made the claim that when people DO NOT
TALK ABOUT MORALS, they are pushing a particular moral code (which
means that you have been pushing a particular moral code all along.)
Were you lying when you wrote that, or are you lying again now?
> What I have said, so you can get it right, is that I believe a healthy
> society requires a strong moral character and code.
Who the hell cares what you believe? The Netherlands is a far, far,
FAR healthier society than ours and they do NOT push moral codes on
anyone.
> Such is not promoted today. As a matter of fact, as you so clearly
> prove, a discussion of morals in the public sector is considered
> unacceptable.
You, of course, would rather see a moral code "PROMOTED" in our society,
which shows what a liar you are when you claim that you're not trying
to push a moral code on our society at all.
Apparently, your moral code allows a lot of lying (or else a great deal
of hypocrisy.) Or both.
> So I guess on your planet - wow, I got use it again - you can take
> what someone does not say, attribute your interpretation of what isn't
> said and call them a liar.
Sort of the way you claim that when people refuse to TALK ABOUT MORALS,
they are pushing a particular moral code, right?
Perhaps you're allowed to do things which your moral code only forbids
when others do them. Such hypocrisy.
> You can also make assuptions about what they
> say, even if you're wrong, and then call them a liar.
> How pathetic.
How's your small intestine doing? Surely you've stared at it long
enough by now. It's probably not going anywhere.
|
| 20.8443 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:16 | 7 |
|
For a minute there I thought we had a reply that didn't mention The Netherlands
Jim
|
| 20.8444 | | BUSY::SLAB | Great baby! Delicious!! | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:19 | 9 |
|
. Don't be silly. Please show how marriage causes dysfunction. Of
. course, if the relationship is dysfunctional, there is a good chance
. that it is due to previous sexual behavior.
"Good chance"? I guess you consider any non-zero number "a good
chance" then?
|
| 20.8445 | The most famous 'Box celibate was also pro-choice, by the way. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:22 | 29 |
| RE: .8440 Rocush
> Do you really mean that someone abstains from a behavior in a vaccuum?
> Most people who abstain from various activites is because of their
> morals. YOu really can't separate the two. YOu can try, you can spin
> things all you want, but you can't separate them except as an
> intellectual abstract, but not in personal application.
Rocush, you're dead wrong (yet again.)
Quite a few people choose "CELIBACY" for reasons which have nothing to
do with morality. A very famous former noter in this very conference
spoke for years about his reasons for remaining celibate, and none of
them had to do with morality.
Celibacy is a choice that people make for a variety of other reasons.
> I think it might be interesting and helpful to have numerous people
> stand up in class and indicate why they believe their moral code
> gives them the strength to do what they do. I'm not sure if they would
> need to identify the source of their beliefs, but that might be helpful
> too. I would need to have more information before I could decide, but on
> the surface, I'm not terribly opposed.
Some people may stand up and state that they are not opposed to sex
outside of marriage on moral grounds, but that they have other reasons
for choosing celibacy.
Surely this would be acceptable, too.
|
| 20.8446 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:24 | 61 |
| .8432 (Suzanne)
me > And on this same note, we have a great deal of evidence that misuse
me > of sex is a cause of emotional dysfunctionalism.
> We have a great deal of evidence that marriage itself can be a cause
> of emotional dysfunctionalism.
Don't be silly. Please show how marriage *causes* dysfunction. Of
course, if the relationship is dysfunctional, there is a good chance
that it is related to previous sexual activity before the marriage -
with other people.
> We have absolute proof that marriage causes divorce (no one who isn't
> married can get one, after all.)
Marriage does not cause divorce... this is a ludicrous suggestion.
This kind of "chicken and egg" debating will get you nowhere. You may
as well say 'birth causes death'.
> Marriage also causes unwanted pregnancies, STDs, etc.
It does? How does one get an STD if both partners save themselves for
their spouse? A preganancy within a marriage is much more likely to be
a wanted one than a pregnancy outside of marriage. And even if it
happens, there is a better relational structure in which to handle the
new arrival.
> I suggest you take a look at the problems caused by marriage, too.
Take the same behavior inside marriage vs. outside marriage (we are
still discussion abortion, STDs, emotional dysfuntionalism, ect.), and
tell me which is the best environment to begin sexual relations.
Of course, you failed to address my statement regarding the
short-sightedness of your solution.
> As a married person myself, I happen to love my lifelong commitment
> to my husband, etc. And I adore my husband.
I'm very happy for you, as irrelevant as this is to the topic at hand.
> But let's not kid ourselves that marriage is some sort of perfect
> state that can cause no problems unless someone cheats.
No one has even tried to say this. The comparison, in the context of
being sexually active (when looking at the related issues we have been
discussing), is sex outside of marriage vs. sex within a marriage.
There can be no question which environment causes the fewest social
problems.
> Marriage itself (even a faithful marriage) can cause tremendous problems.
Is it the marriage itself, or other issues which become harder to avoid
within the confines of marriage, that cause the problems?
Of course, you've obfuscated the point at hand, again. I assume this is
to avoid those questions/comments that show the weaknesses of your argument.
-steve
|
| 20.8447 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:25 | 9 |
|
> Celibacy is a choice that people make for a variety of other reasons.
such as?
|
| 20.8448 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:29 | 6 |
| .8436
A good moral foundation gives empowerment for a decision to abstain, and an
environment that encourages such decisions.
No one is suggesting holding religious services in health class.
|
| 20.8449 | A Higher Road: Will You Join Me? | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:32 | 16 |
| Hi Suzanne,
I know that when I was say 16 and if I was at a public school
where it was said, "If you're gonna have sex, here, use one
of these!" that I would conclude, "I guess they are saying sex
is an acceptable thing for me. All right!"
It can't help but be a moral statement.
So I'm willing to have a government that stays outside of making
moral statements (save its judicial system of course).
Are you?
Tony
|
| 20.8452 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:43 | 35 |
| re: .8446
If a relationship is dysfunctional, I'd say it has a
lot more to do with the way the people in it were raised
rather than "sexual misconduct". I've seen money ruin
far more relationships than "sexual misconduct" ever did.
I've seen in-laws and relatives fuel feuds that lasted a
generation or more.
You know what ruins most relationships? Expectations.
Social, cultural, religious, personal. This is what I
wanted. This is what I got. If you want to get down and
dirty, that's what causes "sexual misconduct". That creeping
little feeling that some how, some way, the rest of the world
got a better deal than you did.
"No wife of mine is working!"
"When am I getting those grandchildren?"
"You don't have a house yet?"
"Our children must attend private school."
"The man should be the head of the household."
"Why aren't you making more money?"
"Sexual Misconduct" is a great banner. You can wrap yourself
in it, preach sermons on it, pat yourself on the back for
avoiding it's evyl temptation. No one is ever going to
stand up and say, "Hey! America! You're selfish. You want
too much. You can't have it all. Go back to square one,
read the instructions and try again." No one wants to sacrifice.
Two jobs, two cars, two kids in daycare, a nice house, private school,
a timeshare vacation, Disneyworld. The "American Dream" is
full of stuff, not substance. THAT'S your problem, not sex.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.8453 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:43 | 23 |
| .8444
I don't think it is a low "non-zero" number, and am willing to bet that
in reality, it is a much higher number than most of us would believe.
If you think about it, giving up your virginity early and to someone
who is not your spouse, is giving away a very powerful bonding tool (or
at least "watering it down"). While this doesn't insure fugure
divorce or problmes by any means, I can certainly see where it can cause
problems.
Some marraige counselors identify early sexual experimentation with
many trouble, and suggest that it may be one of the major causes of
relational problems and divorce - a problem that is growing since very
few seem to think it is important to save oneself for their future
spouse.
There's no real way of knowing what % of relational difficulties this
causes, as it is not normally a readily identifiable linc to said
problems.
-steve
|
| 20.8454 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:44 | 82 |
| RE: .8446 Steve Leech
>>> And on this same note, we have a great deal of evidence that misuse
>>> of sex is a cause of emotional dysfunctionalism.
>> We have a great deal of evidence that marriage itself can be a cause
>> of emotional dysfunctionalism.
> Don't be silly. Please show how marriage *causes* dysfunction. Of
> course, if the relationship is dysfunctional, there is a good chance
> that it is related to previous sexual activity before the marriage
> - with other people.
You pulled this 'fact' right out of your butt, of course.
Marriage is such a close relationship that when it goes sour (something
which can happen when two virgins marry, in case you're wondering), the
capacity to hurt and devastate each other is greater than almost any
other kind of bond.
This is how marriage can cause dysfunction. You've never been married,
so you have no idea what it's like to live this closely with another
person. The potential for severe harm is very, very powerful.
>> We have absolute proof that marriage causes divorce (no one who isn't
>> married can get one, after all.)
> Marriage does not cause divorce... this is a ludicrous suggestion.
The marital relationship is so close that when it starts to harm the
individuals within it (even if they've both remained completely faithful),
the state of the marriage causes the ensuing divorce.
> This kind of "chicken and egg" debating will get you nowhere. You
> may as well say 'birth causes death'.
At least one religion does teach the belief that birth causes death,
actually.
>> Marriage also causes unwanted pregnancies, STDs, etc.
> It does? How does one get an STD if both partners save themselves
> for their spouse?
Are you ignorant or what? Ever heard of blood transfusions?
Ever heard of hospital workers who accidentally cut themselves
on the needles which have taken blood from patients with STDs?
When the spouses of such individuals go their marital beds,
their marital relations with their spouses spreads STDs.
> A preganancy within a marriage is much more likely to be
> a wanted one than a pregnancy outside of marriage.
You agree, then, that marriage does cause unwanted pregnancies.
Thank you.
> And even if it happens, there is a better relational structure
> in which to handle the new arrival.
When the family honestly and truly cannot afford another baby,
they honestly and truly cannot afford another baby. Their
marriage certificate doesn't help.
>> I suggest you take a look at the problems caused by marriage, too.
> Take the same behavior inside marriage vs. outside marriage (we are
> still discussion abortion, STDs, emotional dysfuntionalism, ect.),
> and tell me which is the best environment to begin sexual relations.
So you admit that marriage causes problems. Thank you.
>> But let's not kid ourselves that marriage is some sort of perfect
>> state that can cause no problems unless someone cheats.
> No one has even tried to say this. The comparison, in the context of
> being sexually active (when looking at the related issues we have been
> discussing), is sex outside of marriage vs. sex within a marriage.
> There can be no question which environment causes the fewest social
> problems.
So you admit that marriage does cause social problems. Thank you.
|
| 20.8455 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:50 | 19 |
| RE: .8452 Mary-Michael
Great note!!
> "Sexual Misconduct" is a great banner. You can wrap yourself
> in it, preach sermons on it, pat yourself on the back for
> avoiding it's evyl temptation.
As oversimplifications go, it's a doozy. I agree with you!
> No one is ever going to
> stand up and say, "Hey! America! You're selfish. You want
> too much. You can't have it all. Go back to square one,
> read the instructions and try again." No one wants to sacrifice.
> Two jobs, two cars, two kids in daycare, a nice house, private
> school, a timeshare vacation, Disneyworld. The "American Dream"
> is full of stuff, not substance. THAT'S your problem, not sex.
Great point!
|
| 20.8456 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Feb 24 1997 18:52 | 12 |
| re: .8453
My mind is a powerful bonding tool. So is my heart.
My hymen doesn't even make the "A" list.
Sex is a lousy thing to base a life-long relationship
on. Common goals, directions, desires and beliefs
are far better. Sex is nice, but an ownership of
someone's virginity isn't the "missing link" that
creates a life-long relationship. That just creates
another expectation.
|
| 20.8457 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 19:09 | 56 |
| .8454 (Suzanne)
> Marriage is such a close relationship that when it goes sour (something
> which can happen when two virgins marry, in case you're wondering), the
> capacity to hurt and devastate each other is greater than almost any
> other kind of bond.
No one denies this. Fact is, the same thing can happen to non-marital
relationships. Now, tell me how marriage CAUSES dysfunction. You made
this claim, now back it up.
>> Marriage also causes unwanted pregnancies, STDs, etc.
> Are you ignorant or what? Ever heard of blood transfusions?
> Ever heard of hospital workers who accidentally cut themselves
> on the needles which have taken blood from patients with STDs?
So one person may catch something. Now, take this same scenario, but
this time this infected person is not married and has sex with several
different people. Which scenario is likely to cause the greatest harm?
> When the spouses of such individuals go their marital beds,
> their marital relations with their spouses spreads STDs.
Spread it to one other person, vs. (on average) a much larger number of
people.
> You agree, then, that marriage does cause unwanted pregnancies.
> Thank you.
I agreed to no such thing. Marriage does not CAUSE unwanted
pregnancies. Sex does... what I was saying is that it is a more secure
environment to do so.
> When the family honestly and truly cannot afford another baby,
> they honestly and truly cannot afford another baby. Their
> marriage certificate doesn't help.
Numerically speaking, this is an insignificant percent of abortions.
We are after reducing the problem, right? Best to address the larger
group on this issue, which is the sexually active, non-married people.
> So you admit that marriage causes problems. Thank you.
Can marriage cause problems? I would guess that two people trying to
live together are going to have problems - whether married or not. It
is the issue of trying to live together than causes the problems, and
in fact, marriage is a much more secure arrangement in this regard.
Of course, this is all irrelevant to my original point. You keep
ofuscating further and further. My first instinct was likely correct.
You can't argue the points I've brought up. Can't fill in the holes of
your argument not matter how much manure you keep shoveling.
-steve
|
| 20.8458 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 19:26 | 55 |
| RE: .8457 Steve Leech
>> Marriage is such a close relationship that when it goes sour (something
>> which can happen when two virgins marry, in case you're wondering), the
>> capacity to hurt and devastate each other is greater than almost any
>> other kind of bond.
> No one denies this. Fact is, the same thing can happen to non-marital
> relationships. Now, tell me how marriage CAUSES dysfunction. You made
> this claim, now back it up.
Ever heard the expression "familiarity breeds contempt"? Marriage is
such a close relationship that it creates the opportunity to be very,
very badly harmed within it. This causes dysfunction.
> So one person may catch something. Now, take this same scenario, but
> this time this infected person is not married and has sex with several
> different people. Which scenario is likely to cause the greatest harm?
You do admit that marriage causes harm, though. Thank you.
>> You agree, then, that marriage does cause unwanted pregnancies.
>> Thank you.
> I agreed to no such thing. Marriage does not CAUSE unwanted
> pregnancies. Sex does...
So, marital status isn't the defining factor. Thank you.
> what I was saying is that it is a more secure environment to do so.
Since when are 'dead broke' people less 'dead broke' because they
have a marriage license?
Entire FAMILIES (with the parents married to each other) are homeless.
Some entire families (married father and mother + kids) are on Welfare.
> Can marriage cause problems? I would guess that two people trying to
> live together are going to have problems - whether married or not.
> It is the issue of trying to live together than causes the problems,
> and in fact, marriage is a much more secure arrangement in this regard.
Actually, a lot of couples do extremely well before they're married,
then break apart after marriage. (As Mary-Michael said, it's the
expectations that get 'em.)
> Of course, this is all irrelevant to my original point. You keep
> ofuscating further and further. My first instinct was likely correct.
> You can't argue the points I've brought up. Can't fill in the holes of
> your argument not matter how much manure you keep shoveling.
You're back to the PeeWee Herman School of Debate, I see, with your
"I know you are, but what am I" routine.
You're full of horse puckey, chum.
|
| 20.8459 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 19:39 | 18 |
| .8442
Let me say this very s l o w l y, so you can understand it. I have
never stated what my moral code i. therefore, I can not push my moral
code. You claim that I am trying to push my moral code. YOU ARE
WRONG.
I have stated over and over, that society is much better with a strong
moral code. The two are not the same. You seem to have no problem
confusing the two, but then that seems to be a regular event for you.
The moral code that I support does not allow lying or hypocricy. But
then it would not accept mistating someone else's position, taking
things out of context, creating irrelavant strawmen or refusing to deal
with what is presented.
You sure have a lot of nerve calling someone else a liar.
|
| 20.8460 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Feb 24 1997 19:42 | 10 |
| .8452
"No one wants to sacrifice. Two jobs, two cars, two kids in daycare, a
nice house, private school, a timeshare vacation, Disneyworld. The
"American Dream" is full of stuff, not substance. THAT'S your problem,
not sex."
The above is the greatest hypocricy I have seen in this topic in quite
a while. Talking about sacrifice in an abortion topic. What a joke.
|
| 20.8461 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 19:49 | 6 |
| .8456
You have, of course, completely missed the point.
Never mind. This particular side-note was not pertinent to my
argument.
|
| 20.8462 | | BUSY::SLAB | A cross upon her bedroom wall ... | Mon Feb 24 1997 19:54 | 5 |
|
In other words, "Oops, so I was wrong. Please forget this was
even brought up because I am unable to argue the point without
disproving my own point".
|
| 20.8463 | Hint: Remove Plank From Eye | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Feb 24 1997 19:57 | 29 |
| .8452
"No one wants to sacrifice. Two jobs, two cars, two kids in daycare, a
nice house, private school, a timeshare vacation, Disneyworld. The
"American Dream" is full of stuff, not substance. THAT'S your problem,
not sex."
I thought the above was interesting as well. Some of my best friends
believe premarital sex is immoral.
Two jobs - Many have one person working outside the home.
Two cars - Many have only one car.
Two kids in daycare - A lot of them homeschool their children. Their
children never went to day care nor the public school system. This
is quite a sacrifice by the way.
A nice house - No.
Timeshare vacation - No.
Disneyworld - no.
"THAT'S your problem."
That's your judgment.
Tony
|
| 20.8464 | ... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 19:59 | 48 |
| RE: .8459 Rocush
> Let me say this very s l o w l y, so you can understand it.
You speak very s l o w l y due to your own mental limitations, Rocush.
> I have never stated what my moral code i. therefore, I can not push
> my moral code. You claim that I am trying to push my moral code.
> YOU ARE WRONG.
Earlier, you claimed that people are pushing a moral code by refusing
to allow it in the public discussion. So, according to you, it's not
necessary for a person to state what his/her moral code happens to be.
One can push a moral code by taking a position against the discussion
of moral codes, according to you.
So either you were lying then or you're lying now. You can't have it
both ways.
> I have stated over and over, that society is much better with a strong
> moral code. The two are not the same.
Society does have a strong moral code. Sex outside of marriage is not
necessarily considered immoral (and this code is strong enough to be
regarded as the societal norm, now.)
If you really don't care which strong moral code is followed, then
you shouldn't mind the one we have now.
> You seem to have no problem confusing the two, but then that seems
> to be a regular event for you.
Your lies have been uncovered, which is a regular event for you.
> The moral code that I support does not allow lying or hypocricy.
Boy, are you in deep trouble, then.
> But then it would not accept mistating someone else's position, taking
> things out of context, creating irrelavant strawmen or refusing to
> deal with what is presented.
You're in a lot worse trouble, then.
> You sure have a lot of nerve calling someone else a liar.
You have a lot of nerve even *suggesting* our society adopt some other
moral code.
|
| 20.8465 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:06 | 41 |
| .8458 (Suzanne)
> Ever heard the expression "familiarity breeds contempt"? Marriage is
> such a close relationship that it creates the opportunity to be very,
> very badly harmed within it. This causes dysfunction.
Your tap-dancing on this one is getting more and more amusing, but you
still fail to back up your assertion.
> You do admit that marriage causes harm, though. Thank you.
Once again, your reading comprehension is lacking. It is not the
marriage that causes the harm.
You are still trying to side-track this debate down your usual rat
holes, but I'm not playing any more. The context you have been
conveniently forgetting is "sex outside of marriage" vs. "waiting until
marriage". There is no doubt as to which situation is in society's
best interest to promote.
> So, marital status isn't the defining factor. Thank you.
Marital status is a major defining factor within the context of my
replies. You simply ignore this context so you can wander about
thrashing straw men.
> Entire FAMILIES (with the parents married to each other) are homeless.
> Some entire families (married father and mother + kids) are on Welfare.
Was this caused by having one more child they couldn't afford, or was
it something else that has nothing to do with this current discussion?
> You're full of horse puckey, chum.
I think your so dizzy from chasing these ellusive straw men, that
you forgot what this discussion is actually about. Have a seat, relax,
and re-read my notes for context. I know it's tough, but I think you
can do it if you really try.
-steve
|
| 20.8466 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:10 | 12 |
| re: .8463
I had no idea most of your friends made up the majority
of American society today. You must be extraordinarily
well-connected.
In any event, it isn't a judgement, it's my opinion.
You seem to have one, why can't I?
How your friends conduct their lives is great, but it
isn't the way most Americans do, or else daycare in this
country wouldn't exist.
|
| 20.8467 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:12 | 7 |
| re: .8460
If you think there is no sacrifice involved in abortion,
then I suggest you find yourself a mirror.
That's about the only way you'll get to see the biggest hipocracy
I'VE seen in this topic in a long time.
|
| 20.8468 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:12 | 1 |
| there's that word again.
|
| 20.8469 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:14 | 14 |
| .8462
Not at all. This is a rather in-depth discussion already, and I don't
care to complicate it further - especially when my original point has
already been misunderstood.
Here's the short form:
There's much more to virginity than the physical aspect of it.
Unfortunately, the noter I was addressing took my previous statements
wrong, and commented to the thought that I somehow suggested that the
physical part of virginity is the entire equation. This is inaccurate.
One argument at a time, though...
|
| 20.8470 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:20 | 30 |
| RE: .8465 Steve Leech
>> Ever heard the expression "familiarity breeds contempt"? Marriage is
>> such a close relationship that it creates the opportunity to be very,
>> very badly harmed within it. This causes dysfunction.
> Your tap-dancing on this one is getting more and more amusing, but you
> still fail to back up your assertion.
Steve, you're simply ignorant. You'll have no idea what marriage is
like until you get married. Meanwhile, you're like a tadpole in a
pond who can't imagine what air is like (no matter how many times
someone else tries to explain it to you.)
Others understand what marriage is like without experiencing it, but
your abilities are limited. So you'll just have to sit out until
you acquire some additional brain cells, I guess.
>> You do admit that marriage causes harm, though. Thank you.
> Once again, your reading comprehension is lacking. It is not the
> marriage that causes the harm.
You described marriage as being less harmful (in the situations
being discussed) than not being married. Thus, marriage does
cause some harm. You admitted it.
I'm feeling sorry for you again, Steve. Try some other subject
- surely you have knowledge about some area of life, no matter
how trivial.
|
| 20.8471 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:25 | 26 |
| re: .8469
If that's what you believe, then you misunderstood me, since
that isn't what I said. I said it isn't a "missing link".
That it creates an expectation that if someone does "all the
right things" that everything will work out. That isn't true.
You can do "all the right things" and wind up with someone
who beats the tar out of you every day. I'd rather spend
more time teaching young women to avoid winding up with the
man who beats the tar out of her every day than I would
want to spend time teaching her to maintain her virginity
until marriage.
Perhaps this is a media skew, but I'd tend to lend a lot
more credence to these "virginity" groups if I didn't always
see reporters talking to a bunch of young girls. Excuse me,
but there are a lot of male virgins out there too, right? If you
aren't encouraging young men to change the prevalent societal
attitudes about "sowing their wild oats", "notching their
bedposts" and "seeing what they can get away with" then this
is only yet another blast of hot air promulgated by people who
don't really want to see men and women equally responsible for
their actions.
Mary-Michael
|
| 20.8472 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:28 | 11 |
| RE: .8469 Steve Leech
> There's much more to virginity than the physical aspect of it.
There's a lot more to sex than the physical aspect of it, too,
and it's possible to experience this outside of marriage.
It would be a blatant inaccuracy to state that sex outside of
marriage necessarily causes problems. Dozens of millions of
Americans know better (after having experienced sex outside
of marriage without any problems whatsoever.)
|
| 20.8473 | | BUSY::SLAB | A Momentary Lapse of Reason | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:31 | 8 |
|
But, Suzanne, keep in mind that "dozens of millions of Americans"
is a minority compared to the number of Americans that have been
married.
So it would appear that Steve's right in that most of these Amer-
icans have experienced marital problems due to premarital sex.
|
| 20.8474 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:33 | 6 |
|
.8473 did you have to repeat that "dozens of millions" phrase?
i was just now worrying that it would become the new
hackneyed numerical term of the month. arrrgh.
|
| 20.8475 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:37 | 23 |
| .8470 (Suzanne)
> Steve, you're simply ignorant. You'll have no idea what marriage is
> like until you get married.
I don't have to be married to debunk your silly blanket assertions.
I see you're clinging to irrelevancies, too. Still can't address any of
my points, it seems.
> You described marriage as being less harmful (in the situations
> being discussed) than not being married. Thus, marriage does
> cause some harm. You admitted it.
You need to a remedial logic class, me thinks. If condition A happens
both outside and inside a marraige, it obviously is something besides
marriage that causes this condition to come into being.
Now, the issue you keep avoiding is the fact that marriage is a much safer
environment if these things DO happen. You simply ignore this and begin
creating straw men at warp speed.
-steve
|
| 20.8476 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:46 | 30 |
| .8472 (Suzanne)
me > There's much more to virginity than the physical aspect of it.
> There's a lot more to sex than the physical aspect of it, too,
Oh, absolutely! This is the point. If it were a purely physical
thing, then we could concentrate JUST on the health-related issues.
The problem is that it is much more than a physical act.
> It would be a blatant inaccuracy to state that sex outside of
> marriage necessarily causes problems.
It does cause problems, this is fact. Will it cause problems for
everyone? Maybe not. This is not something that is easy to call. The
best response is to say that for most, it will not be a noticable
outward problem.
> Dozens of millions of
> Americans know better (after having experienced sex outside
> of marriage without any problems whatsoever.)
But they can't compare experience with those who saved themselves for
marriage. They don't know what it would have been like to
experience making love for the very first time, with their new spouse.
They simply do not know what, if anything, has been lost by having sex
beforehand.
-steve
|
| 20.8477 | Mine weren't blanket assertions. Apparently, yours were. Tsk. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 20:49 | 43 |
| RE: .8475 Steve Leech
>> Steve, you're simply ignorant. You'll have no idea what marriage is
>> like until you get married.
> I don't have to be married to debunk your silly blanket assertions.
Wait a minute. Are you admitting now that you were making blanket
assertions about sex outside of marriage (when you said that such
sex causes emotional dysfunction, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, etc.)?
You know doggone well that you can't make such a blanket assertion
stick. Most sex outside of marriage does not result in any of these,
much less all of them. How stupid of you.
> I see you're clinging to irrelevancies, too. Still can't address
> any of my points, it seems.
PeeWee Herman! When did you join Digital?
>> You described marriage as being less harmful (in the situations
>> being discussed) than not being married. Thus, marriage does
>> cause some harm. You admitted it.
> You need to a remedial logic class, me thinks. If condition A
> happens, both outside and inside a marraige, it obviously is something
> besides marriage that causes this condition to come into being.
By the same token, something besides NOT BEING MARRIED WHEN HAVING
SEX causes this condition to come into being, too. Please acquire
some brain cells soon, Steve.
> Now, the issue you keep avoiding is the fact that marriage is a
> much safer environment if these things DO happen. You simply ignore
> this and begin creating straw men at warp speed.
Marriage isn't necessarily safer, Steve, and you know it.
Some marriages may be safer and some non-marriages may be safer still.
It depends on the people involved.
As an institution, marriage can be extraordinarily dangerous (downright
fatal to some participants, in fact.)
|
| 20.8478 | Ok... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 21:24 | 30 |
| Steve, in case you've blown some fuses upstairs, let's take this one
step at a time:
A certain something (or somethings) can happen when people have
sex *inside or outside* of marriage.
Thus, sex outside of marriage does not cause these things to
happen (since they can also occur when people are married.)
It isn't necessarily safer to have these occur inside a marriage
(since married people are not necessarily more financially
or emotionally stable than non-married people.)
Therefore, the elements which would make people "safer" when these
things occur have more to do with the individuals themselves
(and their financial and emotional stability, for example.)
So, sex outside of marriage does not "cause" problems any more than
sex inside of marriage "causes" these problems.
The problems occur when people (married or unmarried) have certain
difficulties in their lives.
So, rather than trying to stop people from having sex outside of
marriage (as if only having sex *inside* of marriage is necessarily
the solution to these problems), we should be trying to help people
to have the encouragement they need to avoid the health problems
whether they are married or not married.
Thus, the issue is not morality. It's health, economic and social
(and the problems affect married *and* non-married people.)
|
| 20.8479 | My Mistake | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Feb 24 1997 21:33 | 10 |
| re: .8466
I misinterpreted your meaning of the word "your" when you
said, "THATS your problem."
Sorry about that. I see that you meant a generic "your"
which after rereading makes a lot more sense to me than
what I first thought.
Tony
|
| 20.8480 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Feb 24 1997 21:50 | 24 |
| Steve,
I am beginning to understand why you keep pushing the idea that it is
ok for an older man to marry a very young woman. It is one way to
almost guarantee a virgin. I think you have a pretty sick outlook on
marriage, on relationships and on sex in general, but that is your
right, as long as you come nowhere near any of my daughters. They have
been raised to believe it is love and respect for oneself and others
that makes a marriage work. Not a piece of physical tissue, or
spending a month at temple every night revirgining oneself if one does
choose to have an experience before finding a life partner.
Calling contraception evil has definitely been done by Randall Terry
(terry Randall?) of operation rescue, unless you believe that abortion
and contraception are not evil. He has linked same, and at least one
former noter toopk his words to heart and had a vasectomy reversed,
since he had done an "evil thing" by deciding his family was the right
size earlier. (The only evil I saw was his lying about his
contraceptive method for years and explaining how he and his wife used
papal roulette so successfully.) the teachings of the Catholic church
are that contraception cheapens the marital act. That isn't evil?
Give me a break!
meg
|
| 20.8481 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Feb 24 1997 22:20 | 19 |
| RE: .8480 Meg
> [To Steve] I think you have a pretty sick outlook on marriage, on
> relationships and on sex in general, but that is your right, as long
> as you come nowhere near any of my daughters.
Right on, Meg.
> They have been raised to believe it is love and respect for oneself and
> others that makes a marriage work. Not a piece of physical tissue,
Your daughters have been raised with a great deal of wisdom about this.
It's pretty creepy to see people obsessing over women's pieces of tissue
as if it's the most valuable "thing" women ever own.
Actually, it's pretty dehumanizing.
Love and respect for oneself and others is a far healthier perspective.
|
| 20.8482 | A few quotes | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Feb 25 1997 00:40 | 55 |
| After digging around through multiple archived notes, I did find some
interesting quotes, maybe steve doesn't think these are
anti-contraception, I would like to know how:
"Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest."
--Rev. Jimmy Swaggart
"Resist, expose, or stop immediately every public school or group sex
education program, no matter what it is called, or how it is diffused
into the curriculum." and "Meanwhile, let it be clear what we do: we
fight contraception-sterilization-abortion on six continents..." --Fr.
Paul Marx, President Human Life International
"For those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say just
watch me." "For instance, several years ago we tracked down a
twelve-year-old girl who was going to have an abortion, so that we
could talk he out of it. Talking a woman out of having an abortion is
not news. But tracking her down by using a private detective is."
--Joseph Scheildler, Executive Director, Pro-Life Action League
"I don't think Christians should use birth control. You consummate
your marriage as often as you like -- and if you have babies, you have
babies ..." --Randall Terry, Executive Director, Operation Rescue
"We are totally opposed to abortion under any circumstances. We are
also opposed to abortifacient drugs and chemicals like the Pill and the
IUD, and we are also opposed to all forms of birth control with the
exception of natural family planning." --Judie Brown, President,
American Life League
"Incest is a voluntary act on the woman's part; otherwise it would be
rape."
--Prof. Charles Rice, Anti-abortion educator, University of
Notre Dame
"It's very healthy for a young girl to be deterred from promiscuity by
a fear of contracting a painful, incurable disease, or cervical cancer,
or sterility, or the likelihood of giving birth to a dead, blind, or
brain-damaged baby (even ten years later when she may be happily
married.)"
--Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
"I listen to feminists and all these radical gals -- most of them are
failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they
married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the
bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they
need. Most of these feminists need a man to tell them what time of day
it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all
men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men -- that's their
problem." -- Rev. Jerry Falwell
|
| 20.8483 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 25 1997 00:47 | 2 |
| Thanks for the quotes, Meg.
|
| 20.8484 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Feb 25 1997 00:49 | 6 |
| Hey,
The search program kept me over quota so I didn't get as many irritating
repetitions of some mail messages this way. ;-)
meg
|
| 20.8485 | I love it, Meg... :> | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 25 1997 01:07 | 24 |
| Ok, here's why preventing unplanned pregnancies and diseases is a
health issue not a moral one...
Two people could have the raunchiest sex on the planet (swinging
through the air at each other upside down in wicker baskets, doing
God knows what when they hit in the middle) - but if it doesn't
result in an unplanned pregnancy or a disease, it's not a health
problem or a social problem or an economic problem.
Whatever moral questions may exist for these two people are their
own issues within the privacy of their religious or moral codes.
On the other hand, if two homeless virgins fell in love and got
married under a bridge - if they conceived a child (with no prospects
for pre-natal care or hospitalization for the child's birth), you
bet it's a health problem, a social problem and an economic problem.
It's not whether or not people have sex outside of marriage - the
social problems, etc., only exist in certain circumstances (which
can occur whether the people are single or married.)
So the smart thing to do is to prevent the unfortunate circumstances,
rather than condemning people for simply having sex outside of marriage
(when this on its own is not the problem.)
|
| 20.8486 | I'll steer clear of your Hut | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Feb 25 1997 03:09 | 5 |
| >wicker baskets
Quite an imagination you have there, Miss Jabba.
/john
|
| 20.8487 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Feb 25 1997 09:57 | 3 |
|
Gee.... a tag team... and covert breaks it up! :-)
|
| 20.8488 | Guilt By Association | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 11:35 | 19 |
| re: .8482
This sounds like guilt by association. It is another (il)logical
ploy that can be quite deceiving.
For example, a person can think premarital sex is morally just
fine. Would I be fair to offer that Caligula and Tiberius also
felt the same and thus infer that this person's morality was
akin to theirs???
I think your reply was less than worthless, it was downright
damaging.
I happen to have a hard time with much of Catholicism's morals
as well as those whose people you quoted.
But, I'm like them, right???
Tony
|
| 20.8489 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Feb 25 1997 11:49 | 10 |
|
re .8482
I haven't the slightest idea who most of those people are, and I do not
identify/condone the statements of any of them. They do not speak for
this pro-life/fundamentalist Christian.
Jim
|
| 20.8490 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 25 1997 11:51 | 29 |
| .8475
You don't get it. You simply refuse to look at this issue from a
societal perspective. Sex outside of marriage is the main cause of the
problems we are experiencing. Here's a simple lesson in logic for you:
An overwhelming majority of abortions are a result of sex outside of
marriage. Yes, sex inside of marriage brings about unwanted children,
too, but many, many fewer abortions due to said unwanted children.
The spread of STDs is not a function of married people having sex,
unless they are not monogamous - your strawman of blood transfusions
and accidents aside. It is those who are unmarried and have sex with
more than one partner that SPREAD disease.
When trying to find solutions to a problem, it is illogical to focus upon
that which is statistically insignificant in the overall scheme of said
problem.
I can't even fathom how you can argue that marriage is not a far better
situation to become sexually active, than outside of marriage.
You simply cannot argue (with a straight face) that sex outside
marriage (or a monogamous... not serial monogomy) relationship is not
the key aspect of the problems of abortion and STDs.
-steve
|
| 20.8491 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Tue Feb 25 1997 11:56 | 4 |
|
great googely moogily, give it a rest already. neither of you will
sway the other as to your opinions. move on to a new debate, like
regular or decaffeinated.
|
| 20.8492 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Feb 25 1997 11:58 | 3 |
|
But Steve..what about the Netherlands?
|
| 20.8493 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Tue Feb 25 1997 12:06 | 3 |
| There are two kinds of monogamous relationships: Those that aren't really
monogamous, and those that you can't be absolutely certain are monogamous.
HTH.
|
| 20.8494 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 25 1997 12:08 | 44 |
| .8480 (Meg)
> I am beginning to understand why you keep pushing the idea that it is
> ok for an older man to marry a very young woman.
You are worse than Suzanne, creating your own reality without any care
of accurate representation. Please show us all where I have advocated
that "it is ok for an older man to marry a very young woman". If you
can't (and you most certainly can not), I will be expecting an apology.
> I think you have a pretty sick outlook on
> marriage, on relationships and on sex in general, but that is your
> right, as long as you come nowhere near any of my daughters.
A sick outlook? (!) Waiting until marriage to have sex is sick?
Respecting women, and myself, enough not to engage in activities I know
will only complicate things or cause problems, is sick? Promoting the
idea that teens should not have sex is sick? Promoting that society
get a grip on its sexual behaviors (that cause untold harm to so many)
is sick?
Well, I guess you have a funny definition for the term. That, or like
Suzanne, you have absolutely no clue as to what I'm talking about.
> They have
> been raised to believe it is love and respect for oneself and others
> that makes a marriage work.
Then you are sick, too. I believe this very same thing... with the
addition of commitment.
> Not a piece of physical tissue,
Okay, that's settled. You simply have no clue as to what I'm talking
about. That would explain this knee-jerk note of yours.
> or spending a month at temple every night revirgining oneself if one does
> choose to have an experience before finding a life partner.
Now, I have no idea what you are talking about. You're not making
much sense.
-steve
|
| 20.8495 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 25 1997 12:10 | 2 |
| If we tried to introduce measures similar to the Netherlands,
the reaction would clog the courts.
|
| 20.8496 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Feb 25 1997 12:25 | 21 |
| .8482
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Is it that some people
have very strong opinions about general sex education classes and that
they feel these are contradictory to their values and beliefs? That
pretty much goes without saying.
What seems to be odd is that those who promote general sex education
inschool see problem with that because they believe parents are unable
or incompetent to teach these facts. On the other hand, they believe
that the teaching of the complexities of values and morals should only
be taught by parents.
This seems to be rather strange. Parents can't be trusted to teach
facts, but should be able to teach the more complex concepts of
self-respect, self-esteem, morals and values.
I would think it would be much more productive to leave the teaching of
simple facts to children and have the school systems focus on the more
complex issues.
|
| 20.8497 | Perception .ne. Reality | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 12:28 | 10 |
| re: .8493
Based on perception, not reality. One's perception of reality
and reality itself are two different things.
Some monogamous couples are (just that) monogamous. All the
while our clouded perception may not be cognizant of that
reality.
HTH
|
| 20.8498 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Tue Feb 25 1997 12:36 | 10 |
| No, reality.
So many people catch so many things thinking that they're in a monogamous
relationship when they aren't.
Yes, such things exist, but no, no one can ever be 100% sure they're in
one unless they have their spouse locked up with no possibility of contact
with someone else. It's horrible to discover that what was believed to be
a monogamous relationship wasn't really, but it happens, and it happens
often.
|
| 20.8499 | Repeating What I Believe To Be The Jugular | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 12:38 | 25 |
| I have yet to see any support for the postulate (I'll call
it that because if I remember right, postulates are unsupported)
that providing condoms in (say schools as an example) is not
in any way inclusive of making a moral statement.
As I said, I know that if I was 16 and in public school and
if I heard that condoms were being made available, part of
my thought process would be, "There is some condoning that
I be sexually active by whomever is providing these condoms."
Or to put another way, my mind would be given a statement of
some moral value and this statement might very well influence
my own personal set of moral values.
I have seen NO evidence to the contrary that what is condoned
here is not inclusive of a moral statement.
All the while, it is being trumpeted that moral statements not
be made by those who condone this!
I (at least) am all for the 'state' making NO moral statements.
Don't make mine and don't make yours. Not with tax dollars.
Tony
|
| 20.8500 | Nah | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 12:42 | 18 |
| re: .8498
I'm being nitpicky, but I still think you're logic is flawed
on this one (although I usually get a real kick out of your
replies! ;-) )
You seem to be defending your reasoning by making the following
assumption.
A spouses perception of reality regarding one's spouse is
(in fact) reality.
Its not. Its still just a perception of reality.
Some couples really are monogamous even though I'll grant you,
nobody can know (perceive) for sure.
Tony
|
| 20.8501 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Tue Feb 25 1997 12:47 | 36 |
| Your point is well taken.
Being generally in favor of making condoms available to high school kids,
if for no other reason than to cut down on the spread of STDs and
pregnancy, I have long felt that making them available is not condoning
sex.
But, now that you mention it, I do remember starting High School. The
particular school I went to had a neighboring piece of real-estate
officially designated (and sanctioned as) "Smoker's field." Smoking on
school property was officially verboten, but given the school's acceptance
of "Smoker's Field," I did see that as an instance of the school condoning
behavior that they otherwise forbade.
It ain't a huge leap from there to realizing that similar thought processes
can form a link in perception between the availability of condoms and the
assumption that the school is condoning sexual activity.
OTOH, give the kids some credit. I walked to school every morning THROUGH
smoker's field, and never felt the slightest desire to smoke, even though I
felt that the school was condoning it, and possibly even encouraging it by
making smoking space available. I had no desire, based largely on the
values my parents had given me.
I realize that raging hormones are a lot harder to fight off than the alure
of peer pressure to smoke, but I'd still think that if the values these
kids are getting at home are so good, then the school condoning sexual
behavior will really change nothing. In the meantime, it still might save
a few lives.
(Sorry. I'm just grumpy today, 'cause yesterday, I had to watch a video of
children who'd contracted HIV through non-condom sex between the ages of
15-18. Boys and girls, and all but one were hetero. These kids did what
they did regardless of everything, and handing them condoms could well have
prevented a dozen tragedies. Unfortunately, some of them needed some
education in addition to the condoms, but in most cases, they got neither.)
|
| 20.8502 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Tue Feb 25 1997 12:48 | 3 |
| .8500:
Conceded.
|
| 20.8503 | | SCASS1::BARBER_A | Bloated Egos R Us | Tue Feb 25 1997 13:10 | 1 |
| .8498 Yes, yes, it is. And yes, yes, it does.
|
| 20.8504 | Way To Go!!! | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 13:38 | 24 |
| Hi Banks,
I'll tell you what's refreshing. The ability to admit being
wrong. I've done it before in this Conference and I am sure
I'll do it again, but my nature likes to avoid it!
I really commend you.
Libertariansim really is the way to go if we are going to be
14th ammendment citizens. (I favor individual sovereignty
myself.)
A libertarian wouldn't touch a federally mandated much of
anything with a 1000 foot pole.
As Harry Browne said (paraphrase) guys like Kennedy and others
are not paragons of morality and thus ought not legislate
morality of any kind.
I think a large overture of the government presuming integrity/
nobility in the private sector is to allow them to be accountable
by the government assuming no accountability.
Tony
|
| 20.8505 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Orthogonality is your friend | Tue Feb 25 1997 13:39 | 3 |
| Yeah, sure, rub my face in it. Ok, uncle! I'll never do it again.
;-)
|
| 20.8506 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 25 1997 15:21 | 27 |
| The bottom line in this issue - when people make decisions to engage
in sex, it's better to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancies
and diseases.
It isn't "condoning" sex outside of marriage to implore people to
protect themselves.
Unfortunately, we can't get past this point in any of the discussions
about this issue:
"Wouldn't you rather people protect themselves from unplanned
pregnancies and diseases if they engage in sex?"
"I'd rather they didn't have sex."
"But, if they do decide to have sex anyway, wouldn't you rather
that they protect themselves from pregnancies and diseases?"
"I'd rather tell them not to have sex."
"Once the decision is made to have sex, though, wouldn't you
rather that they protect themselves?"
"I'd rather they decide not to have sex."
So, a compromise is made - people have sex without protection and
the problems continue...
|
| 20.8507 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Feb 25 1997 15:25 | 3 |
|
well, <slapping hands together>..I guess *that* settles *that*, eh?
|
| 20.8508 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Feb 25 1997 15:26 | 4 |
|
it seems like a pretty accurate assessment.
|
| 20.8509 | | EVER::GOODWIN | | Tue Feb 25 1997 15:41 | 4 |
|
Yes but, do 70% of the people in the Netherlands think that O.J.
is lacking a moral code?
|
| 20.8510 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Feb 25 1997 15:56 | 3 |
|
the penultimate question!
|
| 20.8511 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 25 1997 16:06 | 3 |
|
It's *almost* the penultimate question. :>
|
| 20.8512 | | BIGHOG::PERCIVAL | I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO | Tue Feb 25 1997 16:33 | 12 |
| <<< Note 20.8506 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
> It isn't "condoning" sex outside of marriage to implore people to
> protect themselves.
It seems to me that people who DO think that it is condoning
sexual activity must also believe that imploring people to
wear seatbelts condones car crashes.
After all, the logic is the same.
Jim
|
| 20.8513 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Tue Feb 25 1997 16:58 | 2 |
| Condoning car crashes? No, but perhaps it condones driving itself.
That is a more accurate analogy.
|
| 20.8514 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 25 1997 17:38 | 10 |
| It would be like making driving a moral issue to try to prevent car
crashes.
Rather than asking people to be careful and to use seatbelts, the
approach would be to keep asking people NOT to drive (and to fight
against those who try to implore people to use seatbelts and other
safety measures.)
It would add a needless complication to a health/safety issue.
|
| 20.8515 | | BIGHOG::PERCIVAL | I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO | Tue Feb 25 1997 17:42 | 10 |
| <<< Note 20.8513 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
> Condoning car crashes? No, but perhaps it condones driving itself.
> That is a more accurate analogy.
Nope, not even close. I can drive all day long and not need a
seatbelt. I only need the protection should a crash occur.
Jim
|
| 20.8516 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Feb 25 1997 17:48 | 3 |
|
Do they use seatbelts in the Netherlands?
|
| 20.8517 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 25 1997 17:49 | 1 |
| Chastity belts, I think.
|
| 20.8518 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Tue Feb 25 1997 17:50 | 8 |
| re: .8515
Theoretically, one would also only need a condom should
pregnancy/STD/HIV occur. You can drive all day without
a seat belt, but you have no idea when you will have
an accident. It's a question of whether or not you
are prepared when you do.
|
| 20.8519 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Tue Feb 25 1997 18:48 | 2 |
|
I need a condom to drive? idknt.
|
| 20.8520 | | BUSY::SLAB | And when one of us is gone ... | Tue Feb 25 1997 18:50 | 3 |
|
[Stay tuned for incoming punfest, already in progress]
|
| 20.8521 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 25 1997 18:53 | 1 |
| put the rubber to the road.
|
| 20.8522 | Just Keep Govt. Out Of It | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 25 1997 18:59 | 16 |
| re: .8506
Hi Suzanne,
I see another solution. Personal accountability both corporate
and individual and let each aspect of it be entirely privatized.
Get the government from preferring one morality over another.
Kind of like that Schindler's List movie we briefly discussed.
Just keep 'society' (i.e. government funding) completely out
of it. I cherish your right to finance and convey your own
solution.
Tony
|
| 20.8523 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Patented Problem Generator | Tue Feb 25 1997 18:59 | 1 |
| Jump in the back seat and latex.
|
| 20.8524 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Feb 25 1997 19:08 | 19 |
| tony,
We tried something like this earlier in our history. During that time
infant and maternal mortality rates (including those related to
abortion) were unnaceptably high, as were the number of throw-away babies
left at foundling homes or church steps.
We need a bit of both, people advertising on how to best avoid
pregnancy and STD's and people also letting the world know that, like
driving the best way to avoid unintended consequences is to use
contraception.
since there are parents who won't talk to their kids about sex and
won't disseminate that information, and since some of those kids will
interface with my kids, I would prefer that some really basic
information on abstinence AND contraception be available in the
schools.
|
| 20.8525 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 25 1997 19:12 | 29 |
| RE: .8522 Tony
> I see another solution. Personal accountability both corporate
> and individual and let each aspect of it be entirely privatized.
So you agree that our society should NOT promote a so-called "strong
moral code". Leave morality discussions out of it. Ok.
> Get the government from preferring one morality over another.
Morality has been kept out of the discussion - you agree we should
KEEP it out. Ok.
> Kind of like that Schindler's List movie we briefly discussed.
Yeah - when "the media" goes a certain way on a given issue (even
if it happens to have a non-conservative leaning to it), let them
go. It's their money - they can do whatever they want.
> Just keep 'society' (i.e. government funding) completely out
> of it. I cherish your right to finance and convey your own
> solution.
"Society" is not the same thing as "government funding" - I don't
think anyone's been suggesting that the government fund the promotion
of a so-called "strong moral code".
If you're saying that this whole issue comes down to money (and I hope
you aren't saying this), I disagree.
|
| 20.8526 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Tue Feb 25 1997 19:28 | 2 |
|
i prefer the old form of transportation, the Trojan horse
|
| 20.8527 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 25 1997 19:30 | 3 |
| Is there no way to prevent such puns from being conceived
in this topic?
|
| 20.8528 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Tue Feb 25 1997 19:33 | 2 |
|
sure, stop them from swimming upstream
|
| 20.8529 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Feb 25 1997 19:35 | 4 |
| Remove the coil?
No, wait...
|
| 20.8530 | moral curriculum? | DPE1::ARMSTRONG | | Tue Feb 25 1997 19:43 | 23 |
| > <<< Note 20.8417 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
>
> You just don't seem to get it, or refuse to accept certain basic facts.
> YOu keep stressing that a health based approach is the only approach
> that everyone can agree on and will be effective.
> As long as you insist that the other views not be allowed to stand
> side-by-side with your views, you will continue to encounter
> well-deserved opposition.
I just have not gotten past this 'stand side-by-side' comment.
It sounds a lot (to me) like the teaching of 'how the earth began'
type education, creationism 'standing side-by-side' with evolution
when taught in schools.
Suppose schools DID start including a morality curriculum being
taught 'side-by-side' with health class. What would you put in it?
I'm wondering what activities would be included? How about saying
grace before meals? Prayers before bed? Church on Sunday? I suspect
you think all of these contribute to a healthy society.
bob
|
| 20.8531 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Feb 25 1997 20:00 | 29 |
| Bob,
Whose morality?
Dancing in a circle around a fire on a full-moon nightis a moral
behavior in some traditions, as is witnessing the "great rite" as
celebrated by the priest and priestess in some other traditions, as is
even participating in said, same great rite in others. Personally
voyeuristic sex is not one of those things I am into for me or my kids,
even if it is largely symbolic, but there are others who believe this
is the moral way to bring up their kids. Are we going to drop the ban
on weapons so the little sihk kids can wear their ceremonial knives, a
requirement of their religion? Are we going to bring in prayer rugs in
a location and have a compass so the kids can find mecca if needed? (A
real arguement in CO is which way a person should bow to face mecca,
as both east and west are apparently close to equadistant.)
Whose grace? We never found a good resolution for this in the GS troop
I co-led, other than a moment of silence to thank the creator for their
food. We had a batch of kids from several religious traditions that
overtly conflicted in naming a diety, let alone what form a prayer of
thanks was supposed to be made up of. The MOS did work, but only
because GS traditions require observing thanks in some way before
consuming food.
Morals are something best taught in the home and churches, temples or
groves. direct, factual information is what the schools need to teach.
meg
|
| 20.8532 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Feb 25 1997 20:44 | 10 |
| Some religious groups within the United States consider things like
dancing, movies and card playing to be immoral.
If schools were to say that sex outside of marriage is immoral but
dancing, etc., is just fine - it would go against the religious
and moral views of some parents and religious groups.
It's best to stay out of this arena. Implore kids to use precautions
(including abstinence, which is a major health choice) - and let the
kids get the moral teachings from the parents, churches and communities.
|
| 20.8533 | | BUSY::SLAB | Antisocial | Tue Feb 25 1997 20:56 | 8 |
|
.Some religious groups within the United States consider things like
.dancing, movies and card playing to be immoral.
------------
That explains the hushed tones used for saying "B10", "O70", etc.
|
| 20.8534 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Feb 25 1997 22:33 | 34 |
| Steve,
I may owe you an apology, but it seems to me that someone was obsessing
on marrying younger women during a discussion of gay marriages, and
your name surfaced in my head.
I still think that worrying about virginity is something really silly,
but if it is so important to you, please help the female half or the
race out and don't see/date women who are not virgins. (I am assuming
you are also a virgin, if not, see hypocrite in Webster's and get
counseling)
Revirgining is something practiced by several churches I know of.
While it doesn't replace that bit of tissue, it is supposed to bring a
person back to virginal chasteness in the spirit, and allow people to
marry in the churches' involved with a clear, virginal conscience. A
friend's daughter spent a month sitting in front of the temple in the
evening meditating on what virginity and chasteness means, as well as
taking with the local priest about same. this allows her to be
revirginized so when she meets the right man, she can be married "in
temple."
I find the whole thing bizzare, but other than health issues, I have
never seen any point in grilling an so about who he boffed, lived with,
or whatever, and a few of his ex so's are friends, as are a few of
their ex so's and mine. (and no, we aren't involved in a sexual way
with any of them anymore.)
If this would be a stumbling block for a person in a relationship, they
need to get out of same before any promises beyond friendship are made.
meg
|
| 20.8535 | | DPE1::ARMSTRONG | | Wed Feb 26 1997 02:11 | 14 |
| > <<< Note 20.8531 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>
>
> Bob,
> Whose morality?
Sure, I understand the question. And Rocush is not divulging his
morality. I'm just wondering what other things he'ld put
in this curriculum to stand side-by-side with the school's
normal health curriculum. I've heard the arguments that
creationism should stand side-by-side with evolution as two
equally possible theories as to the origins of the earth/universe.
This 'sex is bad outside marriage' morality sounds like an extension
of that. I'm wondering what else goes into this bag.
bob
|
| 20.8536 | Overall Destruction Far More With Your Proposed 'System' | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 11:57 | 59 |
| Hi All,
I think I'm about done, but just to offer a few brief replies.
By the way, for all of the following, I'd like to preface by my
own belief that much of the programs that are being espoused are
inclusive of the giving of a certain moral standard. Banks seemed
to acknowledge this while others have turned an extremey blind
eye to it.
By the way, Banks, I do differentiate tobacco from sex because
tobacco is so obviously hideous. I think the morality of sex is
comparatively much more subtle (personally).
Reply Note 20.8524
Hi Meg,
*We tried something like this earlier in our history. During that time
*infant and maternal mortality rates (including those related to
*abortion) were unnaceptably high, as were the number of throw-away babies
*left at foundling homes or church steps.
*We need a bit of both, people advertising on how to best avoid
*pregnancy and STD's and people also letting the world know that, like
*driving the best way to avoid unintended consequences is to use
*contraception.
My take on this is that government has proved time and time and time
again to not be able to be given power (or to 'take' power which is
probably more accurate with regards to the U.S. and most other nations)
and be an overall benefactor (when the positives and negatives are
weighed in a scale).
I realize I am being extremely idealistic here, but I think its (by its
I refer to the government being given any such say at all) a Pandora's
box that has opened and would be best closed once again.
I realize it is not a perfect world and thus one can speak of horrible
things on either side of the fence (where govt. is and where it is not
involved). You have spoken eloquently of hideous things on one side
of the fence and I think I can speak well of atrocities on the other
side. I believe millions of Americans are shells of who they could
have been because of the perpetuating nature of welfare. We have created
a welfare state and the damage when considering average extent per individual
effected and total number of individuals is overwhelming.
I am for the govt. having NO say whatsoever.
*since there are parents who won't talk to their kids about sex and
*won't disseminate that information, and since some of those kids will
*interface with my kids, I would prefer that some really basic
*information on abstinence AND contraception be available in the
*schools.
And I believe the damage involved by involving government exceeds the
damage that is relieved.
Tony
|
| 20.8537 | Why Do You Continue To Ignore??? | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 11:58 | 43 |
| Reply Note 20.8525
Hi Suzanne,
*So you agree that our society should NOT promote a so-called "strong
*moral code". Leave morality discussions out of it. Ok.
Suzanne, I ask you to couple the above with my assertion (whether you
believe it or not) that your 'solution' is the conveying of a moral
code. Outside of the government providing a judicial system (actually,
it used to be based on 'natural law' with a jury of peers of sovereigns
settling any disputes) where illegal wrongs is defined, I would prefer
the govt. voice no morality whatsoever. Yours or mine.
I would ask you to embrace the above with me and desire the govt. to
not convey any morality.
*Morality has been kept out of the discussion - you agree we should
*KEEP it out. Ok.
Have you been listening to me Suzanne? Why do you entirely disregard
my contention that the solutions you espouse imply inclusion of a morality
that is communicated to individuals? Thus, I believe, you are the one
that insists on a morality!
*"Society" is not the same thing as "government funding" - I don't
*think anyone's been suggesting that the government fund the promotion
*of a so-called "strong moral code".
Again, I feel you are not listening to me. Banks caught it, but you seem
either blind to it or refusing to acknowledge it. Let's leave out the
word "strong" and lets just keep it at "moral code" and please acknowledge
my belief that your solution is tatamount to the govt. conveying a moral
code.
*If you're saying that this whole issue comes down to money (and I hope
*you aren't saying this), I disagree.
No, I am saying it comes down to a Pandora's box whose opening is tatamount
to vast damage. That box is the govt. having any such involvement whatso-
ever. You are the one that insists this box be opened.
Tony
|
| 20.8538 | May We Adhere To The Declaration of Independence??? | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 11:58 | 50 |
| Reply Note 20.8530
Hi Bob,
*It sounds a lot (to me) like the teaching of 'how the earth began'
*type education, creationism 'standing side-by-side' with evolution
*when taught in schools.
Have you read the Declaration of Independence recently? It says some-
thing about every man being endowed with equal rights. By whom? Well,
this document says by a CREATOR.
Are you a defender of the Declaration of Independence or an opposer of
it??? I think an exegesis of the writings of those who founded our
country is in order!
Like it or not, but perfect adherence to our most foundational documents
is consistent with the idea of reference to a God in (admittedly) highly
generic terms. Benevolent Creator who has given all men certain unalienable
rights.
Now this complicates things! (I admit to not having all the answers or
even any of them!) It seems children ought to be taught creation as a
possibility since our nation was founded, in part, on this principle.
I am not advocating prayer. I am not advocating the PREFERENCE of any
religion. I am simply advocating what our forefathers advocated - no
more, no less. Recognition of a benevolent Creator-God. Creation would
seem consistent with this, no? And by the way, there are some compelling
arguments for creation, imo.
*I'm wondering what activities would be included? How about saying
*grace before meals? Prayers before bed? Church on Sunday? I suspect
*you think all of these contribute to a healthy society.
How about something as generic as the documents upon which this nation is
founded?
All of these replies have a common thread. I can summarize it by sharing
a question asked to one Gus Hall. Gus Hall was the nominee for the
American Communist Party. He was asked a few years ago why he no longer
runs. He answered that he no longer runs becaus he has no reason to.
Why no reason? He replied that this country had already accepted virtually
every plank of the Communist Party.
Marx would be so glad!
Everything disagreement I have shared here is embraced by communism and
repudiated by the Constitutional govt. our forefathers set up (imo).
Tony
|
| 20.8539 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Feb 26 1997 12:06 | 4 |
| I think the problem goes back to the Pilgrims, Tony. They spent
11 years in the Netherlands before moving to the US and obviously
picked up some very bad habits which they passed down to the
Revolutionary fathers.
|
| 20.8540 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 26 1997 13:03 | 29 |
| .8534
Your problem is that you missed my note which stated that virginity is
much more than simply having a hymen... guys don't have these, after
all, and I most certainly have not excluded males within my promotion
of virginity. The fact that you zero in on just the physical aspect of
this is most interesting - especially in light of my previous
statements.
You also have a bad memory with regards to my past notes.
I'm curious as to why you think I should not date a virgin. I'm quite
teh safe date, actually, since I would not try to take her virginity
from her as would many guys. I really wonder where you are coming from
on this comment. It boggles the mind.
One other curious statement in your note is that I am somehow a
hypocrite unless I am a virgin, too. This is quite disengenuous - my
condition is irrelevant, actually. What I promote and what I am
suggesting is not hypocritical at all, even if I am not a virgin.
By your criteria, a recovered drug addict would be a hypocrite for
trying to warn others away from drugs.
-steve
|
| 20.8541 | Hahaha! | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 13:04 | 15 |
| re: -1
:-)
I had an offline chat with one noter and confessed that I
am perhaps too idealistic and maybe a little more pragmaticism
is in order!
I truly think that what our forefathers established was
just awesome. We have deviated so much from that path.
Just my opinion of course. And I'm sure not a recommended
one by more than a few!
Tony
|
| 20.8542 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Saturn Sap | Wed Feb 26 1997 13:09 | 6 |
| .8540:
{Tongue planted firmly in cheek}
From your last paragraph, would we conclude that you see yourself as an
example of why women wouldn't want to have sex?
|
| 20.8543 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Feb 26 1997 13:11 | 8 |
|
> <<< Note 20.8540 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
> I'm curious as to why you think I should not date a virgin.
um, i think you need to read her note again.
|
| 20.8545 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 26 1997 13:23 | 1 |
| Okay, I'll read it again.
|
| 20.8546 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Feb 26 1997 13:24 | 29 |
| Partial birth abortion supporter admits lying when he said procedure was
rare
-----------
Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion
Providers, said he intentionally misled in previous remarks about the procedure
called 'intact dilation and evacuation' by those who believe it should remain
legal and "partial-birth abortion" by those who believe it should be outlawed.
He said that he feared that the truth would damage the cause of abortion
rights.
In an article in American Medical News he said that he had appeared on
"Nightline" in November 1995 and had "lied through [his] teeth" when he said
the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger
or whose fetuses were damaged.
He now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have
acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.
In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother
with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons said.
"The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so,
probably, does everyone else," he said in the article in the Medical News,
an American Medical Association publication.
/john
|
| 20.8547 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 26 1997 13:27 | 10 |
| Oopsie... I missed the "not" portion of that sentence. My appologies.
Ignore everything past my first paragraph, Meg! 8^)
I do wonder how not dating a virgin is hypocritical, though. Perhaps
Meg can explain her thought process on this... I have not personalized
any of my notes as of yet. I merely promote that which is see as being
beneficial to society.
-steve
|
| 20.8548 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you!! | Wed Feb 26 1997 14:06 | 12 |
|
Because Steve, dating someone who is not a virgin is dating someone
who goes against, or is not an example of, something you believe
in strongly. If someone believes drinking alcohol is a sin,
they're not going to date someone who likes to drink. If someone
believes that single parenthood is a sin and detrimental to
society, they're not going to date someone that is a single parent,
etc. It's going against your own moral code.
|
| 20.8549 | unless it's the kitchen sink approach | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Wed Feb 26 1997 14:13 | 10 |
| Except, being a Christian means that you also believe in forgiveness,
and the concept that it's the sin that is bad, not the sinner. So it is
perfectly consistent for a Christian to date someone who is not a
virgin. That one has sinned is no reason to exclude them from
consideration for the very simple reason that everyone is a sinner.
This argument is nothing more than a transparent attempt to use one's
religion against them for furthering argumentation that presumably
otherwise is in need of buttressing. Otherwise, why stoop to such
tactics?
|
| 20.8550 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 14:24 | 84 |
| RE: .8537 Tony
>> *So you agree that our society should NOT promote a so-called "strong
>> *moral code". Leave morality discussions out of it. Ok.
> Suzanne, I ask you to couple the above with my assertion (whether you
> believe it or not) that your 'solution' is the conveying of a moral
> code.
Well, I have to ask you to accept (whether you believe it or not) that
when a society keeps morality out of a particular discussion, it is
the anti-thesis of promoting a particular moral code. It amounts to
refraining from conveying any particular moral code, in fact.
> Outside of the government providing a judicial system (actually,
> it used to be based on 'natural law' with a jury of peers of sovereigns
> settling any disputes) where illegal wrongs is defined, I would prefer
> the govt. voice no morality whatsoever. Yours or mine.
The government is voicing no morality whatsoever now, neither yours
nor mine.
We haven't even been discussing the role of the government itself
(or government spending) in this recent discussion, except for your
foray into this area.
Apparently, you have retreated into your comfort zone about government
being evyl, etc., rather than discuss societal attitudes towards sex
which are not dictated by the government.
> I would ask you to embrace the above with me and desire the govt. to
> not convey any morality.
The government doesn't convey any morality now, so you've already
gotten your wish.
>> *Morality has been kept out of the discussion - you agree we should
>> *KEEP it out. Ok.
> Have you been listening to me Suzanne? Why do you entirely disregard
> my contention that the solutions you espouse imply inclusion of a
> morality that is communicated to individuals?
Tony, have you been listening to me?? I'm not obligated in any way
to accept what you say as the truth. You can implore me all you like
to agree with you, but guess what? I'm not obligated to do so.
> Thus, I believe, you are the one that insists on a morality!
You may also believe that the moon is made of green cheese. So what?
Believe anything you damn well choose. No one else is required to
accept your beliefs.
>> *"Society" is not the same thing as "government funding" - I don't
>> *think anyone's been suggesting that the government fund the
>> promotion *of a so-called "strong moral code".
> Again, I feel you are not listening to me.
You're coming across like a televangelist, Tony. I do not intend
to "embrace" your beliefs as my own.
> Banks caught it, but you see either blind to it or refusing to
> acknowledge it.
I simply disagree. The founding fathers supposedly made it ok to
do this in the United States of America, remember?
> Let's leave out the word "strong" and lets just keep it at "moral code"
> and please acknowledge my belief that your solution is tatamount to the
> govt. conveying a moral code.
I acknowledge that you have a belief about this which I consider strange
and have no intentions of "embracing". Are we clear on this now?
>> *If you're saying that this whole issue comes down to money (and I hope
>> *you aren't saying this), I disagree.
> No, I am saying it comes down to a Pandora's box whose opening is
> tatamount to vast damage. That box is the govt. having any such
> involvement whatsoever. You are the one that insists this box be opened.
Again, you retreat into your comfort zone about the government when
we haven't actually been talking about government programs at all.
|
| 20.8551 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 26 1997 14:32 | 31 |
| .8548
Irrelevant.
I think this is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I
have not criteria that says a woman must be virgin for me to date her.
I do require, for compatability reasons, that we share a *similar*
(need not be exact, mind you) moral outlook. I've found out the hard
way that diverse moral makeup is not conducive to a good relationship.
Obviously, if she has a more promiscuous outlook (meaning she expects
for sex to be a part of the relationship before marriage), then we will
have problems. If she is willing to wait until marriage, which means
sex may never take place in this particular relationship, then how am I
going against my moral code? Only by participating in sexual relations
outside of marriage, would I be in conflict with my moral code -
regardless of her past or mine.
Now, let's turn this discussion back to the broader perspective, shall
we? I'm not spreading STDs. I'm not fathering children out of wedlock.
I have never been half responsible for an abortion, nor am I behaving
in any manner other than what I am espousing. Yet somehow, since I
have obviously dated (recently, in fact) a woman who is not a virgin, I
am a hypocrite. (?!)
I am not a part of the problem, therefore my personal life is irrelevant
to the discussion at hand (even though Meg and Suzanne attempt to
obfuscate this discussion by changing focus).
-steve
|
| 20.8552 | Bingo. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 14:48 | 22 |
| RE: .8551 Steve Leech
> Now, let's turn this discussion back to the broader perspective, shall
> we? I'm not spreading STDs. I'm not fathering children out of wedlock.
> I have never been half responsible for an abortion, nor am I behaving
> in any manner other than what I am espousing.
You've just described the vast majority of people who are sexually
active without also being married.
> I am not a part of the problem, therefore my personal life is irrelevant
> to the discussion at hand
So, no matter how much sex someone has without being married is *ALSO*
irrelevant if they do not spread STDs, conceive children out of wedlock
or participate in the decision for an abortion.
Therefore, sex is not the problem. The STDs, unplanned pregnancies
and abortions are the problems - these are what we need to prevent,
not sex.
Thanks so much for playing.
|
| 20.8553 | Disconnects, Disconnects | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 14:51 | 56 |
| Hi Suzanne,
Just two things.
One, I thought the programs you were supporting were things
like society providing condoms and literature and some 'forum'
for people. I assumed by 'society' you meant a public funded
program, i.e. government.
Where is the funding for the development and implementation of
the program you want? What is the source of the program (from
whence does it come? How are the condoms bought? How is the
information 'created' and relayed to whomever? If there is any
instructional literature, what finances its writing and its
publishing? What body distributes it? If it is not a govt.
body (and thus not govt. funded), what body is it and what is the
source of private funding???
If you have meant to describe a strategy that has no govt.
involvement whatsoever, this truly was a huge oversight on my
part and (I agree) my govt. discussions are irrelevent.
Could you summarize your position again in terms of the plan,
how it is developed, and how it is implemented? What 'body'
develops it? How is it financed? I sense a huge disconnect
here!
Two, there is another huge disconnect. In my efforts to get
you to 'acknowledge' my thoughts, I WAS NOT INTENDING FOR YOU TO
EMBRACE THEM IN ANY WAY!!! I just wanted you to acknowledge the
existence (in my own mind) of my belief that your proposal is
in actuality the conveying of a moral code by the govt.
I in no way meant for you to incorporate my thoughts as yours.
Not in the slightest! But, satisfactory dialogue does require,
imo, the acknowledgment of thoughts put forth by others. It
appeared to me that you incessantly sidestepped my 'thought' that
you embrace the govt. conveying a moral code. Perhaps I was
wrong and the answering of my questions would help me under-
stand your position much better.
Also, you referenced my ideas of the 'evyl' of government, but
isn't it intelligent to have such a perspective? How many
governments didn't eventually oppress? On this point...oh there
is so much that could be said. Ruby Ridge, Waco. People being
killed accross the country because of unconstitutional search
and seizures (dur to RICO). Oh man, the handwriting is on the wall.
There is just so much.
The greatest oppressors in the world have always been the govt.
and the church.
I thought there was one other thing I wanted to respond to, but
can't remember!
Tony
|
| 20.8554 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Feb 26 1997 14:52 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 20.8552 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
> Therefore, sex is not the problem. The STDs, unplanned pregnancies
> and abortions are the problems - these are what we need to prevent,
> not sex.
There _would_ seem to be a link there, though.
|
| 20.8555 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 15:13 | 50 |
| RE: .8553 Tony
> One, I thought the programs you were supporting were things
> like society providing condoms and literature and some 'forum'
> for people. I assumed by 'society' you meant a public funded
> program, i.e. government.
As mentioned earlier, I don't use the word "society" when I mean
"government". The two are not synonymous.
Society is all of us (including but not limited to movies, tv,
magazines, communities, social and cultural groups, etc.)
> Where is the funding for the development and implementation of
> the program you want? What is the source of the program (from
> whence does it come? How are the condoms bought? How is the
> information 'created' and relayed to whomever? If there is any
> instructional literature, what finances its writing and its
> publishing? What body distributes it? If it is not a govt.
> body (and thus not govt. funded), what body is it and what is
> the source of private funding???
Media groups pay for their own "Public Service Announcements" on
a variety of issues. Foundations and other organizations can raise
their own money for good causes.
If we could decide on the best societal message for this problem,
it could be communicated to our citizens without requiring huge
government expenditures.
The problem is that we will never, ever, ever, ever, EVER, EVER agree
on the best message.
> Two, there is another huge disconnect. In my efforts to get
> you to 'acknowledge' my thoughts, I WAS NOT INTENDING FOR YOU TO
> EMBRACE THEM IN ANY WAY!!! I just wanted you to acknowledge
> the existence (in my own mind) of my belief that your proposal is
> in actuality the conveying of a moral code by the govt.
You used the word "EMBRACE" to me with regards to my response to your
statements.
Your beliefs don't need my acknowledgment. You can believe anything
you want, and everyone else is free to agree or disagree.
> Also, you referenced my ideas of the 'evyl' of government, but
> isn't it intelligent to have such a perspective? How many
> governments didn't eventually oppress?
You do love your comfort zone, don't you. :> Safe and convenient.
|
| 20.8556 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 15:22 | 11 |
| >> Therefore, sex is not the problem. The STDs, unplanned pregnancies
>> and abortions are the problems - these are what we need to prevent,
>> not sex.
> There _would_ seem to be a link there, though.
Not for those who don't spread STDs, conceive unplanned pregnancies
or make decisions about abortions, though.
They simply engage in the natural process of human sexuality...
|
| 20.8557 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Chicago - My Kind of Town | Wed Feb 26 1997 15:43 | 4 |
|
.8556
sort of like, fornicate with abandon.
|
| 20.8558 | Reponsibility is supposed to be a good thing, remember? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 16:01 | 6 |
| If they aren't spreading STDs, conceiving pregnancies or needing
to make decisions about abortions, they aren't doing what they're
doing with a sense of 'abandon'...
They're being responsible while they engage in human sexuality.
|
| 20.8559 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 26 1997 16:42 | 34 |
| Steve,
You are the one who said he felt that previous sex partners was a major
reason for the breakup of marriage. From that set of words, I would
say that you shouldn't date, or waste the time of a person who has been
sexually active, as it sounds that your belief structure would
eventually rear its ugly head and wind up hurting you, her and any
children from the previous relationship, as well as the current. If
she is looking for an LTR, you should not be wasting her time. Seen
this in action with a friend who eventually left her 1st husband, as
anytime he was angry he would bring up her past to attempt to make her
feel like dirt. He never understood why she left him either.
If you have not behaved in a totally chaste manner, but expect any
female partner you will marry or have a LTR with to be chaste, please
look up the definition of the word hypocrite, and then look in a
mirror. It is unfair for you to expect this after having been involved
with another partner at sometime, and besides see paragraph 1. She
might find it advantageous to use your past in an arguement later or
have concerns on why you couldn't have waited for "true love." She may
also have valid concerns about STD's, possible paternity suits from a
past one-nighter, or even if she is as "good" as your first, second or
third or more encounters.
Because you have stated that virginity is a "gift" to bwe reserved, I
would hope you have behaved in an upright manner, and will stop wasting
the time of the lovely woman with a child. She deserves someone who
can love without having concerns about how that baby got started.
meg
|
| 20.8560 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 26 1997 16:58 | 18 |
| If folks weren't out there fornicating with abandon, there wouldn't be
1.3 million abortions per year, plagues of STDs, and likely there would
be far fewer dysfunctional relationships.
Of course, uncommited sex isn't the problem, it's only the results of this
activity, right? The problem with this attitude is that you try to
disassociate the cause from the effect. If b (effect) is the result of
a (the cause), then we need to look at ways of reducing a. Yes, we can
treat the effects, too. No one in this string is saying that we
shouldn't do this (though we do argue methedology), but it is far more
logical to address the cause of whatever effects you are trying to
reduce.
Granted, you and I see the "cause" as something different. I look at
behavior itself.
-steve
|
| 20.8561 | Convenience??? (Inappropriate) | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 16:59 | 43 |
| Hi Suzanne,
"without requiring huge government expenditures..."
Well, it oughtn't require any!
As for my use of the term "embrace," I'm not sure where I
used it, but if you are accurate (I honestly don't know),
it was a VERY poor choice of words (on my part).
As for the "convenience" of my govt. position. I don't like
the possible inferences this word can have. I don't think
its proper dialogue, actually.
If you state that you want a certain 'program' (or whatever
you want to call it) and you want to do all you can to
propagate it *outside of any government financing or any
other govt. involvement whatsoever*, I have absolutely no
issue with you.
And GIVEN that I have absolutely no issue with you, your
reference to the "convenience" of my government stance is
erroneas. I have no issue with you at all on this subject
if you do not embrace the idea of governmental involvement
(including financial).
I would have a real hard time with anyone trying to tell you
that you would not have the right to spread your program
to the masses in whatever privatized way you might want to.
My inclusion of government has really only one purpose.
Which is to state my position as candidly and as accurately
as I can. I cannot possibly do that without speaking my
convictions about the government.
I honestly felt you were trumpeting a program which included,
among other things, government involvement (including financing
of course).
Now, if you want to explain to me how my resorting to government
is a matter of convenience, I'm all ears.
Tony
|
| 20.8562 | True Colors | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:08 | 14 |
| re: -1
It is replies like this (though there are others) that demonstrate
a propensity on your part to sometimes delight in personal criticism
of others. Your reference to things like "devirginizing" and others
read to me as a conscious effort to do more than objectively state
a disagreement for another's set of values. They seem to get in the
realm of being overly qualitatively critical.
I might be wrong, but it seems like Steve is trying to be objective,
but you seek the low road of personal criticism of another human
being.
Tony
|
| 20.8563 | Correction | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:11 | 2 |
| My last reply was directed to Meg.
|
| 20.8564 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:11 | 20 |
| .8559
That is just about the silliest circular argument I have ever heard. I
believe the issue on someone's previous activities are a part of, but
not the sole, basis for a relationship.
As far as someone bringing up their partner's past during an argument
to hurt the other party, prior sexual activity is not necessary. If
the intention during the argument is to hurt the other person, there
are many other ways to do so. Using this as an argument here is just
plain silly. I have seen people bring up accidents, job losses, weight
problems, etc during arguments. Previous sexual activity is just
another one and really has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If you, however, carry around a lot of guilt regarding an active past,
then you need to deal with it. do not think that it wouldn't come up
even if your partner was active previously.
Just plain silly.
|
| 20.8565 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:15 | 15 |
| Tony the term is "revirgining" and how I feel about it has nothing to
do with the conversation.
On the other hand, if one truly believes that chasteness is the only
way to go with a partner, they should find one who is as chaste as they
are. Anything else is begging trouble for both people. While
god(dess) may forgive all and we are supposed to emulate her, I have
rarely found a human who is stepped in certain beliefs who can manage
to ignore something that violates same for very long.
go back to holier-than-thou notes and write in about whether or not two
people with disimilar religious beliefs can have a happy relationship.
This is much the same to me.
meg
|
| 20.8566 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:17 | 17 |
| .8546
This is beginning to get a lot of attention in the press, as it should.
I remember when the debate was going on that those who raised questions
about the claims that this procedure was rarely used, etc were told to
shut up as they were not telling the truth. their only goal was to
create hysteria around the issue with any lies they could raise.
Well now the central figure in this issue has indicated that he lied
and that those in opposition were, indeed, correct.
It becomesd increasingly clear that those who support abortion at any
time, for anyone, under any circumstances will embrace lies without
hesitation.
Perhaps now we can get a new bill presented and signed.
|
| 20.8567 | This One Really Bothered Me | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:18 | 28 |
| re: .8559
Just another response to this one Meg.
I may be wrong, but Steve might be a believer in a concept
called repentence. Assuming this, the reasoning is actually
not real complex.
Repentence is a process, some believe, whereby people *change*.
Some people, it is believed, change and some do not.
Lets take the example of people that have had previous sex
partners. Some people undergo a change of personal morals.
Other people do not. I am inclined to believe that Steve
would have little problem being with a woman who had previous
partners, but may have undergone some change of heart since
then such that her morality is more in line with Steve's.
I am also inclined to believe that Steve would not bother to
date a woman with whom he discovered had premarital sex partners
and continued to include that as part of her morality.
It is extremely trite and simplistic to form conclusions partially
on the basis of the notion that people don't change.
I think. ultimately, Steve is interested in a potential partner's
heart and that can change.
Tony
|
| 20.8568 | I Admit I Am Upset | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:24 | 11 |
| re: "holier than thou"
Maybe. If I am, its certainly wrong of me!
My perception is that you are slinging a lot of low blows.
(And I am upset.)
By the way, the dissimilar religion thing you mentioned
can fit nicely within the idea that people really can change.
Tony
|
| 20.8569 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:33 | 98 |
| .8559 (Meg)
This will be my last response from personal level. Quit
obfuscating the subject I'm trying to discuss with these irrlevancies.
> You are the one who said he felt that previous sex partners was a major
> reason for the breakup of marriage.
True.
> From that set of words, I would
> say that you shouldn't date, or waste the time of a person who has been
> sexually active, as it sounds that your belief structure would
> eventually rear its ugly head and wind up hurting you, her and any
> children from the previous relationship, as well as the current.
I haven't addressed this in detail, so you are judgeing my entire
personal life (in regards to relationships) on basically one general
idea that I brought up in a different context. I will not rathole this
further by going into minute details of my thought processes... suffice
to say that if one recognizes the inherant problems associated with
previous sexual activity - whether it be personal activity or that of
the person you are in a relationship with - they have a much better
chance of making things work. Understanding the problem is half the
battle.
> Seen this in action with a friend who eventually left her 1st husband, as
> anytime he was angry he would bring up her past to attempt to make her
> feel like dirt. He never understood why she left him either.
Quit associating me with your friends' problems. What you have
experienced through your friends is irrelevant to what I would do in
any given circumstance.
> If you have not behaved in a totally chaste manner, but expect any
> female partner you will marry or have a LTR with to be chaste, please
> look up the definition of the word hypocrite, and then look in a
> mirror.
And this after I have already said I expect no such thing.
Please try to keep up.
> She might find it advantageous to use your past in an arguement later or
> have concerns on why you couldn't have waited for "true love." She may
> also have valid concerns about STD's, possible paternity suits from a
> past one-nighter, or even if she is as "good" as your first, second or
> third or more encounters.
You have just brought up, inadvertantly, very lucid examples of what
I'm talking about. Another reason to stay chaste until the proper
time.
Of course, whether I have remained so is irrelevant. This is not a
criteria of mine for a future mate, nor does it take anything away from
the message itself. In fact, it may add credibility due to past
experience.
Of course, all this is well beside any point I was attempting to make
before this rathold became focused on my personal life.
> Because you have stated that virginity is a "gift" to bwe reserved, I
> would hope you have behaved in an upright manner, and will stop wasting
> the time of the lovely woman with a child. She deserves someone who
> can love without having concerns about how that baby got started.
Cheap shot.
When you can address my ideas, without obfuscating into my personal
life, you know where to post the note.
Tell me, what exactly do you disagree with?
Do you disagree that uncommited sex can cause relational dysfunctions
down the road?
Do you disagree that it is a good idea to be in a commited relationship
before becoming sexually active?
Do you not think virginity is a special gift to give to your life-long
parter (whether you are male or female)?
Do you disagree that virginity is more that just a physical state?
Do you disagree that uncommited sex is the major cause of many of the
social problems we are experiencing (specifically STDs and abortion)?
I just don't see what you are so up in arms about, to be honest. I'm
not sure why you've gone into attack mode. What I have promoted
is that sex outside of a commited relationship is problematic, at best.
That since this behavior creates many social problems, that it is best
(safer and healthier - both physically and emotionally) to wait until
you are married (or in a commited relationship).
My definition for "commited relationship" is a life-long partnership.
It need not be an "official" marriage.
-steve
|
| 20.8570 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:42 | 14 |
| .8567
Tony has the right on it in this note.
I've said basically the same thing, but not as clearly as is written in
his .8567.
Appologies if any of my entries were somehow misleading in this regards
(we aren't supposed to be discussing my personal life, though, so
excuse me if I don't go out of my way to state how I, personally, run
my life in every single note 8^) ).
-steve
|
| 20.8571 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:46 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 20.8570 by ACISS2::LEECH "Terminal Philosophy" >>>
> excuse me if I don't go out of my way to state how I, personally, run
> my life in every single note 8^) ).
<crestfallen look>
|
| 20.8572 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:49 | 1 |
| A dab of gel would keep that crest up, Polly.
|
| 20.8573 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Wed Feb 26 1997 17:56 | 29 |
| Steve,
I disagree with a batch of things. One virginity is no more than a
piece of tissue to me. It is not a gift to bring into a realationship,
anymore than a tongue or uvula.
I agree that unprotected sex with a variety of partners puts one at a
higher risk of problems with STD's and unplanned pregnancies than no
sex, but know people including myself too well to believe that only
these two extremes are operative in an arguement. I see nothing wrong
with unattached sex, as long as it is protected, and both people know
that that is what they are getting out of that relationship. I do
believe a person should be mature enough to know the difference between
this and love, however, I don't see multiple partners as a problem if
all are consensual and conscious of what they are doing.
I don't see sex outside of an LTR to be necessarily a bad thing, nor do
I feel it should impact on a relationship, other than the factors of
children and STD's.
I do see buying into a relationship with no idea of what the world or
partnership is like to be setting a marriage up for failure.
No Steve, I don't know all your criteria, I can only know from what
you write and I read. What you have written here seems to be setting
up another relationship for failure and, in the process, hurting a small
child. If this isn't true fine.
meg
|
| 20.8574 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 18:34 | 17 |
| RE: .8560 Steve Leech
> If folks weren't out there fornicating with abandon, there wouldn't be
> 1.3 million abortions per year, plagues of STDs, and likely there would
> be far fewer dysfunctional relationships.
The responsible people who have protected sex without being married and
who are not involved in abortions, STDs, etc. are quite literally not
part of the problem at all.
> Of course, uncommited sex isn't the problem, it's only the results of
> this activity, right?
If the specific "results" do not occur to the individuals who are having
the sex, then they are quite literally and most definitely not part of
the problem at all (so they should go on their merry way without being
hassled.)
|
| 20.8575 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 26 1997 18:36 | 15 |
| .8573
"I disagree with a batch of things. One virginity is no more than a
piece of tissue to me. It is not a gift to bring into a realationship,
anymore than a tongue or uvula."
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who hold a similar view and
that is one of the primary reasons for the problems we face. This same
attitude is being transmited to kids who don't have the maturity to make
rational and reasoned decisions. It also sounds an awful lot like
rationalization of activities as opposed to a solid foundation.
To each his own, but that attitude is very destructive to children and
is really the basis for the disagreement.
|
| 20.8576 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 18:49 | 27 |
| RE: .8575 Rocush
> Unfortunately there are a lot of people who hold a similar view and
> that is one of the primary reasons for the problems we face.
Sanctimonious attitudes like yours are the single biggest reason why
we won't solve our problems. You're more interested in pointing nasty
little fingers at people than in simply addressing important health
issues.
> This same attitude is being transmited to kids who don't have the
> maturity to make rational and reasoned decisions. It also sounds
> an awful lot like rationalization of activities as opposed to a
> solid foundation.
It's a matter of valuing people as HUMAN BEINGS rather than as bits
of tissue which need to be intact (as if you were talking about buying
new cars vs. used cars, which is pretty dehumanizing.)
> To each his own, but that attitude is very destructive to children
> and is really the basis for the disagreement.
Your attitude is destructive to kids who make some other decision
(other than your holier-than-thou edicts.)
Kids need to know that they are valued as human beings first and
foremost, whether they have a bit of tissue intact or not.
|
| 20.8577 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 26 1997 18:53 | 16 |
| .8574 (Suzanne)
> The responsible people who have protected sex without being married and
> who are not involved in abortions, STDs, etc. are quite literally not
> part of the problem at all.
Nonsense. Contraceptives fail, and pregnancy does occur... STDs can
still be spread even with contraceptive devices.
> (so they should go on their merry way without being
> hassled.)
Who has suggested that these people be hassled? Another red herring.
-steve
|
| 20.8578 | | BUSY::SLAB | Can you hear the drums, Fernando? | Wed Feb 26 1997 18:55 | 6 |
|
Steve's right and everybody else is wrong.
Can't you boneheads see that? I mean, it should be painfully ob-
vious after reading the same argument 14000 times.
|
| 20.8579 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Wed Feb 26 1997 18:56 | 5 |
| .8576
A whole bunch of red herrings in that note. I'm losing count fast.
You really can't follow a focused discussion, can you?
|
| 20.8580 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 26 1997 18:58 | 4 |
|
I wonder how many of these red herrings Steve eats, and how many he
lets rot?
|
| 20.8581 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 18:58 | 21 |
| RE: .8577 Steve Leech
>> The responsible people who have protected sex without being married and
>> who are not involved in abortions, STDs, etc. are quite literally not
>> part of the problem at all.
> Nonsense. Contraceptives fail, and pregnancy does occur... STDs can
> still be spread even with contraceptive devices.
Don't be stupid. The contraceptives didn't fail for these individuals,
nor have they spread any STDs at all.
Therefore, by your own criteria, THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM.
>> (so they should go on their merry way without being
>> hassled.)
> Who has suggested that these people be hassled? Another red herring.
Stigmas against sex outside of marriage would hassle these people,
and such things have definitely been suggested in this topic.
|
| 20.8582 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 18:59 | 7 |
| RE: .8679 Steve Leech
> A whole bunch of red herrings in that note. I'm losing count fast.
> You really can't follow a focused discussion, can you?
You can't stop yourself from being stupid, can you.
|
| 20.8583 | ....BOOM.... | APACHE::KEITH | Dr. Deuce | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:00 | 32 |
|
Advocate admits 'partial-birth' abortion not rare
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK (AP) -- A prominent supporter of abortion rights says he
''lied through my teeth'' when he said that so-called partial-birth
abortions were performed rarely and only to save the mother's life
or to abort malformed fetuses.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of
Abortion Providers in Alexandria, Va., a coalition of 200
independently owned clinics, made the admission in an article to be
published March 3 in Medical News, an American Medical Association
publication.
The article was quoted in Wednesday's New York Times.
Fitzsimmons, who had insisted the procedure was rare in a November
1995 interview on the ABC show ''Nightline,'' now says abortion
opponents are right when they say the procedure, intact dilation
and evacuation, is common.
He said that in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is formed
on a healthy mother who is five months pregnant with a healthy
fetus. ''The abortion rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks
know it, and so, probably, does everyone else,'' he said.
He said he had lied because he feared the truth would damage the
cause of abortion rights, but now he is convinced that the debate
on the issue must be based on the truth.
|
| 20.8584 | | BUSY::SLAB | Can you hear the drums, Fernando? | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:01 | 8 |
|
RE: .8582
There's 1 of those questions that's not easily answered with a
simple yes/no, eh?
Well, hopefully not, for Steve's sake.
|
| 20.8585 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:08 | 8 |
|
I wonder if people in the Netherlands call each other stupid and comment
as to the presence (and whereabouts) of their brains.
Jim
|
| 20.8586 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:09 | 26 |
| RE: .8583
> He said that in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is formed
> on a healthy mother who is five months pregnant with a healthy
> fetus. ''The abortion rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks
> know it, and so, probably, does everyone else,'' he said.
Gee, the proponents of the bill against late term abortions described
women who were 9 months pregnant having abortions on fetuses who were
fully prepared to live on their own if given just a few more inches
out of the womb.
Of course, that lie should have been obvious when you realize that
a full-term baby would have to be turned into a breech position to
deliver the head last (such that the procedure could be performed
with the fetus's head still in the womb.)
How does this guy define "common", by the way? If his practice
performs such procedures, they may seem common to him - but I've
never even met someone who had the option of such procedure.
The women who can't afford a child (or another child) most definitely
can't afford to find a doctor willing to do a specialized procedure
like this one.
His new story sounds a bit fishy (unless he was quoted out of context.)
|
| 20.8587 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:10 | 3 |
| .8585
the insult exchange is just about equal, jim.
|
| 20.8588 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:11 | 1 |
| Reading this, they prolly think our brains are in our nether regions.
|
| 20.8589 | Nice double standard you have there, Jim... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:12 | 11 |
| RE: .8585 Jim Henderson
> I wonder if people in the Netherlands call each other stupid and comment
> as to the presence (and whereabouts) of their brains.
It would never in a million years occur to you to question whether
people in the Netherlands would repeatedly question each other's
cognitive ability, though, with suggestions that they lack the
capability to "follow" a discussion.
All's fair if the person happens to be on YOUR side of the debate, right?
|
| 20.8590 | RE: Colin | BUSY::SLAB | Can you hear the drums, Fernando? | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:13 | 3 |
|
Why, is there a problem in thinking with my head?
|
| 20.8591 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:14 | 1 |
| yeah... your brain was aborted long ago
|
| 20.8592 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Carnations,not just for Easter anymore | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:26 | 2 |
|
rough crowd lately, like eagles at feeding time.
|
| 20.8593 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:36 | 5 |
|
> All's fair if the person happens to be on YOUR side of the debate, right?
Where the heck did I say that?
|
| 20.8594 | You let the comments from 'your side' go right on by... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:42 | 2 |
| You demonstrated it, Jim.
|
| 20.8595 | Misc. | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:46 | 38 |
| Hi Suzanne,
Could you maybe reply to my last reply to you?
Hi Meg,
I'm sorry if I was being holier than thou! I was pretty
upset though!
Hi All,
The main tenor of my involvement has been the idea that
the government ought not be involved in any programs for
the simple reason of them not being in the business of
conveying morality.
I also want to stress the idea that the status of our
hearts is the important thing. For the idea of whether
or not a person is a virgin. Some people think that
casualness regarding sex verses noncasualness about it
implies something that pertains to one's heart.
Thats why I see virginity equated to a physical part as
something I strongly disagree with. I equate it to perhaps
saying something about who a person is - depending upon
why of course.
Anyhow, I'm interested in a reply to me lastest reply Suzanne
and after that, I might be all set.
This has been fun and very thought provoking for me.
By the grace of God I hope to care about the whole lot of
you!!! ;-)
Take Care and God Bless,
Tony
|
| 20.8597 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:52 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 20.8594 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>
| You demonstrated it, Jim.
I have to disagree with this Suzanne.
|
| 20.8598 | | BUSY::SLAB | Candy'O, I need you ... | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:55 | 4 |
|
Does that mean that you have to agree with the other Suzanne, who-
ever she is?
|
| 20.8599 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Wed Feb 26 1997 19:56 | 3 |
| /| You demonstrated it, Jim.
i have to agree with this, suzanne.
|
| 20.8600 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Wed Feb 26 1997 20:40 | 22 |
| .8596
Where did this come from?!? I've been mostly reading lately. I pretty
much gave up on responding since there are a couple of people that
simply refuse to respond to the questions or points raised without
making personal attacks or entering responses that are so far off the
issue as to be ludicrous.
Their position is very clear and it boils down to a simple, do it my or
no way. No discussion will take place unless it is on their terms and
exactly how they dictate.
Unfortunately, their attitude is what creates the problems, both from
the creation of the problem as well as effectively eliminating any
possibility of correcting the problem.
There have been a lot of attempts to present possible solutions and
alternatives which have been summarily dismissed because they deviated
from their mantra.
Such a shame.
|
| 20.8601 | Tony was right about you. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 21:43 | 5 |
| Rocush, you certainly are blind to your own personal attacks against
others (unless you consider your sanctimonious position to be such
that whatever you sling at people simply must be morally justified
somehow.) Talk about situational ethics..
|
| 20.8602 | Deleted | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 21:44 | 6 |
| Oh heck Rocush, I shouldn't have singled you out! I'll delete
that reply.
I'm still waiting for Suzanne's reply to my last one to her.
Tony
|
| 20.8603 | | BUSY::SLAB | Catch you later!! | Wed Feb 26 1997 21:53 | 3 |
|
Wimp. Assert yourself like the man you claim to be!!
|
| 20.8604 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 22:01 | 41 |
| RE: .8561 Tony
>> "without requiring huge government expenditures..."
> Well, it oughtn't require any!
Are you also against all medical research funding (for diseases like
cancer and AIDS)? Probably, I guess.
I wouldn't rule out all possible medical research spending for this
matter (since it currently involves more people than the other diseases
which affect Americans every year.)
Just depends on the request for funding.
> I would have a real hard time with anyone trying to tell you
> that you would not have the right to spread your program
> to the masses in whatever privatized way you might want to.
Some people complain quite bitterly about the media, even though
they use their own money to spread their ideas/messages.
> My inclusion of government has really only one purpose.
> Which is to state my position as candidly and as accurately
> as I can. I cannot possibly do that without speaking my
> convictions about the government.
So much in life these days seems to boil down to a hatred for the
government.
It's no wonder government workers fear for their lives these days
(and I'm talking about people who simply do honest, working class
jobs without trying to oppress anyone.)
> Now, if you want to explain to me how my resorting to government
> is a matter of convenience, I'm all ears.
It's like invoking images of mother and apple pie when you want to
bring a tear to someone's eye. It's a trendy rallying cry for the 90s.
Sorry, but it is. :/
|
| 20.8605 | Nice Dialogue (All In All) | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 22:33 | 24 |
| Hi Suzanne,
Well, we might have ended up seeing things differently, but
in this case, I think our dialogue was fruitful. It seemed
to traverse a few peaks and valleys (!), but we seemed to
logically find the parting of our ways.
I personally embrace the idea of not desiring for the govt.
to be involved in certain things *AND* for caring for all
persons (whether government employees or no).
You're right. I'm against all govt. funded AIDS research.
My governmental bent is very nearly anarchist which is where
I think the founding fathers idea of individual sovereignty
lies.
My concept of apple pie reaches all the way back to the ideas
evoked by Thomas Jefferson and I am sure that were he to see
our day, there would be much more than a single tear in his
eye. :-(
Take Care and Thanks,
Tony
|
| 20.8606 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Wed Feb 26 1997 22:42 | 15 |
| Thanks, Tony!
By the way, you said you were against government funding for AIDS
research, but you didn't mention cancer (or heart disease.)
Hopefully, you're against funding for all medical research and you
weren't trying to single out AIDS.
Personally, I like the idea of medical research. I also like it
when the government funds space exploration.
Anyway, thanks for your comments!
Peace,
Suzanne
|
| 20.8607 | Yeah, I'm Consistent | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Feb 26 1997 23:03 | 8 |
| Yeah, Suzanne, you're right. I'm against all medical funding
by the govt. I'm consistent!
Your welcome and I appreciate your friendliness with me!
By the way, I do want to help people. Just in other ways.
Tony
|
| 20.8608 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Wed Feb 26 1997 23:15 | 9 |
|
Tony, I take it you never see a doctor, never take any medication of
any kind (like asprin) as all of these things had come about by medical
research. So do ya, Tony?
Glen
|
| 20.8609 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Thu Feb 27 1997 01:49 | 10 |
|
> -< You let the comments from 'your side' go right on by... >-
> You demonstrated it, Jim.
fine. So I did.
|
| 20.8610 | seems to undermine the pro PBA position's credibility | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Feb 27 1997 11:38 | 43 |
| Abortion rights supporter admits lie
By Associated Press, 02/27/97
NEW YORK - A prominent supporter of abortion rights says he "lied
through my teeth" when he said so-called partial-birth abortions were
performed rarely, and only to save the mother's life or abort malformed
fetuses.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of
Abortion Providers in Alexandria, Va., a group of 200 independently
owned clinics, made the admission in an article to be published Monday
in Medical News, an American Medical Association publication. It was
quoted in today's New York Times.
Fitzsimmons, who had insisted the procedure was rare in a November 1995
interview on the ABC show ``Nightline,'' now says abortion opponents
are right when they say the procedure, intact dilation and evacuation,
is common.
He said that in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed
on a healthy mother who is five months pregnant with a healthy fetus.
``The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it,
and so, probably, does everyone else,'' he said.
He said he had lied because he feared the truth would damage the cause
of abortion rights, but now he is convinced debate must be based on the
truth.
The procedure involves extracting a fetus through the birth canal, feet
first, and then suctioning out the brain. Congress passed a law to ban
the procedure, which opponents say borders on infanticide, but
President Clinton vetoed the law and Congress failed to override the
veto.
In explaining his veto, Clinton said the procedure was used on ``a few
hundred women every year'' whose fetuses are ``about to be born with
terrible deformities.''
The Record of Hackensack, N.J., reported in September that doctors at
one clinic in suburban Englewood estimated using the procedure in about
half of the 3,000 abortions they perform each year on women in their
20th to 24th weeks of pregnancy.
|
| 20.8611 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Thu Feb 27 1997 11:40 | 13 |
| .8589
I'm not questioning it, I'm stating a fact. You cannot follow a
focused discussion (at least with me). Period. You'd rather try and
focus on my personal moral code, or some other non-related subject.
You continually fail to address key parts of my posts, while bringing up
one irrelevancy after another.
I'm not questioning your intelligence or anything like that, I simply
think that you are unable to get past our differing world views.
-steve
|
| 20.8612 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Carnations,not just for Easter anymore | Thu Feb 27 1997 11:55 | 4 |
|
.8611
sounds to me like you're questioning her intelligence.
|
| 20.8613 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 27 1997 12:07 | 13 |
| .8601
"Rocush, you certainly are blind to your own personal attacks against
others (unless you consider your sanctimonious position to be such that
whatever you sling at people simply must be morally justified somehow.)
Talk about situational ethics.."
Please identify the instances that support this claim, particularly in
terms of personal attacks. Or do you interpret a personal attack
anything that disagrees with your point of view and questions the
position you hold? If such is the case, then most debates are nothing
more than personal attacks. I really don't think so.
|
| 20.8614 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Thu Feb 27 1997 12:24 | 5 |
| .8612
Nope. Saying one has filters which they read things through, and
saying one has a questionable number of IQ points, are two entirely
different animals.
|
| 20.8615 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Thu Feb 27 1997 12:28 | 17 |
|
> In explaining his veto, Clinton said the procedure was used on ``a few
> hundred women every year'' whose fetuses are ``about to be born with
> terrible deformities.''
> The Record of Hackensack, N.J., reported in September that doctors at
> one clinic in suburban Englewood estimated using the procedure in about
> half of the 3,000 abortions they perform each year on women in their
> 20th to 24th weeks of pregnancy.
<eagerly anticipating Mr. Clinton's encouraging Congress to take up the
bill again>
Jim
|
| 20.8616 | Queen of Denial | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Feb 27 1997 13:12 | 17 |
| > <eagerly anticipating Mr. Clinton's encouraging Congress to take up the
> bill again>
The White House has released a statement that Bill Clinton will have no
comments on this report.
Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Action League, said: "If [Fitzsimmons] thinks he lied, that's his problem.
We have not."
Ms. Michelman suggested that if the public was confused, it was because the
press may have misreported the facts.
"I don't know what Ron Fitzsimmons has said that really should be raising so
many questions. He hasn't said anything new, as far as I'm concerned."
/john
|
| 20.8617 | | BULEAN::BANKS | Saturn Sap | Thu Feb 27 1997 13:25 | 7 |
| Well, that surgeon dude sure did shoot all his credibility to h___.
Definitely took a page from the Bill & Hill book of incremental revisionist
disclosure.
Not that it alters my views on the topic one whit. It's just that
sometimes, there are people who I just wish weren't on my side of the
argument...
|
| 20.8618 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 27 1997 14:28 | 9 |
| The problem is that Clinton, assuming he has principals at all, has
painted himself into a box. He claims his veto of the bill was because
this was a very rare procedures affecting acouple of hundred abortions
a year and they were necessary to save the life of the mother or the
fetus was severely deformed.
Since the basis for his veto is no longer valid, he should step forward
and request the bill be re-presented so he can sign it.
|
| 20.8619 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Feb 27 1997 14:35 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 20.8618 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> The problem is that Clinton, assuming he has principals at all,
well, there's the Cabinet.
|
| 20.8620 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Thu Feb 27 1997 15:01 | 1 |
| does the cabinet have any cheerios?
|
| 20.8621 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Feb 27 1997 15:01 | 19 |
| > He said that in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed
> on a healthy mother who is five months pregnant with a healthy fetus.
five months?
> The Record of Hackensack, N.J., reported in September that doctors at
> one clinic in suburban Englewood estimated using the procedure in about
> half of the 3,000 abortions they perform each year on women in their
> 20th to 24th weeks of pregnancy.
20th to 24th week? 2nd Trimester?
> -< seems to undermine the pro PBA position's credibility >-
I thought all the fuss about so-called partial birth abortions was
because these fetuses were ready to be born and survive outside the
womb. Whose credibility is exposed now, Mark?
DougO
|
| 20.8622 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 27 1997 15:07 | 7 |
| .8621
The issue is that the original contention was that this procedure was
only performed on women whose lives were at risk or the fetus was very
badly deformed and would probably not survive. such is, and was not,
the case.
|
| 20.8623 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Feb 27 1997 15:38 | 19 |
| The original contention? Huh! Not likely that the people who
are quite happily performing privately contracted services for their
happy clients are going to be making 'contentions' about procedures.
No, the ORIGINAL contention was that the procedure was being used to
kill off fetuses who would otherwise be ready to pop out and sign up
for social security cards. Such extremely late term abortions are
still known to be EXTREMELY RARE.
Lemme go see if I can find the way it was reported in here...
.2465> The bills sponsors, including Rep. Charles T. Canany, Florida
> Republican, call the practice inhuman, maintaining that the fetus is
> alive and within inches of being a legal person when its life is ended
> by the physician.
.2493> ... examines the legislation dealing with a rare and controversial
> late-term procedure known as dilation and extraction,
DougO
|
| 20.8624 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 27 1997 17:40 | 11 |
| .8623
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. the fact is that more
than 10X the number of these procedures are performed than originally
presented. This would mean that those performed in the last trimester
would be significantly higher than originally stated. Also, at 24
weeks you're talking about a six month old fetus. A five month old
premature baby has a reasonably successful rate of survival. At six
months it's even higher. this procedure is being performed on healthy
babies and women and the babies are literally inches from being born.
|
| 20.8625 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Feb 27 1997 17:50 | 5 |
| 25 weeks gestation is realistically the limit of viability for a fetus,
and at that the chance of serious disability and death is much higher
than the chance of survival with no significant damage.
meg
|
| 20.8626 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 27 1997 18:08 | 29 |
| RE: .8611 Steve Leech
> I'm not questioning it, I'm stating a fact. You cannot follow a
> focused discussion (at least with me). Period. You'd rather try
> and focus on my personal moral code, or some other non-related subject.
> You continually fail to address key parts of my posts, while bringing up
> one irrelevancy after another.
You repeatedly and persistently make personal comments about those who
try to converse with YOU, of course. You start almost every note you
write with a designated shot.
You believe YOU can justify your actions, though, which makes you quite
the hypocrite.
> I'm not questioning your intelligence or anything like that, I simply
> think that you are unable to get past our differing world views.
You lack the cognitive ability to converse properly. Not that I'm
questioning your intelligence or anything, either, right?
Your problem is that you live on such a tight mental track with your
ideology that you can't handle it when other trains and tracks come
near you. In your mind, they're all necessarily irrelevant.
You have one very narrow ideology which is the only thing allowed to
make any sense to you. Everything and everyone else is out of whack
(which makes it quite literally impossible for you to converse with
anyone about YOUR little choo-choo unless they're already on board.)
|
| 20.8627 | Next, you'll say that 3 and 4 month fetuses could survive... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 27 1997 18:20 | 8 |
| RE: .8624 Rocush
> A five month old premature baby has a reasonably successful rate of
> survival. At six months it's even higher.
Rubbish. A five month old fetus has almost NO chance of survival
outside the womb.
|
| 20.8628 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 27 1997 18:29 | 5 |
| .8627
Oh, you are out there. I see you didn't find it necessary to reply to
.8613. I didn't expect it.
|
| 20.8629 | MOST of us are shooting at each other here. Own up to yours. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 27 1997 18:38 | 15 |
| RE: .8628 Rocush
> Oh, you are out there. I see you didn't find it necessary to reply to
> .8613. I didn't expect it.
Well, I wasn't around earlier. Of course, I didn't expect you to remove
your head from your nether regions long enough to notice.
Rocush, extract your notes from this topic and notice your pattern.
You don't usually quote others right away (to get into the discussion.)
Usually, you start with a shot (which your situational ethics enable
you to justify as being 'the truth', since you're the one writing it.)
So others fire back at you, which then gets you complaining like hell.
|
| 20.8630 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 27 1997 19:46 | 12 |
| .8629
"Usually, you start with a shot (which your situational ethics enable
you to justify as being 'the truth', since you're the one writing it.)"
Please indicate where I have done this other than responding in kind to
something that was directed at me. My morals certainly allow me to
respond, but I have not used terms like having your head up your nether
regions or used ther term stupid unless quoting a prior entry.
I was fairly certain you would be unable to support your claim.
|
| 20.8631 | Not surprised that you refuse to accept personal responsibility... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 27 1997 19:58 | 43 |
| RE: .8630 Rocush
>> "Usually, you start with a shot (which your situational ethics enable
>> you to justify as being 'the truth', since you're the one writing it.)"
> Please indicate where I have done this other than responding in kind to
> something that was directed at me.
As mentioned, you usually don't start out quoting something which was
written to you. First, you shoot. Then you respond to what was
actually written to you.
> My morals certainly allow me to respond, but I have not used terms
> like having your head up your nether regions or used ther term stupid
> unless quoting a prior entry.
You call people "pathetic" or whatever, and it's not in response to
someone else's shot. You start out a great many of your notes with
a shot which is completely fired off on your own.
Do you think it's an accident that even Tony called you on this?
> I was fairly certain you would be unable to support your claim.
So much for personal responsibility for your actions. If you'd read
your notes in this topic, you'd know that you do have a tendency to
come out shooting (without having anyone else's shot to quote before
you pull the trigger yourself.)
There's no way in hell you will own up to your responsibility for
this, though. Responsibility is something other people are supposed
to do (not you.)
For what it's worth, many of the notes in extremely divisive topics
like "Abortion" are filled with people shooting at each other.
It's just rather disgusting that you won't admit that your gun has
been out of its holster all this time while you complain that others
have shot at you.
Accept personal responsibility for your actions, Rocush. God knows,
you demand the hell out of everyone else to do this, so it ought to
be good enough for you.
|
| 20.8632 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 27 1997 20:31 | 16 |
| .8631
Apparently you really don't read what I write in detail. If you think
that my use of the word "pathetic" is a personal attack, well....
My use of "pathetic" is directed at the response or the logic, not the
person. If this is the best you can come up with then my original
question remains.
As I requested Tony to support his point, and weas not given an swer, I
assume it was hyperbole and treated it as such.
Until such time as specific personal attacks are identified, I feel no
rewsponsibility to justify what I didn't do. It really is impossible
to prove a negative.
|
| 20.8633 | Can you do this? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 27 1997 20:33 | 9 |
|
Rocush, for one entire day, keep the shots out of your notes to me.
Forget the personal comments altogether (and I mean every single
nasty, sarcastic jab) - and I can guarantee you that none of my
notes will jab back at you on that day.
Give it a try. It'll be a cool experience for both of us. :>
|
| 20.8634 | You still refuse to accept personal responsibility... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 27 1997 20:42 | 43 |
| RE: .8632 Rocush
> Apparently you really don't read what I write in detail.
This is a personal comment. You're not talking about a note or an
argument. Do you realize that the word "YOU" (first person pronoun)
refers to a human being?
> If you think that my use of the word "pathetic" is a personal attack,
> well....
You are pathetic. (Who is being referenced here?)
> My use of "pathetic" is directed at the response or the logic, not
> the person.
Right. What I meant earlier was that your note had its head up its
nether regions. So why complain about it.
> If this is the best you can come up with then my original question
> remains.
I'm not going to repost all your nastiness. Even as you respond now,
your nastiness is evident.
> As I requested Tony to support his point, and weas not given answer,
> I assume it was hyperbole and treated it as such.
How self-serving of you. Tony was just being nice.
> Until such time as specific personal attacks are identified, I feel no
> rewsponsibility to justify what I didn't do. It really is impossible
> to prove a negative.
You will never take personal responsibility for your actions, so why
bother reposting the jabs. You'll deny that they are jabs or you'll
try to justify them.
You preach personal responsibility like it's going to save the world,
but you do not practice this yourself.
This is one big reason why society will never go along with you on
the other crap you suggest.
|
| 20.8635 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Feb 27 1997 20:43 | 8 |
| .8633
"Forget the personal comments altogether (and I mean every single
nasty, sarcastic jab) - and I can guarantee you that none of my notes
will jab back at you on that day."
Sauce for the goose?
|
| 20.8636 | Color me surprised. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 27 1997 20:47 | 18 |
| RE: .8635 Rocush
>> "Forget the personal comments altogether (and I mean every single
>> nasty, sarcastic jab) - and I can guarantee you that none of my
>> notes will jab back at you on that day."
> Sauce for the goose?
Does this mean you agree to it????
Cool! Let's try it tomorrow (February 28th.)
Remember, this means ***NO*** personal comments AT ALL!! None of this
crap where you accuse someone of not reading (or being able to read)
responses, and none of the sarcastic bullshinola about how you didn't
expect to get a certain response, etc., etc., etc.
Can you do this? I mean, really?? Let's try!
|
| 20.8637 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Thu Feb 27 1997 20:53 | 1 |
| I...Al....take you ....Suzanne...to be my lawfully wedded....
|
| 20.8638 | Huh? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 27 1997 20:56 | 2 |
| Who is Al?
|
| 20.8639 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Feb 27 1997 21:03 | 37 |
| >I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.
I'm disputing your earlier claim as to what was the "original"
contention. I'm saying that practitioners and clients are unlikely
to have made any contentions about these procedures until someone
attacked them and attempted to get Congress to outlaw the procedure.
The attacks are the "original contention".
> the fact is that more than 10X the number of these procedures are
> performed than originally presented.
But NOT as late term procedures.
> This would mean that those performed in the last trimester would be
> significantly higher than originally stated.
Nonsense. Go back and read .8621- the 2 parts of the article quoted
there make it perfectly clear that the increased number of d&x
procedures now being admitted happen in the 2nd trimester.
> A five month old premature baby has a reasonably successful rate of
> survival.
Nonsense- only in the best neonatal hospitals, and under enormous
expense, is the survival rate at all 'reasonable'. Most are not
viable outside the womb without extraordinary care.
But the original point stands- all the fuss attempting to outlaw d&x
was predicated on the late-term aspect and the supposition that the
fetus was viable. How misleading all that hype was. Now we find out
they were really attempting to outlaw a common procedure in 2nd
trimester abortions, pretending the fetus was mere inches from an
oh-so-carefully-stipulated "legal" if completely unviable "birth".
This news damages the credibility of the PR spin from both sides.
DougO
|
| 20.8640 | A very serious suggestion... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Thu Feb 27 1997 22:41 | 22 |
| In all seriousness, Al Rocush and Steve Leech, if you would prefer
to converse about this topic without all the personal comments on
BOTH SIDES, it can easily be arranged.
We simply have to agree to it, and I'm certainly willing.
Please understand that it *is* personal to comment on someone's
ability to comprehend or understand something, and it's also
personal to suggest negative/ulterior motives when someone does
not respond to a given question.
It's entirely possible for us to refrain from ALL such personal
remarks, and I suggest we give it a try.
It does mean being civil to each other, though. <shudder>
We may all end up so sweet that we give each other toothaches,
but I wouldn't worry too much about the dental bills until we
put this idea in field test for awhile. :>
If you want to go this route, just let me know. I think it would
be great!
|
| 20.8641 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Carnations,not just for Easter anymore | Fri Feb 28 1997 11:05 | 3 |
|
<----- I have an even better idea for you three. Get your very own
private conference, and blast away with your insults with impunity.
|
| 20.8642 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 28 1997 12:22 | 18 |
| .8639
I did not see anything that refuted the claim that this procedure is
used in the third trimester. What has been presented is that the
procedure is used for a lot more second trimester pregnancies than
originally stated. Nothing changed the number of instances where this
was used in the third trimester.
What is more telling is the admission that this procedure is performed,
in the majority, on healthy babies and women. this is a direct
reversal of the original contention.
Also, I did not claim that a five month old does not require special
care, but that most information I have seen indicates that at five
months a baby has a good chance of surviving. That odes not mean that
48 hours after birth the baby goes home, but that with proper care it
can complete its development and go home.
|
| 20.8643 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 28 1997 13:16 | 16 |
| At five months, the fetus weighs less than one pound. The chances
for survival are very slight. When a fetus does survive this early,
it's big news.
At six months, the chances are somewhat better - the fetus weighs
more like two pounds. Long-term survival is still far from certain.
A little boy was born in my extended family after 6 months last
year - he lived for almost eight months without ever leaving the
hospital. The extended time on a respirator totally destroyed
his lungs - he had no chance of growing or thriving on his own,
so they finally had no choice but to let him go. He weighed two
pounds at birth.
At five and six months, the lungs simply aren't developed well
enough. It's very rough on a baby born this prematurely.
|
| 20.8644 | | ACISS2::LEECH | Terminal Philosophy | Fri Feb 28 1997 13:42 | 18 |
| >Your problem is that you live on such a tight mental track with your
>ideology that you can't handle it when other trains and tracks come
>near you. In your mind, they're all necessarily irrelevant.
I got a good belly-laugh out of this one, oh yes I did. This is the
single best P&K candidate I've seen in a good while.
> You have one very narrow ideology which is the only thing allowed to
> make any sense to you. Everything and everyone else is out of whack
> (which makes it quite literally impossible for you to converse with
> anyone about YOUR little choo-choo unless they're already on board.)
And this addition to the above is simply priceless.
It's always a pleasure, Suzanne. 8^)
Peace.
|
| 20.8645 | March 3rd is another day. You and I could try that day... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 28 1997 13:59 | 6 |
| So much for having a day without personal comments, Steve.
While I realize that we didn't all agree to it, I certainly hoped
it would be possible. I know it's difficult, but I dreamed anyway. :>
Mr. Rocush does have my respect so far today, though.
|
| 20.8646 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Feb 28 1997 14:41 | 5 |
| .8645
that scares me. I'm almost tempted to throw something out there just
for the heck of it.
|
| 20.8647 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 28 1997 14:46 | 5 |
| Hey, it scares me, too! :> But I meant it.
Thank you, Al.
Suzanne
|
| 20.8648 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Carnations,not just for Easter anymore | Fri Feb 28 1997 14:53 | 2 |
|
<---- when'e the wedding?
|
| 20.8649 | Ahem... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Feb 28 1997 14:58 | 5 |
|
Hey, I warned about possible toothaches. :>
See your dentist. :>:>
|
| 20.8650 | Dead Doctors Don't Lie | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Sun Mar 02 1997 12:45 | 93 |
| Reply Note 20.8608
Hi Glen,
* Tony, I take it you never see a doctor, never take any medication of
*any kind (like asprin) as all of these things had come about by medical
*research. So do ya, Tony?
Was the medical research through private or govt. funding? If both, what
are the percentages???
Do you really believe I would be morally wrong if I did Glen???
Am I to suffer if research came about through means I had no control over?
How do we know what research findings there may have been had there been
no governmental involvement? (If you keep reading, I suggest MANY!)
Have you ever heard of a tape called 'Dead Doctors Don't Lie'?
Its a very fascinating tape. I am pretty convinced that if we didn't have
the present highly insured, government involved, and largely FDA driven
health system we have today, we would be a lot better off. (Not to mention
bodies in bed with the govt. such as AMA and powerful pharmaceuticals.)
Right now the FDA would just as soon prevent us from being able to bear
our own responsibility to purchase vitamins and nutraceuticals. They want
them to be prescription only! THEY want to regulate our health and (in
so doing) take our own rights from us. Pompous, power hungry pigs!!!
The tape I mentioned would be illuminating for you. It would suggest that
our medical system is a mess. Our treatment of people is a shambles.
For the last fifty years, a kidney stone was diagnosed as caused by an
unhealthy surplus of Calcium in the system. For longer than that, farmers
have known that the same condition in cows is caused BY A CALCIUM DEFICIENCY.
The person is suffering from a raging osteoporosis and Calcium is literally
leeching from bones because the body is so starved for it. It thus sometimes
collects in places.
In cows, there is a related condition to the problem of kidney stones which
is called water belly. The condition is usually fatal. This is why farmers
figured out how to cure cows. They needed to in order to financially survive.
The above is one example of several.
Our medical system has injected into our culture an almost total ignorance
of the principal means one can have with which to be at optimum health -
and all at horrific expense.
Our medical system will charge half a billion to replace a heart when most
of the time, the person simply lacked Copper or some other nutrient or didn't
eat right.
Our medical system will offer joint replacement surgery for who knows how
much when all that was needed may have been Calcium or a powerful antioxidant
such as pycnogenol or a xeroniene (an alkaloid) rich source such as noni
juice or glucosolamine or a combination of water/honey/vinegar. Furthermore,
many arthritic persons are given something which takes away the pain thus
allowing the person to continue stressing the joint(s) and actually getting
worse.
Type 2 diabetics get their insulin due to sugar level problems when they
are insulin resistant. Insulin causes high blood pressure and thus they
are between a rock and a hard place. All they may have needed is a xeronene
source or supplements of chromium and vanadium which may have reduced sugar
levels to proper levels *AND* removed the need for so much insulin *THUS*
reducing high blood pressure.
So whats my answer to you?
1) You seem to propose that I ought to do some analysis to determine the
percentage of a research that was done through private financing
verses government. This is ludicrous.
2) I believe most people would be way way way better off if they were
entirely removed from our medical system and its costs and simply took
accountability for themselves by FINDING OUT for themselves.
I would just as soon have nothing to do with the medical system. I am
fine taking my vitamin supplements, colloidal minerals, grape seed extract,
and noni juice. All of these IN SPITE of the medical system (never found
out from them) and at my cost. (They are in the business of financing much
more expensive 'solutions' - so called - at an expense that is crippling
all of us.)
The average person would be so much better off. And if I were to be the
unlucky person to need their methods, I would hope to stick to my principles
and rot.
Man, I'd really like to be a sovereign and just completely disenfranchise
myself from the govt!
Tony
|
| 20.8651 | Correction | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Sun Mar 02 1997 18:04 | 1 |
| I meant to say half a million and not half a billion.
|
| 20.8652 | Oh, That One Really Hurts | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Sun Mar 02 1997 20:27 | 16 |
| Is it just me or does a five month fetus seem like its probably
pretty developed? Does it feel? Are all the organs there? Is
there brain activity?
It kind of makes me think of the half empty/half full perspective.
Some people might think from the perspective of what it still
isn't (like probably could not survive outside the womb) while
others might think from the perspective of what it already is.
Man, the thought of a five month old fetus' brains getting sucked
right out of its head is excruciating for me.
It hurts me just to think about it...
Tony
|
| 20.8653 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 03 1997 00:39 | 37 |
| | <<< Note 20.8650 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| Was the medical research through private or govt. funding? If both, what
| are the percentages???
Tony... I would think if gov funding was bad, then you would know what
was what before hand. You see Tony, you SAY you are against it, but you use the
stuff everyday.
| Do you really believe I would be morally wrong if I did Glen???
I would believe on this one thing you don't really stand by what you
say.
| Am I to suffer if research came about through means I had no control over?
Ahhhh.... now the justification for it..... sorry... it doesn't work.
| The tape I mentioned would be illuminating for you. It would suggest that
| our medical system is a mess. Our treatment of people is a shambles.
While I believe the FDA could ease up on their restrictions, I really
know nothing about drugs. I don't really know if they really aren't helping us,
saving us.
| 1) You seem to propose that I ought to do some analysis to determine the
| percentage of a research that was done through private financing
| verses government. This is ludicrous.
No... if you are REALLY against any meds founded by fed $$$$, then you
either have to do this, or state what you said differently.
Glen
|
| 20.8654 | Your 'Logic' Is Not Mine | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 12:25 | 26 |
| Agree to disagree.
I believe the medical system has made health care more expensive
and I believe humanity, in a governmentless fashion, would have
found those remedies.
I simply disagree with your logic.
I also believe that most findings were acquired via pharmaceutical
moneys with the expectation that the 'drug' would be profitable
in the long run.
I suppose if SCUBA diving was invented by (say) a communistic
body of persons, your logic states I must never SCUBA dive if
I disagree with communism.
If the wheel was developed by a 'think tank' within a despotic
regime, I (as personally against despotism) ought never use
wheels.
Is this not your reasoning? If not, how is it not?
I find your logic to be absurd, imo.
Tony
|
| 20.8655 | Addendum | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 13:32 | 4 |
| Just to be clear. I am assuming that SCUBA and wheels
were 'discovered' in part via government funding.
Tony
|
| 20.8656 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Mar 03 1997 13:54 | 2 |
| Teflon, micro chips, telemetry were also researched with the help of
government funds.
|
| 20.8657 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Mar 03 1997 14:05 | 3 |
|
Let's not forget Tang!
|
| 20.8658 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Mar 03 1997 14:06 | 8 |
| .8656
some of those items were developed as part of military/security matters
which is a proper role for the federal government. Teflon, I believe,
was an off-shoot of the space program which was given high priority
more as a security issue than research. the fact that they may have
had commercial value is really immaterial.
|
| 20.8659 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Mar 03 1997 14:26 | 3 |
| Rocush,
all of the products I listed have medical applications.
|
| 20.8660 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 03 1997 14:37 | 19 |
| | <<< Note 20.8654 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| in a governmentless fashion, would have found those remedies.
And who would have funded the studies? Be real, Tony. A lot of good has
come out of studies, both funded by the gov and funded privately. Whether or
not the prices are too high based on the gov, the studies costing so much, or a
combo of both in some cases, I really don't know.
| If the wheel was developed by a 'think tank' within a despotic
| regime, I (as personally against despotism) ought never use wheels.
If you say you are against ALL medical funding by the government, but
are willing to use the product anyways, then don't you think it is hypocritical
of you?
| I find your logic to be absurd, imo.
Oh well.....
|
| 20.8661 | May We Scrutinize With My Wheel Analogy??? | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 15:42 | 41 |
| Hi Glen,
I posed an argument that you seem to have sidestepped.
Let me be real clear...
Premise 1
Tony is morally against govt. financing of research
for certain kinds of projects.
Premise 2
It is wrong to use anything whose existence came
about via a source one is morally against.
Conclusion:
It is wrong for Tony to use anything whose
existence came about via govt. financing.
Hypothetical Case 1:
Assume the wheel came into existence via government funding
under a monstrous, dictatorial government regime.
Premise 1 is relevent here. Premise 2 is relevent
here.
Conclusion:
It is morally wrong for Tony to use wheels.
Glen, for your argument to definitely be true, it must be
universally applicable.
What are your thoughts regarding my hypothetical example
(wheels)? If you think I ought to be able to use wheels,
how can you insist your line of reasoning be correct? With
my wheels analogy, your line of reasoning is as I stated.
Unless you believe in some statute of limitations (time) or
something. Which would be subjective, i.e. how long is long
enough to wait? On what basis?
Tony
|
| 20.8662 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Mar 03 1997 15:52 | 6 |
|
> I posed an argument that you seem to have sidestepped.
Not Glen!?
|
| 20.8663 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 03 1997 16:21 | 20 |
| | <<< Note 20.8661 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| Glen, for your argument to definitely be true, it must be universally
| applicable.
Universally applicable for those who believe as you do, yes.
| What are your thoughts regarding my hypothetical example (wheels)?
It works for you, those are my thoughts. I don't believe as you do, so
it would not apply to me. You can see that, right?
Tony.... you are the one who made the claim. *I* did not. For YOU to
have the claim be true, then as you said, you can't use the product that was
funded by the gov. Yet you use products everyday that you don't know if they
were made from gov funding. Why aren't you finding these things out?
Glen
|
| 20.8664 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Mon Mar 03 1997 16:33 | 7 |
|
re .8633
That has to be the funniest note I have ever read
in Soapbox.
|
| 20.8665 | It was a very peaceful day in this topic... | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Mar 03 1997 16:58 | 3 |
|
It worked, though. :>
|
| 20.8666 | I Honestly Don't Think As You Do | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 17:24 | 15 |
| I don't understand, Glen. The exact same reasoning requires
me to not use wheels (given my hypothetical example).
I honestly do not see as you do on this!
I invite any other participants to provide their opinion on this.
Given my hypothetical example, on what basis should I consider it
morally wrong to use medical stuff that may have been provided
by govt. funding and also BE ABLE to use wheels that were developed
by govt. funding???
Either I should not use both or I should be able to use both (imo).
Tony
|
| 20.8667 | Glen, Did You Consider This??? | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 17:35 | 8 |
| By the way Glen, the following is another tack, but did
you reckon the possibility that I might pay federal taxes?
That is, I have paid as much as most anyone my age for the
govt. funding that is used for such research (even if I disa-
gree with it in principle).
Tony
|
| 20.8668 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Mar 03 1997 17:36 | 11 |
| Getting back to the Breast Cancer abortion link from earlier this year,
or late last year.
According to the study there was a possibility of a lifetime risk
increase of 30% if one had an abortion.
This should be balanced against other known risk factors. Living in an
industrialized urban area raises one's risk 50% and being extra tall
for a woman raises the BC risk 50 - 100 %
meg
|
| 20.8669 | Another Factor | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 18:19 | 11 |
| re: -1
There is another factor people might weigh.
The principle of esteeming all others more important than oneself
verses the principle of esteeming oneself more important than all
others.
People do the above to varying shades of degree, imo.
Tony
|
| 20.8670 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 03 1997 18:25 | 30 |
| | <<< Note 20.8666 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| I don't understand, Glen. The exact same reasoning requires me to not use
| wheels (given my hypothetical example).
And I AGREED with that....IF you also believed that gov funding for
ANYTHING was bad. You have reasons for not wanting the gov to fund medical
stuff. I don't agree with them, or there isn't enough info for me to come to
the same conclusions as you.... but they are your reasons. Now, you may like
the gov funding other things because they actually do it right. Ok, not much
chance here, but it's a stab. :-) When you state all things, then yes, it has
to be applied universally.
Hopefully this example will help clarify.... I hate spinich. Does that
mean I hate all vegetables?
| and also BE ABLE to use wheels that were developed by govt. funding???
When you state you don't mind the gov spending on wheels, then the
wheels fall under the meds. Although like with the meds I'm sure you won't look
into who which wheels the gov discovered, and which wheels other people
discovered. :-)
| Either I should not use both or I should be able to use both (imo).
If you feel the same way about gov funding for EVERYTHING, then you
can't use anything funded by the gov.
Glen
|
| 20.8671 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Mar 03 1997 18:26 | 9 |
| .8669
Hi Tony,
I really don't understand your factor as it relates
to Meg's note.
Thanks,
Bonnie
|
| 20.8672 | Just A Pointer To Selflessness | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 18:31 | 14 |
| re: -1
Hi Bonnie,
It was just meant to suggest the possibility that some people
make decisions where part of the basis is other than what
benefits self.
In the case of Meg's reply, all of the data supported stuff
that appeals to self. Self need not be the only appeal.
That's all!
Tony
|
| 20.8673 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Mar 03 1997 18:39 | 9 |
| .8672
Hi Tony,
Are you saying that when a woman weighs health risk
factors she's being selfish?
Thanks,
Bonnie
|
| 20.8674 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Mar 03 1997 18:40 | 5 |
|
Oph is very polite, isn't she?
|
| 20.8675 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Mar 03 1997 18:41 | 9 |
| > Are you saying that when a woman weighs health risk
> factors she's being selfish?
Lessee. Weighing in one hand health risk factors, in another, the pleasure
of sexual congress, and in the third hand, the termination of a life.
No selfish decisions to make there. None at all.
/john
|
| 20.8676 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Mar 03 1997 18:47 | 9 |
| .8675
Hi John,
If you want to carry on a reasonable conversation,
try to stay on track.
Thanks,
Bonnie
|
| 20.8677 | Maybe your railroad just doesn't go there | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Mar 03 1997 18:50 | 3 |
|
I submit that I'm very much on track, TYVM.
|
| 20.8678 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:02 | 3 |
|
I believe that. Bonnie's railroad is a reasonable one.
|
| 20.8679 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Carnations,not just for Easter anymore | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:02 | 6 |
|
what's with the "new" and "improved" Bonnie? I prefer the old one
anyday.
Thanks
Mark
|
| 20.8680 | I Was Out of Line | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:03 | 19 |
| re: .8673
Hi Bonnie,
I think if a woman weighs her health risk factors *only*,
she is being selfish.
I was out of line. I speculated something out of Meg's
reply that was just that - speculation. (Sorry Meg.)
Thinking of thousands of five month fetuses get their brains
sucked out of their heads really got to me. It caused me to
read something into a reply that saw one's own concerns being
weighed and not concern for the unborn. It caused me to
speculate a thought unfairly toward Meg's reply.
As Rosanna sanna danna would say, "Nevermind!"
Tony
|
| 20.8681 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:09 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 20.8680 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| I think if a woman weighs her health risk factors *only*, she is being
| selfish.
I'm not Bonnie... but I agree with you....you were totally out of line.
If a woman's health is at risk, that should be what is talked about. For
someone who believes 2 parents are better for a kid, why would you let one of
the parents possibly die?
|
| 20.8682 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:09 | 4 |
|
Who cares, it's only a woman and there are plenty of them where she
came from.
|
| 20.8683 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:10 | 1 |
| i had forgotten that, Deb. How stupid of me.
|
| 20.8684 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:11 | 9 |
|
Hi Tony,
That's okay. When you travel on the same track as
John, expect derailments now and then.
Thanks,
Bonnie
|
| 20.8685 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Carnations,not just for Easter anymore | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:13 | 3 |
|
oph is starting to worry me. prolly due to hanging out with old
goats or something.
|
| 20.8686 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:35 | 1 |
| i'm in touch with my chi today.
|
| 20.8687 | | BUSY::SLAB | A swift kick in the butt - $1 | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:51 | 3 |
|
Please, this is a family conference!!
|
| 20.8688 | Wow | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:56 | 20 |
| re: .8681, .8682
Help me out here!
I was responding to Meg's note. HER note was the context
of my reply! In her note, the health risk mentioned was
that of having a 30% greater risk of breast cancer if having
an abortion.
I apologized for speculating.
OK, so, Glen, you speculated that the context of my reply was
inclusive of the pregnant woman's life. PLEASE CITE THE SOURCE
OF THAT CONTEXT.
Mz deb...I invite you to do the same.
where have I ever hinted at such disregard for a woman's life???
:-(
|
| 20.8689 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Mar 03 1997 19:57 | 3 |
|
Where did I say I was talking about you?
|
| 20.8690 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:00 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.8688 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| where have I ever hinted at such disregard for a woman's life???
When you said that if she only took her health into concern, that she
was being selfish. So if having a baby was putting her health at risk to the
point she could die, she would be selfish for doing so. Or do you have a limit
of how bad one's health can be before it isn't selfish?
|
| 20.8691 | Huh??? | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:00 | 9 |
| I reply.
Glen replies and alludes to my reply.
You reply and remain within the same subject matter as
Glen's reply and allude to Glen's reply.
Isn't the logical inference that you were seconding the
thought string that was Glen's???
|
| 20.8692 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:03 | 3 |
|
I was just blurting out my personal feelings on the subject.
|
| 20.8693 | Context | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:04 | 6 |
| Glen, that wasn't the context.
The context was Meg's reply which was not remotely about
a life threatening situation.
Tony
|
| 20.8694 | OK | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:05 | 6 |
| Oh, OK, mz deb.
Well, we're in the same boat then. I feel I am being bigtime
misunderstood as well.
Tony
|
| 20.8695 | | BUSY::SLAB | A swift kick in the butt - $1 | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:06 | 4 |
|
Deb, please try to remain relevant to the current thread when
blurting.
|
| 20.8697 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:07 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.8693 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| Glen, that wasn't the context.
Oh.... cancer isn't life threatening anymore.... sorry, my fault.
|
| 20.8698 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:08 | 3 |
|
I can't help it. Today is a blurty day.
|
| 20.8699 | You were out of line, true. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:09 | 5 |
| RE: .8693 Tony
Meg's reply was not remotely about anything which could be
considered selfish.
|
| 20.8700 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | ready to begin again | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:10 | 1 |
| deb, try to get in touch with your chi.
|
| 20.8701 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:12 | 3 |
|
<fumble>
|
| 20.8702 | Uh Huh! | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:54 | 3 |
| Yes, Suzanne! I know!
<feeling sheepish>
|
| 20.8703 | What Constitutes Life Threatening | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 20:55 | 6 |
| Glen,
Yeah, it was cancer, but how do you define life threatening?
30% greater risk is 1.3 times what probability???
Tony
|
| 20.8704 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Mar 03 1997 21:00 | 10 |
| Tony
lifetime risk for most women is 1 out of 10. (that is the full average
from birth to death) Breast cancer rates very for given populations
and at various ages, as does the survival rate. Typically
premenopausal breast cancers tend to be more invasive than
post-menopausal cancers, those that may be connected to organo-chloride
exposure also tend to be more aggressive (IE Rachel carson).
meg
|
| 20.8705 | OK | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 03 1997 21:31 | 3 |
| Yeah, thats pretty high.
From 10% to 13%. Yeah, thats significant...
|
| 20.8706 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Mon Mar 03 1997 21:40 | 6 |
| It's not as significant as the increased risk of breast cancer for
women who live in cities (or who happen to be tall.)
This was Meg's point.
|
| 20.8707 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Mar 03 1997 21:51 | 22 |
| suzanne, tony,
and the 30% increase in risk is disputed by studies where women were
followed throughout their lives. In one study from Scandanavia, there
was no increased risk.
there is a way people can significantly lower their risk for
premenapausal breast cancer and for ovarian cancer, but that requires a
baby and breastfeeding friendly culture. We don't have that in the US
and actually are now in the process of actively discouraging same for
poor women. (see welfare deform) Even though it is estimated that
WIC, and medicaid could save 29 billion/year and we could reduce SIDS
deaths by 30%/year, halve the juvenile cancer rate, and reduce juvenile
diabetes potentially by as much just by getting women to breastfeed on
demand, we are still pushing policies which will continue to discourage
breastfeeding among the poor.
Keep abortion safe and legal, but push methods that will save living,
breathing babies' lives.
meg
|
| 20.8708 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 03 1997 23:15 | 17 |
| | <<< Note 20.8703 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| Yeah, it was cancer, but how do you define life threatening?
| 30% greater risk is 1.3 times what probability???
Tony.... it isn't up to *ME* to define what is life threatening for
someone else. Some people think that sky diving is life threatening. Some
people do not. Does that mean that everyone has to go by what 1 person thinks
is life threatening?
Now please answer the question on whether you have a certain degree of
life threatening before you call a woman unshelfish if she were to have an
abortion.
Glen
|
| 20.8709 | Misc. | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Mar 04 1997 12:09 | 47 |
| Hi Meg, Suzanne,
Oh yeah...my point wasn't to try to defend not having an
abortion because the 30% is kind of high (being 30% more
than 10%), I was just agreeing with you guys that we're in
the real where the risk is not insignificant! But, yeah,
I see that some factors that are unrelated to the choice
to have an abortion are higher.
You know...I have heard that our medical industry, in terms
of research, is sexist. Like if men had breasts like women
do, maybe things would be different. (Well, I guess things
would be different in a lot of ways, but you know what I
mean!)
Hi Glen,
Man, you're grating on me! Boy, do you nag, nag, nag!!
I'm not sure I understand your point, but I'll take a stab at
it. One, I think we'd all be better off being "unshelfish"
which I take to mean not eating shellfish.
Seriously, I think there is a difference between respecting the
right for a person to have their own set of values and not
respecting another's values themselves.
For example, if the risk of liver cancer do to eating hot
dogs goes up 0.0002 % and if a certain person's value system
is such that they will refrain from eating hot dogs because
they are life threatening, I would repect the person having
that belief.
However, in a public forum, I would honestly state mine, i.e.
it is not health threatening for you. I personally would not
refrain from eating hot dogs for that reason, etc., etc.
That is, I would retain my own set of values including what
constitutes health risk and communicate on the basis of that
set. I would also respect the right of another to have another
set of values.
I am seeing more and more that we are quite different in the way
we think!!!
Tony
|
| 20.8710 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Mar 04 1997 12:25 | 15 |
| .8707
"there is a way people can significantly lower their risk for
premenapausal breast cancer and for ovarian cancer, but that requires a
baby and breastfeeding friendly culture. We don't have that in the US
and actually are now in the process of actively discouraging same for
poor women. (see welfare deform)"
Can you please explain what you mean with this? Particularly the part
about not having a baby and breastfeeding friendly culture.the only
thing that I have ever seen or heard regarding breastfeeding was that
some people have stated that modesty and privacy be part of the
activity. I certainly do not think this is unreasonable and certainly
not unfriendly.
|
| 20.8711 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you! | Tue Mar 04 1997 12:58 | 15 |
|
Rocush,
Simply put, society in general freaks when women breastfeed in
public. In the US, we're so hung up on sex being sinful and
breasts = sex, that something as natural as breastfeeding is
considered a no-no in public. What are women to do? Get
reprimanded for NOT breastfeeding when at the same time, they're
supposed to sit in bathroom stalls or something when at a mall
or a restaurant because no one wants to have to see them do it!
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
JJ
|
| 20.8712 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:00 | 25 |
| Rocush,
We do NOT have a breastfeeding-friendly culture. Only one hospital in
the US fits the WHO definition of encouraging breastfeeding and has
been certified. Less than 48% of babies are exclusively breastfed in
the first 36 hours of their lives and women are sent home with formula.
Pediatricians are not educated about breastfeeding, and often sabotage
efforts to breastfeed with such nice statements as "Well, what if
something happened to you? Your baby wouldn't understand how to use a
bottle!" and continuing to use growth charts that are based on formula
weight curves. They climb the frames of breastfeeding mothers when the
kids don't match the curves of a higher protein diet. this may be one
reason that less than 25% of US women are breasfeeding after 4 months.
WIC buys 40% of all infant formula, and there again, the counselers
have been taught that formula growth curves are the only growth curves.
They push formula on women, rather than looking at the overall health
and development of a baby, being focused only on weight. Babies
should not be treated like state fair pigs IMO.
Despite studies showing lower absenteism of emplyees who breastfeed,
and reduced insurance costs, most companies make little to no provision
for women to have privacy to express milk other than a bathroom stall.
(ick) Better still would be on-site childcare, but only enlightened
coutries managed to do that.
|
| 20.8713 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:08 | 11 |
| Dratted tits!
should only be seen in adult entertainment venues and men's magazines.
How dare anyone use them for what they were intended.
I have this great picture from Ina May Gaskin's book on breastfeeding.
It is a moslem woman in full head covering offering her baby a tit.
Even a community that finds a face to be a sex object manages to
recognize the importance of feeding a baby.
meg
|
| 20.8714 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:14 | 12 |
| >Only one hospital in
>the US fits the WHO definition of encouraging breastfeeding and has
>been certified.
Would that be Nashual Memorial? They certainly went out of their way
to get my wife beast feeding the baby ASAP for both deliveries. They
also praised the virtues of breastfeeding.
We also experienced NONE of the rest of what you have written.
Doug.
|
| 20.8715 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:17 | 26 |
| .8711 & .8712
As far as doctors and hospitals providing formula as opposed to
breastfeeding, a lot has to do with formula provider promotions and not
being unfriendly. Formula also is not bad for babies, it merely is not
as good as breastfeeding.
As far as society having a bias against breastfeeding in public, I
certainly agree, but that does not mean that society is unfriendly to
breastfeeding. There are many natural, normal and healthy biological
functions that need not be done in public. That does not mean that we
are unfriendly toward those functions.
My wife breastfed all three of our children and really never felt that
she was being inconvenienced or people were unfriendly toward her. She
understood that this was very good for the babies but that modesty was
important also.
My father was very, very supportive of breastfeeding and was very glad
that my wife was breastfeeding. when he visited and my wife needed to
feed the baby he made sure that he turned slightly in his chair to give
her privacy, but not exclude her.
I see nothting wrong with supporting breastfeeding, but recognizing
that a reasonable amount of modesty is appropriate as well.
|
| 20.8716 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:19 | 16 |
| > Dratted tits!
> should only be seen in adult entertainment venues and men's magazines.
> How dare anyone use them for what they were intended.
A simple towell is all that is needed to ward off the stares at what
is an uncommon sight in this country.
And that is the problem. It is an uncommon sight and is treated like one.
There are also laws about exposure to conflict with.
Welcome to the melting pot, where the lowest common denominator is all
that is acceptable.
Personally, I feel a little modesty is a good thing.
Doug.
|
| 20.8717 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:20 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 20.8715 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
> I see nothting wrong with supporting breastfeeding, but recognizing
> that a reasonable amount of modesty is appropriate as well.
I agree 100%. Pretty unpopular position with a lot of
women these days, though. What? You want us to be
modest about it?! But it's so natural! Blah, blah, blah.
|
| 20.8718 | commonplace | GAAS::BRAUCHER | And nothing else matters | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:21 | 11 |
|
My wife breastfed all 3 of ours, way back in the 70's.
My mother breastfed me, during WWII.
My grandmother had to breast feed my father. That's all there was.
But then, of course, none of them were working women at the time, although
all held jobs at other times in their lives.
bb
|
| 20.8719 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:22 | 10 |
|
I think there is little as wonderful as a woman breastfeeding a baby,
and frankly I don't care where they do it. That is the intended purpose
of that particular portion of the female anatomy, as I recall. I don't
understand what all the ruckus is about.
Jim
|
| 20.8720 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:26 | 7 |
| When my mother had her first child and wanted to breastfeed him (1948),
people thought she was crazy. Society's attitude towards breastfeeding
has radically changed. Women who decide _not_ to breastfeed are berated
these days.
Breastfeeding is a quiet time for mother and baby to bond. YMMV, but I
don't bond well at the mall.
|
| 20.8721 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:28 | 18 |
| doug,
Lucky you.
Friend's daughter is being beaten up by WIC because her daughter isn't
fat enough. Good grief! sho just started walking at 11 months and kids
usually stop gaining when they really get mobile. They want her
pouring a milk-based formula into the kid, even though she gets wheezy
when she is formula fed and gets an ear infection within a week.
I am the one who had the lecture from the pediatrician. He doesn't see
my kids, but he is still practicing in town and still spreading the
message that exclusively breastfed babies may starve to death if mom
gets sick or dies. He convinced my neighbor who really can't afford
formula that her milk was not "quality" enough to raise a baby.
ARRRRRGH! this stuff should have died in the 70's.
meg
|
| 20.8722 | | DECWIN::JUDY | That's *Ms. Bitch* to you! | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:30 | 8 |
|
I certainly was not saying that women should flaunt it or
be blatant about it. But I don't feel we should have to
feel uncomfortable about doing it or be stared at (even when
using a towel for cover) either. (just for the record, I've
never been pregnant but know plenty of women who have children
and felt they were being "shunned" for breast feeding in public)
|
| 20.8723 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:33 | 9 |
| .8721
I have no doubt that some doctors as well as others may be opposed to
breastfeeding as not being the best alternative for a baby. That is
their opinion, but it does not make things unfriendly.
As .8717 said, a reasonable amount of modesty is not out of the
question. The dispute comes when personal values conflict.
|
| 20.8724 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:37 | 7 |
| Z Would that be Nashual Memorial? They certainly went out of their way
Z to get my wife beast feeding the baby ASAP for both deliveries.
Z They also praised the virtues of breastfeeding.
Doug, our daughter was born there also. Our obstetrician was a
husband/wife team and the wife didn't seem to like men at all! Did you
have the same doctors?!
|
| 20.8725 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:53 | 17 |
| | <<< Note 20.8709 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
| However, in a public forum, I would honestly state mine, i.e. it is not health
| threatening for you.
And you can make that statement, but be prepared to not have others
agree with it.
| I personally would not refrain from eating hot dogs for that reason, etc., etc
And this I agree with, as you don't believe it is true.
Glen
|
| 20.8726 | Some pediatricians tell Moms to stop nursing for no reason. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 04 1997 13:57 | 19 |
| When my son was born, the pediatrician I chose would only take
breastfed babies as prospective newborns. His entire newborn
practice was nursing moms and babies, and he was the strongest
support we had for it. He visited us at home to see how we were
doing. His nurses had the best advice for me on getting started.
We moved, and I couldn't find another pediatrician like this one.
Our next pediatrician told me to stop breastfeeding when my son was
about a year old. My son wasn't lacking in growth - he was quite
obviously going to be tall and muscular. So I said we'd stopped,
but we kept going anyway. It wasn't like the baby was going to tell. :>
We were already reserving nursing for home and friends' houses by
then (no longer in public at all.) I was a full-time college student
and working two part-time jobs to support us, so he and I needed the
continued bonding times.
My son was 6 ft tall by the time he was 12 years old. He was 6'3"
tall at 15 years old. He's also been extremely healthy all his life.
|
| 20.8727 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 04 1997 14:07 | 6 |
| > When my son was born, the pediatrician I chose would only take
> breastfed babies as prospective newborns. His entire newborn
> practice was nursing moms and babies, and he was the strongest
> support we had for it.
What did he do when breastfeeding turned out to be problematic?
|
| 20.8728 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Tue Mar 04 1997 14:15 | 20 |
|
I tend not to nurse my babies in public. My sister convinced
me once to nurse at lunch, since we were at a mall and getting
to a convenient spot would have meant abandoning my lunch.
I tried to be discreet, and draped a baby blanket over my
shoulder, but I found it awkward. After we finished lunch,
this very kind, starry-eyed young woman walked over to me
and shared how wonderful she thought it was that I had the
courage to nurse in public, and that most people would be
embarrassed, and that she hoped she'd be able to do that
when the time came.
I turned about 45 shades of red and decided I stick to dark
passages ;-)
I have seen plenty of women capable of nursing publicly and
no one can tell, but for some reason, I'm not one.
|
| 20.8729 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Mar 04 1997 14:19 | 5 |
|
>What did he do when breastfeeding turned out to be problematic?
told them to go find another doctor..
|
| 20.8730 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Mar 04 1997 14:30 | 7 |
| >So I said we'd stopped,
> but we kept going anyway. It wasn't like the baby was going to tell. :>
My kids weened themselve at around 7 months.
My sister-in-law BF till her kids were almost 3!
|
| 20.8731 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Mar 04 1997 14:30 | 7 |
| the midwife I deal with only does deliveries for women willing to sign
on for breastfeed for at least 6 weeks. Beyond the obvious health
benefits for babies, it also helps avoid postnatal infections,
hemorrage, and helps return the uterus to its prepregnancy size quickly
avoiding other complications.
meg
|
| 20.8732 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Tue Mar 04 1997 14:43 | 4 |
| Only till age three? at least they made it to the two year mark that
WHO recommends.
|
| 20.8733 | Lets not get carried away ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Mar 04 1997 15:04 | 7 |
| > Only till age three? at least they made it to the two year mark that
> WHO recommends.
I'm sorry child, but Dr. Who says you MUST suck on this until you are at
least 2 years old, no matter how much you'ld rather drink from a cup!
|
| 20.8734 | the tooth test... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | And nothing else matters | Tue Mar 04 1997 15:07 | 4 |
|
my wife tossed them once they bit, doc or no doc
bb
|
| 20.8735 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Tue Mar 04 1997 15:29 | 1 |
| I had nothing to do with it.
|
| 20.8736 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Tue Mar 04 1997 16:05 | 5 |
|
My kids weaned themselves as we added solid foods. Both
were weaned by age 1, thankfully.
|
| 20.8737 | Dr. Who would not approve ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Tue Mar 04 1997 16:34 | 3 |
| > ... thankfully
Blasphamy!
|
| 20.8738 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Tue Mar 04 1997 17:04 | 4 |
|
Well, as long as it wasn't blasphemy!
|
| 20.8739 | My son occasionally got milk/juice bottles, then drank from cup. | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 04 1997 17:09 | 32 |
| Breastfeeding and drinking from a cup are not mutually exclusive for
toddlers.
My son got a bottle for juice occasionally when he was an infant, but
he always frowned at the container. :> He thought it was bizarre.
He would never accept it again after started trying to learn to drink
from a cup.
When he could drink from a cup, this was his container of choice for
mealtime - he nursed at naptime and bedtime (or when he'd hurt himself
or got upset or keyed up badly for some other reason.)
When he was 2 1/2 years old, his new daycare facility called me
and asked if there was some special blanket or cuddly toy that he
needed to help him take naps. They said he was wide awake while
the other babies slept, so they wondered how I got him to sleep
at naptime. When I explained that I nursed him, they were a little
surprised, but it certainly explained why nothing they did at the
daycare center seemed to work to make him sleepy at naptime. :>
At one point, I considered stopping when I got sick when he was
18 months old. We did stop long enough for me to take medicine
and get it out of my system (almost two weeks.) He was very
depressed about it, though, so I asked him if he wanted to start
again. He flew across the room and landed in my arms happily.
He just wasn't ready to give it up when our lives were so busy
otherwise.
I made the decision right then and there to keep going until HE
decided that he was ready to stop. I kept it going until half-way
through my junior year as a full-time student (with two part-time
jobs.) He did make the decision to stop on his own.
|
| 20.8740 | Babies are smart. :> | SPECXN::CONLON | | Tue Mar 04 1997 17:31 | 20 |
| RE: .8734 bb
> my wife tossed them once they bit, doc or no doc
My son got his first teeth at 7 1/2 months old, and he only bit during
nursing twice.
The first time he looked at me and bit, the feeding ended. He didn't
cry or anything. It just seemed to me that he kinda got my message.
He got the message extremely well! A week later, when I wanted to feed
him early so I could go to the movies without having to make a bottle
of breast milk for him later - he wasn't hungry. He looked me right
in the eye and bit me (as if to say, "This ends the feeding, right?
Isn't that how it works?") :>
I got HIS message. I prepared a breast milk bottle and a juice
bottle, and never tried to feed him early again.
He never bit me again, either. :>
|
| 20.8741 | OK | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Mar 04 1997 18:35 | 3 |
| re: .8725
I deeply appreciate your concern that I "be prepared."
|
| 20.8742 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Mar 07 1997 10:31 | 134 |
| President quietly shifts on late-term abortions: Compromise would be
first US curb
By Ann Scales, Globe Staff, 03/07/97
WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration has been quietly helping to
design a compromise on banning most late-term abortions that, if
enacted, would mark the first federal restriction on legal abortion.
The compromise, which would ban abortion after about 23 weeks unless a
mother's health were in jeopardy, would represent a dramatic shift in
the quarter-century political battle over abortion.
President Clinton's agreement to such a plan would represent a break
from traditional Democratic alliance with women's groups that regard
any restriction as a lever to undermine abortion rights in general.
The proposal being considered would be acceptable to Clinton and many
abortion-rights supporters in Congress because it contains an exception
to protect women's health, unlike the bill the president vetoed last
year.
The exception to protect women's health is not so broad as to draw
opposition as did amendments that abortion-rights supporters offered
last year. In addition, Republicans who oppose abortion might be
willing to support the compromise as a way to restrict abortions.
Under the plan, abortions would be prohibited when a fetus becomes
viable. Viability is generally considered to be late in the second
trimester or in the third trimester of pregnancy. There would be an
extremely limited exception for health reasons or to save the life of
the mother.
Once there is agreement on the wording of the women's health exception,
``it's something I can safely say we will support,'' a White House aide
said yesterday.
The adminstration's renewed interest in tackling what may be the most
wrenching aspect of the abortion issue - late-term abortions - has
arisen amid a flurry of activity in Congress. Those moves began days
after an abortion-rights leader, Ron Fitzsimmmons, admitted that ``I
lied through my teeth'' about how often and when so-called ``partial
birth'' abortions occur.
Democrats and Republicans alike have spent the week introducing
competing legislation that would ban the procedure. A joint
House-Senate hearing on the issue is set for Tuesday.
Clinton aides have been working with the office of the Senate minority
leader, Thomas A. Daschle, to stake out a middle ground that would
appeal to Clinton, as well as to Democrats and Republicans who favor
abortion rights.
The goal is a bipartisan bill that does not brush too closely against
the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion and can withstand
legal challenges, aides say.
While the bill is close to being drafted, there still are differences
over the wording for the women's health exception and over whether to
make violation of the statute a criminal or civil offense.
``We are threading a very small needle with this,'' said a Daschle aide
who was involved in drafting the bill. ``We're doing everything we can
to write a meaningful and constitutional provision - that's our goal,
and that's the president's goal,'' the aide said.
The 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade did not outlaw late-term
abortions, but gave states the right to do so. Massachusetts and 40
other states have banned late-term abortions, with few exceptions.
Clinton has said consistently that he would sign a bill to ban this
particular type of late-term abortion if it included protections for
the mother's life and health. Some Democrats in Congress nearly lost
their seat in the November election for siding with Clinton on the
issue.
Banning the procedure ranks sixth on the list of Republican priorities
in this session in Congress. GOP leaders propose prohibiting not just
the third-trimester abortions but also second-trimester abortions as
well, with no exception for the mother's health. House Republicans have
placed their bill on a fast track with plans for a floor vote by the
Easter recess.
In a briefing with reporters this week, the White House press
secretary, Michael D. McCurry, signaled the administration's interest
in getting ahead of the GOP and getting a bill to the president's desk
that contains an exception for a woman's health.
``The president would willingly and gladly work with the Congress to
fashion a measure that would meet that concern, while banning a
procedure that most Americans, and the president included, consider
abhorrent,'' he said.
Republicans have been emboldened by the comments of Fitzsimmons,
executive director of the National Coalition for Abortion Providers,
who said that late-term abortions were often performed on healthy women
with healthy fetuses and were more common than he had claimed.
Representative Charles T. Canady, a Republican from Florida who
introduced a bill this week to ban the procedure, said the Clinton
administration's efforts fall extremely short.
``The suggestion he is making would preserve every partial-birth
abortion that might otherwise be performed. That's not a compromise,''
Canady said. ``I would rather pass no bill than pass a bill that's a
sham. I believe the president wants to have a compromise that in effect
would gut the bill.''
Susan Cohen, senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher
Institute in Washington, which tracks the number of abortions, said
abortion opponents have seized the momentum from the other side because
of Fitzsimmons's admission.
Still, she said, 99 percent of abortions occur within the first 20
weeks of pregnancy and late-term abortions account for only 1 percent
of the 1.5 million abortions performed annually. But ``the political
damage is indisputable,'' she said.
Abortion-rights supporters are concerned that their allies in the White
House and on Capitol Hill are drafting legislation that could chip away
at legalized abortion. Many say the exercise is to give congressional
Democrats a vote to show they don't support partial-birth abortion.
``All of this is unnecessary,'' said Kate Michelman, president of the
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. She noted that
states have the right to ban late-term abortions, and that the
procedure constitutes a small percentage of all abortions performed in
the United States.
``In general, I believe Congress should not be legislating in this
area,'' Michelman said. ``To have the federal government take this up,
there's no end to how many federal statutes and restrictions that would
then affect women regardless of where they live, how old they are, or
their economic status. It's a bad precedent.''
|
| 20.8743 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Fri Mar 07 1997 11:07 | 11 |
|
> President quietly shifts on late-term abortions: Compromise would be
> first US curb
> Clinton has said consistently that he would sign a bill to ban this
> particular type of late-term abortion if it included protections for
> the mother's life and health.
I guess I don't quite understand what the "quietly shifts" is all about.
|
| 20.8744 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Mar 07 1997 11:33 | 5 |
| cl9nton said that last year as well for post vviability abortions.
However, people on the "pro-life" side said that concern for health and
lives of women is so broad as to be meaningless.
|
| 20.8745 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Mar 07 1997 11:57 | 8 |
| > However, people on the "pro-life" side said that concern for health and
> lives of women is so broad as to be meaningless.
The Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton defined "health" to include any factors
which influence a woman's well-being, including not just physical health
but also psychological, social, or financial.
/john
|
| 20.8746 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Mar 07 1997 12:33 | 8 |
| Right John, and some of us consider that to be extremely important,
instead of considering women to be emotionless incubators whose only
impact from a pregnancy is a few stretchmarks.
If the "pro-life" faction, (the same people who are putting thousands
of born children at risk of death from welfare deform) is serious about
legislation on post-viability abortions, they need to come up with a
law that passes constitutional muster.
|
| 20.8747 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Mar 07 1997 12:43 | 5 |
| So if a woman's social or financial status would be adversely affected
by carrying an already viable child to term, you'd consider that a
"woman's health issue" for purposes of allowing the termination of such
a child? And you wonder why people claimed that the exception was
overly broad?
|
| 20.8748 | doctors have no business checking bank accounts - not competent | GAAS::BRAUCHER | And nothing else matters | Fri Mar 07 1997 12:53 | 14 |
|
horsefeathers. It is certainly NOT a health issue. It may be a
financial issue, but finance IS NOT health.
I'm sick and tired of people saying things are "health issues", when
they aren't. (Abortion is only a tiny piece of this.) Like the
Journal of Medicine article opposing war on "public health" grounds.
I see evidence of a health problem all right - the creep of "health"
people into areas they don't belong.
Stuff the doctors.
bb
|
| 20.8749 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Fri Mar 07 1997 12:57 | 7 |
| re: .8748
"...finance is NOT HEALTH..."
Tell that to someone who has no health insurance
and no money to go see a doctor.
|
| 20.8750 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Mar 07 1997 13:07 | 6 |
| >Tell that to someone who has no health insurance
>and no money to go see a doctor.
Which is not an issue unless they are unhealthy, sick or otherwise in
need of health care services. It is quite possible to have no health
insurance and no money to spend on a doctor and be perfectly healthy.
|
| 20.8751 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Fri Mar 07 1997 13:13 | 8 |
| re: .8750
Not necessarily true. You don't wait until your
teeth fall out to go see a dentist. You should
see you physician for a check up once a year.
It's a good way to keep yourself in good health.
|
| 20.8752 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Fri Mar 07 1997 13:16 | 4 |
|
Who cares, they're only women and there are plenty of spares out there
if one dies.
|
| 20.8753 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Fri Mar 07 1997 13:24 | 5 |
|
There are plenty of assistance programs available for
pregnant women with no money.
|
| 20.8754 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Mar 07 1997 13:24 | 3 |
| re: .8752
Martyrdom ill becomes you.
|
| 20.8755 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Fri Mar 07 1997 13:33 | 3 |
|
Hey, I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
|
| 20.8756 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Mar 07 1997 13:35 | 1 |
| me too.
|
| 20.8757 | | POWDML::HANGGELI | Let's Play Chocolate | Fri Mar 07 1997 13:37 | 4 |
|
It's difficult for ME to be a martyr when I'M not the one who's going
to die or have all her teeth fall out.
|
| 20.8758 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Mar 07 1997 13:51 | 4 |
| Well, that's the point, isn't it? The legions of women who are going to
die when the termination of viable fetuses is outlawed (for those not
facing an actual health problem) simply do not exist (as a result
of the law.)
|
| 20.8759 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Mar 07 1997 14:18 | 19 |
| .8746
"If the "pro-life" faction, (the same people who are putting thousands
of born children at risk of death from welfare deform) is serious about
legislation on post-viability abortions, they need to come up with a
law that passes constitutional muster."
What is really required is that we establish a Supreme Court that
determines the constitutionality of laws based on what is actually
written and not what judicial activitists think it should mean. there
is no place in the Constitution that should have involved the Suprmem
Court. The infamous Roe v Wade case should naver have been heard by
the Court as it was a state matter.
The only way the Court forced themselves into it was to so broadly
interpret certain areas of the Constitution, while minimizing others,
as to make the document meaningless. Now you want to hide behind the
Constitution when a ruling supports your bias? Please.
|
| 20.8760 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Mar 07 1997 14:31 | 12 |
| Who is hiding? Since 1972 abortion prior to viablity is only
restricted to safety issues. Post vialbility abortions may be
restricted, and given the fact that there are only 2 late-term abortion
providers in the country, and one says he won't abort a healthy, viable
fetus in a healthy mother, (don't know about the guy in Witchita) I
don't see what your problem is. Before you bring up the case of the
post viabilty abortion in NEwyork where the fetus was born healthy, if
missing one arm, New York already has restrictions on post-viability
abortions, and the provider there was working illegally out of an
office for cash and praying on the immigrant population.
meg
|
| 20.8761 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Mar 07 1997 14:42 | 5 |
| > If the "pro-life" faction, (the same people who are putting thousands
> of born children at risk of death from welfare deform) ...
Didn't the Catholic hierarchy come out against welfare reform in its current
form?
|
| 20.8762 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Mar 07 1997 14:54 | 10 |
| .8760
If what you say is, indeed, fact, then what is the issue. Partial
birth abortions are already illegal across the country, no one actually
performs these procedures, and if they do it such a small number to
protect the life of the mother, then what is your point in not having
this codified as a national understanding?
I think there is something you're not saying.
|
| 20.8763 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Mar 07 1997 14:55 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 20.8753 by SMARTT::JENNISON "And baby makes five" >>>
| There are plenty of assistance programs available for
| pregnant women with no money.
enough to cover everyone who fits into that catagory?
|
| 20.8764 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Fri Mar 07 1997 14:56 | 4 |
|
catEgory
|
| 20.8765 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Mar 07 1997 15:12 | 7 |
| .8763
It would appear that there are since I have yet to see any information
about any individuals not receiving the necessary care. Of course,
they may need to go to public clinics or hospitals, but the care is
there.
|
| 20.8766 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Mar 07 1997 15:17 | 15 |
| There is not medical care available for every pregnant woman in this
country. In Colorado alone there is no obstetrical care (with the
exception of lay midwives with no hospital privs) in 35 counties. For
many this means long drives over some pretty dangerous roads in the
winter, if they are at high risk, or moving away from friends and
family for the duration of a high-risk pregnancy.
Thiong two, rocush, if you really have a problem with post vialbility
abortions, why not put the wording the way it is already set up by
SCOTUS, instead of making a useless law, that will just cost all of us
money. Better yet, leave it to the states to regulate, as they already
have the ability to do, accortding to RvW. Or don't you believe in
state's rights when it is your ox that is gored.
meg
|
| 20.8767 | | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Mar 07 1997 15:20 | 16 |
| RE: .8765 Rocush
> It would appear that there are since I have yet to see any information
> about any individuals not receiving the necessary care.
"ANY" individuals? Are you suggesting that all pregnant women in this
country receive "the necessary care" associated with pregnancy and
childbirth?
> Of course, they may need to go to public clinics or hospitals, but the
> care is there.
How about women on Welfare who have additional children who are not
covered on AFDC? Do they get care for pregnancies which are not
allowed to count for Welfare assistance? (I'm referring to states
which already have laws against AFDC covering additional pregnancies.)
|
| 20.8768 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Mar 07 1997 15:22 | 2 |
| You mean like christine "why don't you abort that thing" Whitman's
state?
|
| 20.8769 | At what point do they deny medical assistance for this pregnancy? | SPECXN::CONLON | | Fri Mar 07 1997 15:24 | 7 |
| Yes, Meg.
Do they refuse to cover pre-natal care and childbirth expenses for
the pregnancy which won't be covered by AFDC, or do they simply
refuse to feed or provide medical coverage for the baby that is
born in this situation?
|
| 20.8770 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Mar 07 1997 16:56 | 19 |
| .8766
Answer to the last paragraph first. I am totally in favor of state's
rights and support the concept fully. As far as an ox being gored, my
ox was gored when the Supreme Court issued their original RvW decision.
the state already had its own rules and the Supreme Court stepped in
and invalidated them. the Supreme Court has continually interfered
with state's rights to regulate abortions. I believe they invalidated
the parental notifcation laws in several states as well as other
restrictions the states approved.
Do you have a problem with state's rights or just when your ox gets
gored?
Also, if people are going to say that someone else needs to pay for
their expenses, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that those
who are paying for the expenses have some right to establish the rules
under which those expenses are going to be paid.
|
| 20.8771 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Mar 07 1997 17:02 | 14 |
| Rocush,
Being a "liberal" I have no problem with tellng the states what to do.
since you are nominally a conservative, I would think that federal
control of stte issues would be something you would be opposed to.
Parental consent laws have been upheld in every case as long as there
is a provison for children in abusive households (IE judge hearing) In
case you haven't read through this string, a parental consent law
contributed to the death of a friend's grandaughter. Spousal consent
laws have been thrown out as interfereing with an adult person's right
to choose his or her medical care, as have other things which interfere
with a reasonable person's access to medical care.
|
| 20.8772 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Mar 07 1997 17:11 | 20 |
| .8771
I rest my case. Either you support state's rights or believe the
Constitution has no merit and federal laws need to run over states. If
that is the case, then you should have no problem with trying to get
federal restrictions on abortion as state's rules can be ignored by the
Supreme Court.
Also, the parental notification laws that were overturned, once again,
ignored state's rights. If a child is in an abusive home there are
more than enough laws already on the books to protect and remove the
child. If the situation isn't bad enough to remove the child, then why
is it bad enough to ignore the wishes of the parents when a little kid
gets pregnant.
The position on spousal notification and agreement is equally withour
merit. Either these issues belong to the states or the federal
government. The federal government is certainly not the place for them
as has been proven time and again.
|
| 20.8773 | | BUSY::SLAB | Go Go Gophers watch them go go go! | Fri Mar 07 1997 17:22 | 4 |
|
The day that you rest your case in this topic is the day that pigs
sprout wings and fornicate with flying donuts.
|
| 20.8774 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Mar 07 1997 19:21 | 4 |
| Remember, I am a big government liberal?
You say you are not, but are willing to support federal legislation
that would take some control away from the states, again.
|
| 20.8775 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Carnations,not just for Easter anymore | Fri Mar 07 1997 19:45 | 2 |
|
shawn, politics and abortion are hard.
|
| 20.8776 | | NHASAD::SHERK | I belong! I got circles overme i's | Fri Mar 07 1997 20:14 | 12 |
|
This partial birth abortion regulation is really bizarre. It would
make a method of abortion illegal and still allow an alternative.
Basically the alternative is to go in and chop the fetus to pieces
before removing it.
The pro-life activists push this becuase it looks like something they
might be able to get through. It hits the squeamish button.
Basically, though it begs the question and is bad law.
ken
|
| 20.8777 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon Mar 10 1997 09:39 | 10 |
| this whole approach by the anti-choice crowd is so transparent.
they have been defeated at the Supreme Court level so they are
attempting to use the same tactics as the anti-gunner crowd.
they're attempting to get a foothold, a small win that they hope
will open the door for more restrictions until they've bitten off
so many pieces of the Roe-Wade decision that it's not recognizable.
anyone missing this tactic is heavily medicated.
|
| 20.8778 | Just Kidding!! | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Mon Mar 10 1997 11:59 | 3 |
| re: .8760
Praying or preying??? :-O
|
| 20.8779 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Mar 10 1997 12:38 | 14 |
| .8774
You have missed or ignored my point. I am not a big government
supporter. I believe in state's rights and the original intent of the
constitution as written and discussed by the framers at the time.
Unfortunately, liberals and big government types have invalidated much
of the constitution and essentially eliminated statte's rights. That
being the case, there is little choice but to have big government step
in. If the constitution were followed in practice, there would be no
need for any federal restrictions. This unfortunately would just about
derail the entire liberal socialist agenda, so there isn't much of an
alternative.
|
| 20.8780 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 10 1997 13:24 | 5 |
|
I see the majority republican party has done oh so much to change the
power back to the states. Uh huh... it's easier to just blame the liberals if
they leave it the way it is... sort of like what you are doing....
|
| 20.8781 | | BUSY::SLAB | A Parting Shot in the Dark | Mon Mar 10 1997 13:31 | 10 |
|
Right now the democrats are responsible because they're in The
White House.
In 4 years they'll still be responsible, in TWH or not, because
the next occupants will still be trying to fix all of the mistakes
that were made.
Right, Doc? 8^)
|
| 20.8782 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Mar 10 1997 13:51 | 12 |
| .8780
Let's see which party was it that wants to remove the federal
government from welfare, education, health care, etc. Which was the
party that opposed a continual removal of constitutional protections
under the 2nd amendment? there are quite a few other examples, but I
can't really find any examples of Democrats refraining from gathering
more power and placing more restrictions and ignoring more of the
constitution.
If I've missed any, I'm sure they will be identified.
|
| 20.8783 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Mon Mar 10 1997 14:02 | 11 |
| The party of Bob "assault weapon ban is moot anyway so I won't work to
repeal it, or the Brady bill" Dole? The party of "55 MPH or lose your
highway funds" Nixon, or the "raise the drinking age to what we say or
else" Reagan?
The party that says it opposes abortion, but then goes out of its way
to make situations for women that may force them into same?
Ype Repub's true party of state's rights.
meg
|
| 20.8784 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 10 1997 14:07 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 20.8782 by ACISS1::ROCUSH >>>
| Let's see which party was it that wants to remove the federal government from
| welfare, education, health care, etc.
If they wanted this, and they have been in control, why didn't they do
it? Because even the repubs know they shouldn't remove the golden statue.
Repubs who came up with plans came up with STUPID plans. This is why
nothing happens. When their own party won't back them......
|
| 20.8785 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Mar 10 1997 14:19 | 14 |
|
> If they wanted this, and they have been in control, why didn't they do
>it? Because even the repubs know they shouldn't remove the golden statue.
It's called a presidential veto.
> Repubs who came up with plans came up with STUPID plans. This is why
>nothing happens. When their own party won't back them......
Ah yes, and the dems have a history of constructiong their own glowing plans
for the betterment of us all (not!). But wait! The pubs must have supported
something if the bill made it to Clintons' desk THREE TIMES!
Doug.
|
| 20.8786 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 10 1997 14:21 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 20.8785 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>
| Ah yes, and the dems have a history of constructiong their own glowing plans
Errr..... they developed plans that the party backs. That alone does
not mean it is a good plan. The repubs can only agree on one thing... blame the
dems.
|
| 20.8787 | Did you miss this part? | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Mar 10 1997 15:10 | 2 |
| But wait! The pubs must have supported
something if the bill made it to Clintons' desk THREE TIMES!
|
| 20.8788 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Mar 10 1997 15:47 | 3 |
|
Yah, but it was stupid..
|
| 20.8789 | You must have been refering to this ... | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Mar 10 1997 16:00 | 1 |
| >The repubs can only agree on one thing... blame the dems.
|
| 20.8790 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 10 1997 16:02 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 20.8787 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>
| But wait! The pubs must have supported something if the bill made it to
| Clintons' desk THREE TIMES!
It can make it there 3 times, but they can't overide it? Hmmm.... not
much support.
|
| 20.8791 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Mar 10 1997 16:15 | 12 |
| .8783
You're kidding of course. I seem to remember the bashing that any
Republican took by the Dems, Clinton/Gore and the media everytime a
mention was made of the Brady bill or gun control. Plus there was an
attempt made to get rid of Brady, which is a stupid law, and remember
the howling. It is always much more difficult to get rid of a law than
not to propose it in the first place.
Also, please idenify where the 55 MPH limit originated. Was this a
Nixon proposal or not.
|
| 20.8792 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Mar 10 1997 16:17 | 9 |
| .8790
Let's see, there is a bout 70% nationwide support for term limits. the
Republicans proposed it and voted, almost unanimously for it. It
failed becasue no Democrats supported it. Same with the balanced
budget amendment. If you really want to see things change then it's
easy. Give the Republicans a veto proof majority, which I think they
will get soon anyway.
|
| 20.8793 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Mon Mar 10 1997 16:40 | 14 |
|
> Also, please idenify where the 55 MPH limit originated. Was this a
> Nixon proposal or not.
I'm pretty sure it was..came about as a result of the "energy crisis"..
Jim who got his first speeding ticket shortly after it was enacted.
Jim
|
| 20.8794 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Mon Mar 10 1997 18:03 | 20 |
| RE: .8791
> Also, please idenify where the 55 MPH limit originated. Was this a
> Nixon proposal or not.
It was Nixon who instituted the 55 limit as a result of energy crises.
It was Sen Heckt (sp?), Rep Nevada that got the limit raised to 65, and
it was eventually the Republican controlled congress that got the
national speed limit eliminated.
A little over a year or so ago I read a good piece on the conservative
Vice President Nixon versus the presidential candidate/president
Nixon, whose policies were more liberal: including nationalized health
care.
Meg's constant complaining about Nixon's implementing a national speed
limit has as much to do with the current Republican party as blaming
the current Democrat party for slavery in the days of Lincoln.
-- Dave
|
| 20.8795 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Mon Mar 10 1997 18:05 | 8 |
| RE: .8790
> It can make it there 3 times, but they can't overide it? Hmmm.... not
>much support.
Since when have the Repubicans had two-thirds control of both houses?
-- Dave
|
| 20.8796 | | BRITE::FYFE | Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. | Mon Mar 10 1997 18:45 | 14 |
| > It can make it there 3 times, but they can't overide it? Hmmm.... not
>much support.
Gee, just how many of Reagan and Bush vetos were upheld? Pretty lousy
democratic bills they must have been proposing if they couldn't override them.
Now lets look at the current welfare state. When were these glowing
democratic bills made into law? Could it have been during a democratically
controlled house, senate, and executive office?
What was his name? Johnson?
Doug.
|
| 20.8797 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon Mar 10 1997 19:01 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 20.8796 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>
| Gee, just how many of Reagan and Bush vetos were upheld? Pretty lousy
| democratic bills they must have been proposing if they couldn't override them.
Exactly..... now you're getting it.
| Now lets look at the current welfare state. When were these glowing
| democratic bills made into law? Could it have been during a democratically
| controlled house, senate, and executive office?
When they went through, were they the way they are now, or were the
programs different?
|
| 20.8798 | Coulda been worse? | SMURF::PBECK | Paul Beck | Mon Mar 10 1997 19:31 | 8 |
| >> Also, please idenify where the 55 MPH limit originated. Was this a
>> Nixon proposal or not.
>
> It was Nixon who instituted the 55 limit as a result of energy crises.
If I recall correctly, the original limit was an executive order (or
the like) to 50 mph. 55 mph was the legislated limit after Congress
got through with it.
|
| 20.8799 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Mon Mar 10 1997 21:12 | 13 |
| Z As far as an ox being gored, my
Z ox was gored when the Supreme Court issued their original RvW
Z decision.
Z the state already had its own rules and the Supreme Court stepped
Z in and invalidated them. the Supreme Court has continually interfered
Z with state's rights to regulate abortions.
Meg, Al is correct. The bottom line is you got the feds involved in
1972. Your liberal bent has opened up a pandoras box of possible
federal government litany and interference. This is an irreversible
quagmire for you...but you own it!!
-Jack
|
| 20.8800 | :^) | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Mon Mar 10 1997 21:14 | 6 |
| > 55 mph was the legislated limit after Congress
> got through with it.
That wouldn't've been a Democratic controlled congress now would it?
-- Dave
|
| 20.8801 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Tue Mar 11 1997 09:38 | 3 |
| so let em get this straight. the Nixon era, coupled with a little
manipulation by Congress prevented any doctor from performing an
abortion greater than 55mph, correct?
|
| 20.8802 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Tue Mar 11 1997 12:10 | 22 |
| .8797
Now you're getting it! Most of the problems we face today is because
the original programs and ideas have been so bastardized and
prostituted by the Democratic majorities that they are almost
unrecognizable. The Democrats, through their long term control of
congress, continued to grow and expand possibly good programs to where
they are plagues today.
A simple example is Medicare. The original program was very targeted
and focused on a particular group of people. When this program was
proposed by the Democrats and debated the techniques they used, which
is not all that much different than today, was that the cost was going
to be minimal. the Republicans opposed the program as an area that the
federal government should not be involved in. the Democrats countered
that the Republicans were greedy and didn't care about the most needy
since the program would never, ever exceed $50 billion.
This program is now one oof the greatest drains on the economy and
federal budget, that if proposed in its current configuration and cost,
it would never get out of committee.
|
| 20.8803 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Tue Mar 11 1997 17:07 | 22 |
| RE: .8801
> so let em get this straight. the Nixon era, coupled with a little
> manipulation by Congress prevented any doctor from performing an
> abortion greater than 55mph, correct?
Yes. Not to mention that Nixon was aborted in his second term.
It's actually interesting looking at abortion, gun-control, and
national speed limits with regards to rights. On the one hand, if the
federal government steps in on any of the three they are removing
states rights. However, it is interesting in the way that the
federal government has stepped in.
With abortion, the feds in Roe v. Wade reserved the right to the
individual versus the state or federal government. With gun control
and the institution of a national speed limit, the feds essentially
reserved the rights to the federal government. There's a big
difference between reserving a right to the individual versus the
federal government.
-- Dave
|
| 20.8804 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue Mar 11 1997 17:19 | 9 |
|
Good column by Barnicle on this topic today.
Jim
|
| 20.8805 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Wed Mar 12 1997 09:01 | 1 |
| ...and then what happened?
|
| 20.8806 | | BUSY::SLAB | Be gone - you have no powers here | Wed Mar 12 1997 10:36 | 3 |
|
I'm sure somebody knows.
|
| 20.8807 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon Mar 17 1997 13:08 | 97 |
| [The Church of the Culdees is a Celtic Church with women priests and bishops,
and a home page at http://www.continet.com/culdee/]
Written by The Very Rev. Robin L. Holloway, OCC, Abbess of Saint Brendan's
Endorsed as an Official Teaching Document of the Church of the Culdees by
His Grace, The Most Rev. Ivan MacKillop, OCC, Presiding Abbot.
The moral stand that the Church of the Culdees takes on abortion is very
simple and straightforward: Abortion is the taking of a human life, made in
the image of God. Therefore, the only circumstance in which it can be
considered is a direct threat to the mother's physical life and health by
the continuation of the pregnancy. However, we realize that no moral stance
is taken in a vacuum, we live in a real world with real people in real pain
and confusion. Our stand is simple, but not simplistic, we acknowledge the
very strong pressures acting in our society that persuade women to terminate
their pregnancies, even when, if given an option, they would prefer not to.
The strongest and most persuasive of these arguments is that abortion is an
issue of women's freedom and equal rights. Abortion is seen as the crowning
achievement of the feminist movement, total control over our own
reproductive capacities. My contention is just the opposite, rather than the
zenith of women's freedom, abortion, as it exists in this country, as an
industry, is the final capitulation, the submerging of the female into the
prevailing masculine, patriarchal culture.
What abortion says to women is this: If you want to be equal in this
society, if you want to keep your jobs, get promotions, retain your
scholarships, your places in school, maintain relationships, you must be
like a man. You must not require this society to change in any way to
accommodate the fact that you are different. If you want to be equal you
must be the same as those who make the rules, you must not be inconvenient,
you must not make trouble, you must abide by rules made without your voice
being heard. Most of all, you must be willing to kill that which makes you
different, you must be willing to participate in the assimilation of your
own gender.
Women will never be equal in this society, or any other, until everything
that a woman is is accepted and valued by the society. This society is set
up on a masculine model in its government, its businesses, its schools and
its families. A woman entering the workforce or the educational system is
expected to live and work according to the written and unwritten rules of
behavior that were made with no regard for the unique nature of being
female. It is not wrong to state that the genders are different, it is
obvious that they are, and the drive for gender uniformity has done great
harm to women. It is only wrong when those differences are used to repress
and subjugate people of either gender. As human beings men and women are
equal in value, to God and to society, but we are not the same. We must
learn to celebrate our differences, rather than use them to abuse each
other.
It is obvious that twenty years of abortion on demand have done little or
nothing for the position of women in this country. The epidemic of violence
toward women is increasing. The real status of women is seen in the plague
of sexual harassment even in the highest levels of government. Women on
television and in movies are still often only there as sexual objects and/or
victims of violent and sexual crime. Any woman who walks down the street in
broad daylight in fear knows the real place of women in America. While I am
not naive enough to believe that all this can be laid at the feet of the
abortion industry, I do contend that the abortion mentality plays a
significant role in the devaluing of women. The abortion mentality is the
attitude that women, and the qualities and values of women that differ from
those of men, are disposable. These range from a girl letting a boy win a
game because he would get mad if she won, to a woman getting an abortion she
doesn't want because her husband threatens to leave her if she won't. If
women were truly equal and valued, there would be no women staying in
abusive marriages because they have been convinced that they have no choice.
Women have been convinced to see themselves as of lesser value, that their
wishes are not as important, that they must give in.
This abortion mentality pervades our society, in a guest opinion in the
"Springfield, News", Sally Carmody Keeny, State Coordinator for Feminists
for Life in Oregon, wrote, "Most apologists for "choice" are well aware that
abortion destroys an innocent human being...By placing all the emphasis on
choosing, rather than the activity being chosen, abortion-rights activists
have obscured the fact that women are sacrificing their own children in a
desperate bid for justice." Even those most in favor of abortion agree that
it is the taking of a human life. They just feel that they have the right to
take that life. In a society that claims, as ours does, to be enlightened
and humanitarian, this attitude is dangerously hypocritical, amoral and
fascist. Women are not only sacrificing their children, they are sacrificing
their humanity, and rejecting Divine reality, and society encourages them to
do so because it is easier than dealing with the fundamental injustice of
our culture. Ms. Keeny closed her column with these words, "There is a
profound loneliness behind the belligerent defiance of the new abortion
rights rallying cry, 'Who decides?' it is the desperate loneliness of a
woman with her back to the wall, and it is not surprising that she would
resort to the violence of abortion as a way out. We are painfully aware that
gender injustice is a reality. There can be many problems for a woman
carrying an unintentionally conceived baby. We need to help her attack those
problems, not the baby."
Enabling and empowering women to attack the problems, not the children, is
the position taken by the Church of the Culdees. Abortion is a great evil in
our society, with consequences that are far-reaching and mostly unexplored.
Life and death are in the hands of God, when we usurp Divine privileges we
can only do harm, not good. As a society we must make decisions that honor
God and honor God-given human dignity.
|
| 20.8808 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Tue Mar 18 1997 17:33 | 102 |
| SJC says minors no longer need two-parent consent for abortions
By Glen Johnson, Associated Press, 03/18/97 11:35
BOSTON (AP) - The state's highest court today declared unconstitutional
a state law requiring pregnant minors to get the consent of both of
their parents before having an abortion.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in a split decision, said getting the
consent of one parent or a judge is sufficient.
``To require that a minor follow such a process when the purpose of
parental consent is fulfilled by the consent of one parent is to burden
the minor's constitutional rights without adequate justification,''
Chief Justice Herbert P. Wilkins wrote in the 21-page majority opinion.
The ruling represented a partial victory for the Planned Parenthood
League of Massachusetts. It said the current law violated the minors'
due process rights.
The court dispensed with two-parent notification, but it said the state
still had a right to require some form of notification for minors, even
though women over 18 can get abortions at will.
``A pregnant minor does not have the same freedom to act concerning an
abortion as a pregnant adult. For years, the commonwealth has had
numerous laws protecting minors by limiting their rights in ways not
applicable to adults,'' Wilkins wrote.
In another segment of the opinion, the court threw out a challenge by
Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The anti-abortion group had argued
that Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, who was representing the
state, could not adequately fight for the law because he has stated he
favors abortion rights.
In their dissents, Associate Justices Francis P. O'Connor and Neil L.
Lynch said they favor upholding the current statute.
O'Connor wrote that minors currently do not need the consent of either
parent, if they can convince a judge to permit the abortion.
``The record shows that judicial approval is nearly a certainty,''
O'Connor wrote. ``As the court recognizes, a significant legislative
reason to provide two-parent consent as an option to easily obtained
judicial authorization is to encourage dialogue between the parents and
the minor so as to give a real meaning to the minor's constitutional
right to choose between aborting the fetus and bringing it to term.''
Lynch said he opposed changing the state law when the U.S. Supreme
Court has upheld parental notification laws when there is an option to
seek permission from a judge as an alternative to notifying the
parents.
Massachusetts passed a law in 1980 that required parental consent, but
it was immediately challenged by Planned Parenthood in both state and
federal court.
Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld nearly identical laws
from other states. So Planned Parenthood has pursued the state case,
arguing that the statute violates the state constitution's equal
protection and due process guarantees.
While its lawsuit did not seek to protect the rights of any single
girl, Planned Parenthood argued that forcing girls under 18 to get
their parents' permission for an abortion violates the state
constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees.
The group, which favors abortion rights, said the law is unfair because
it makes exceptions when girls are married, have only one living parent
or whose parents are divorced and the one with primary custody consents
- but not for girls whose parents never married, who are victims of
incest or whose parents are separated but not formally divorced.
During oral arguments to the SJC in November, John Henn, the attorney
for Planned Parenthood, also said the law was cumbersome because girls
under 18 whose parents refuse to let them have abortions almost always
get permission from a judge.
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Barnico argued last fall that the law
doesn't put an insurmountable barrier in a teen-age girl's path, and
that her comfort was outweighed by the importance of parental
involvement.
The case was a controversial one for Harshbarger, who is planning to
run for governor next year and has declared his pro-choice beliefs.
Because of the office he holds, he had to defend the notification law.
The SJC flatly denied the motion filed by Massachusetts Citizens for
Life, which has argued that Harshbarger colluded with Planned
Parenthood in a series of procedural agreements before oral arguments.
``The claim that, because of his stated public position on abortion
rights, the attorney general must have colluded in the secret
preparation of the stipulations lacks substance,'' Wilkins wrote.
``In fact, the form of stipulations virtually assured that (Planned
Parenthood's) all-out attack on the parental consent and judicial
bypass provisions ... would fail, as this opinion shows.''
Contacted today, Barnico withheld immediate comment on the ruling. Henn
said, ``It's not everything we wanted, but I think it's more than 50
percent. So we're pleased with the decision, is the bottom of line.''
|
| 20.8809 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Apr 02 1997 20:24 | 154 |
| First Roe, now Doe: The legal facade crumbles
Plaintiff in the other key 1973 abortion case, Doe vs. Bolton, publicly
recants the false story the Supreme Court believed
By Roy Maynard
A man comes to the door of Sandra Cano's south Atlanta home; he's a
neighbor in this poor, mostly minority community. This Hispanic man has
gotten a ticket, he explains in Spanish. He asks Mrs. Cano if she would
talk to the court for him. Her hands and schedule are full this morning;
she is talking to a reporter and taking care of two grandchildren. Still,
she tells the man not to worry, she'll speak for him. "I'm the neighborhood
helper," Mrs. Cano explains. "My Spanish is better than their English, so
sometimes they need me to be their voice."
Mrs. Cano has been in this role before. In 1970 she became Mary Doe, a
representative of women seeking abortion. Although she never spoke in court
(her lawyers did that), she was the named plaintiff in a pivotal Supreme
Court case, Doe vs. Bolton, that opened the floodgates of abortion on
demand. But the case was built on lies, she says, and she's coming forward
now to set straight the history of this American holocaust. Her first
public appearance was slated for last weekend at the dedication of the
National Memorial for the Unborn in Chattanooga.
She was to appear with Norma McCorvey, who announced in 1995 that she had
become a Christian and wanted to spend the rest of her life working against
abortion. Mrs. McCorvey was Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade.
Roe is the better known of the two 1973 Supreme Court cases concerning
abortion. But the Doe case is the one at the center of the partial-birth
abortion debate. Roe legalized abortion but only through the second
trimester; Doe expanded the newfound right to include abortion right up
until birth, if the mother's "health" is at stake. And because "health" was
defined in that case as everything from physical well-being to
psychological and financial well-being, abortion became an unfettered
practice.
"I'm just now learning a lot of the details, and I'm really shocked," Mrs.
Cano, now 49, told WORLD. "Abortion is against every belief I have. I've
never been for abortion. I never went for an abortion. I was not the person
they say I was. This case was based on lies."
In 1970, Sandra Cano (then Sandra Besing) was "young and ignorant," she
says. She found herself pregnant and alone; her husband was in jail and two
of her children had been taken from her by county welfare workers. She went
to the Legal Aid clinic in Atlanta, looking for help in divorcing her
husband and regaining custody of her children.
What she received instead was an interview with ACLU lawyer Margie Pitts
Hames, who gave her vague promises of help. Mrs. Cano didn't know she
wasn't a Legal Aid attorney, and it wasn't until weeks later that the
subject of abortion was even broached. "She asked what I thought about it,
and I said I was against it," Mrs. Cano said.
Still, lawyer Mrs. Hames (now deceased) felt at the time she was "helping
people," according to an interview she gave in 1989 to an Atlanta-area
legal gazette.
Mrs. Hames and a few other activists "dipped into our own pockets to help
Sandra" pay for the abortion she didn't want, "even though it would have
been better for our legal case for her to remain pregnant." Mrs. Cano
recalls how they pressured her to have the abortion, and just three days
before she was scheduled to abort, she fled.
"There's no way I could have killed this baby," she says now. "I didn't
need a baby. I didn't want the baby. I didn't want to be pregnant, but I
was not going to take a baby's life."
Mrs. Cano took refuge in Oklahoma with her grandmother. She refused to come
home until Mrs. Hames assured her over the phone that she wouldn't have to
have the abortion.
Melissa was born November 6, 1970, and placed for adoption.
These facts were seemingly inconvenient for Mrs. Hames; in later court
testimony, Mrs. Hames gave the Supreme Court the following account of Mrs.
Cano's noble struggle for reproductive rights:
"Her reasons for abortion were several.... She applied to the public
hospital for an abortion, where she was eligible for free medical care. Her
application there was denied. She later applied through a private physician
to a private hospital abortion committee, where her abortion application
was approved. She did not obtain the abortion, however, because she did not
have the cash to deposit and pay her hospital bill in advance."
Grady Memorial Hospital is the public hospital Mrs. Hames was citing, but
that hospital has no records of ever treating Mrs. Cano or reviewing her
case. Grady's records division wrote and said, "Grady Health System is
unable to locate" any records despite spending 32 hours searching under
every possible name and variation.
This massaging of the facts recalls the recent confession of abortion
lobbyist Ron Fitzsimmons--but Mrs. Hames never owned up to her lie. In
1989, Mrs. Cano went to some Christian lawyers (one of whom was Michael
Farris, who now heads the Home School Legal Defense Foundation) to get her
records unsealed. Mrs. Hames objected, telling the court that there was
nothing more to be gained, that the case was decided 16 years before and
that was that.
But the records were unsealed, and Mr. Farris says he was sure enough of
the fraud they contained that he and attorney Wendell Byrd asked to have
the entire case reopened. That motion was denied because by then, the law
against abortion had been struck from Georgia's books.
Mr. Farris told WORLD that at the time, he was impressed by Mrs. Cano's
resolve and openness. "She was a sincere, repentant believer," Mr. Farris
says. "I was comfortable with her honesty then, and I'm comfortable with it
now."
For nearly 25 years now, Mrs. Cano says she's carried the guilt of
participating in "legalized murder."
"I know there are babies being killed and I know that I have something to
do with it," she says. "I didn't know about it and I didn't consent to
anything, but that's my name on the affidavit. That's something that's
going to be linked to me forever."
The ramifications of the case became painfully clear to her in 1992.
Melissa had reentered Mrs. Cano's life; now, as a young woman, Melissa was
pregnant. The baby was born prematurely, at about the age of 20 weeks. Cody
weighed 9.2 ounces; the doctors said he was too small to live, too small
even to take life-supporting measures. Cody wasn't given oxygen or even a
covering. Mrs. Cano, nearly hysterical, appealed to the doctors to do
something to help, to at least comfort her grandbaby.
"They told me that's not a baby, it's a fetus," Mrs. Cano says. "And I knew
it was because 20 years before I was stupid and I let them use me, that
this could happen." Cody was left to die two hours after he was born.
Sandra Cano says she's a Christian--she was raised by a nominally Baptist
family, though only recently has she had a real relationship with God, she
says.
Mrs. Cano says she's wanted to speak out for some time, but she's been wary
of lawyers and the media. It wasn't until she met and was befriended by
Sybil Lash, an aide to a Georgia state legislator, that she became bold
enough to come forward. "Sandra wants to do the right thing," says Mrs.
Lash. "But it's hard for her to trust people. It's even harder for her to
understand that the Supreme Court decision can still stand, after the case
is proven to be based on lies. I guess it's hard for us to understand that,
too."
Mrs. Lash and others have worked to verify Mrs. Cano's story, and they have
an impressive stack of documents to show she's telling the truth. They have
letters from attorneys and hospitals, Supreme Court transcripts and
affidavits.
Mrs. Cano's first public appearance, appropriately, will be at
Chattanooga's memorial. The memorial, which stands on the site where an
abortion clinic once operated, includes a granite wall where repentant,
grieving families have placed markers with messages to their aborted
children. "We loved you too late," reads one; another says, "I'll hold you
in heaven."
|
| 20.8810 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Wed Apr 02 1997 21:43 | 5 |
| Z In 1970, Sandra Cano (then Sandra Besing) was "young and ignorant," she
Z says.
And based on the voting record for the Kennedy clan, it is sobering to
see there are people who are mature and still willfully ignorant!!
|
| 20.8811 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Apr 02 1997 21:45 | 4 |
|
"willfully ignorant"?
|
| 20.8812 | | DECWET::LOWE | Bruce Lowe, DECwest Eng., DTN 548-8910 | Wed Apr 02 1997 22:01 | 4 |
|
> now to set straight the history of this American holocaust. Her first
No bias here, nosiree.
|
| 20.8813 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Wed Apr 02 1997 22:31 | 5 |
| Yes Di. There are a number of Massachusetts residence who seem to trip
over their own two feet when it comes to this bunch of rabble from
Hyannis/Dorchester. Yet they are diametrically opposed ideologically.
-Jack
|
| 20.8814 | | DSPAC9::FENNELL | Nothing is planned by the sea and the sand | Thu Apr 03 1997 04:42 | 1 |
| damn liberal houses
|
| 20.8815 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Thu Apr 03 1997 11:15 | 3 |
| >No bias here, nosiree.
duh.
|
| 20.8816 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Apr 03 1997 13:52 | 13 |
| John,
1. List the chances that a less than 1 pound, less than 24 week fetus
will survive outside the womb.
2. List the number of Dr's in the US that do perform 3rd timester
abortions.
3. Tell me why NY's law on 3rd trimester abortions has not been
overturned, and why there are no dr's that do late-term abortions in
NY.
meg
|
| 20.8817 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 03 1997 14:38 | 8 |
| .8816
Can you identify what your questions have to do with the fact that the
recent entries related to one of the primary participants in the
abortion issue believes that abortion kills a human being? Or are you
trying to raise truly immaterial points that have been spewed by the
pro-choice crowd for decades?
|
| 20.8818 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Apr 03 1997 16:39 | 16 |
| rocush,
Can you identify what your question has to do with the questionsyou are
questioning?
John brought up a disconnected piece on this seeking to generate,
goddess knows what reaction. the fact is there are three places in the
US and three Dr's in the US that perform 3rd trimester abortions
legally. John seems to like to ignore this, while trying to make 1st
and second trimester abortions the equivelent. It is John's perogative
to attempt to mislead people, through either ignorance or willing
untruths, but it is also mine to point it out when he does this.
meg
|
| 20.8819 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Apr 03 1997 17:40 | 26 |
| Re .8809:
> . . . abortion became an unfettered practice.
I'd like to see Covert drive his car in the same unfettered manner.
Before driving, you'd have to call a mechanic. The mechanic asks if
you are sure you want to drive. You say sure. The mechanic tells you
that's refined gasoline you've got in the tank, and you're going to
burn it up. You say, I know, now let's get going. In some states, the
mechanic used to ask if you've got your wife's permission to drive.
But you really want to drive, so the mechanic writes down your odometer
reading, how much gas is in the tank, and where you want to go, and
then the mechanic says okay. "Okay what?" you say, "The car isn't
moving." Of course not, says the mechanic, you'll have to call again
tomorrow, and then you can start the car.
"Unfettered" -- bunk. The rest of the note likely contains equal bunk,
too. I've seen so many lies and distortions from such sources that it
is not worth even reading.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
| 20.8820 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 03 1997 18:13 | 15 |
| .8818
My question was in relation to where your note appeared which made it
seem as if it was related to the recent entries. If it had to do with
some prior entry, I didn't notice the reference.
I guess the question, however, is what trimester the abortion is
performed or how many physicians perform them is irrelavent. the
question is do we as a society wish to condone the killing of
individuals because they are inconvenient or things might be difficult.
We can create all sorts of personal fictions about the viability, etc
but at the end of the day the reality is that the fertilized egg is a
human being. Uncomfortable as that may be, but it simply is. No
wishful thinking or hoping to the contrary will change that.
|
| 20.8821 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Apr 03 1997 18:40 | 28 |
| Rocush,
Free Clue,
I dont consider any fetus more important than the born, breathing woman
who has been asked by nature to carry it.
up to 14 weeks I strongly believe in abortion on demand, and I find not
that much human about something God(dess) does away with at a REALLY
alarming clip (less than 30% of conceptions make it long enough to be
noticed by a person as a pregnancy, and more are lost before 12 weeks
with no human intevention.)
After 14 weeks I still support Abortion for gross deformaties, danger
to the health and life of the woman, and other matters of her
conscience up to 26 weeks.
After 28 weeks this is a matter of health or life for the woman. there
has been all the time in the world prior to that to make up ones mind
about aborting for other reasons. I do know that Dr Hern in CO will
not do 3rd trim abortions on healthy women with normal fetuses. Given
that he is one of three Dr's in the country who do 3rd trimester
abortions, I would say at least 1/3 of the abortions done in the 3rd
trimester are done only because of gross fetal defects and/or a very
sick mother. Remember 3rd trimester abortions make up far less than 2%
of abortions performed in the US today.
meg
|
| 20.8822 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Thu Apr 03 1997 18:50 | 15 |
| .8821
whether it's 1 week, 14 weeks, 28 weeks, really makes no difference to
the genetic code and makeup of the baby. It started out day one as a
human being and 50 years later it will be a human being.
The fact that many pregnancies end early by no outside action is really
irrelevant. Many things happen naturally that would be abominations if
they were done with forethought.
Your arguments are the ones that have been put forward for decades but
really don't make much difference to the baby. whether you take
actions to kill it day one or day 270 doesn't make much of a
difference.
|
| 20.8823 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Thu Apr 03 1997 19:05 | 12 |
|
re .8821
I do not believe there is any truth in late term
abortions to "save the life of the mother". In fact,
the procedures involved in abortions after 28 weeks
are totally opposite the protocol that would be followed
to deliver a live baby.
|
| 20.8824 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | gonna have to eventually anyway | Thu Apr 03 1997 19:13 | 4 |
| .8823
i don't get the connection between those two
sentences.
|
| 20.8825 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Apr 03 1997 19:15 | 4 |
|
.8824 phew - thought it was just me.
|
| 20.8826 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Thu Apr 03 1997 19:25 | 8 |
|
It is. It's just you and Bonnie.
What I was trying to say is that when the goal is
to save the life of the mother, you would *NOT* perform
the processes involved in late-term (partial birth) abortions.
|
| 20.8827 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Apr 03 1997 19:29 | 7 |
|
> <<< Note 20.8826 by SMARTT::JENNISON "And baby makes five" >>>
er, okay. why not?
|
| 20.8828 | | SMARTT::JENNISON | And baby makes five | Thu Apr 03 1997 19:35 | 17 |
|
According to the panel of OB's that I heard discussing
this (on the radio, I did not take names nor notes
since I was driving), the procedures used in a partial
birth abortion directly contradict the guidelines that
a doctor is supposed to follow to minimize risk to both
the fetus AND the mother.
For example, if you had a baby that had already died in
utero, and the mother's life was somehow in jeopardy,
you would do almost the opposite from that which is done
during a partial birth abortion.
Karen
|
| 20.8829 | | PHXSS1::HEISER | Maranatha! | Thu Apr 03 1997 20:13 | 3 |
| Didn't the doctor, who recently turned on Slick Willy for PBA's, pretty
much reveal the reality of late-term abortions? (i.e., they are much
more common they he initially said they were)
|
| 20.8830 | see .8621 and .8639 | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Apr 03 1997 20:16 | 9 |
| >the reality of late-term abortions?
No. that's exactly wrong.
What he did was reveal how much more commonly the procedure is used
IN SECOND TRIMESTER ABORTIONS. No correction has been issued or
discussed concerning an increase in the number of late-term abortions.
DougO
|
| 20.8831 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Apr 04 1997 11:25 | 3 |
| "...and the term "common" is a relative one. it really matters what an
individual considers 1% - 2% - 3% to be in relationship to the actual
numbers and the actual base from which those percentages are derived.
|
| 20.8832 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu Apr 17 1997 18:18 | 66 |
|
The following is a reprint of a guest column from the Northwest Florida Daily
News, Sunday April 13, 1997:
This is printed with permission of the author, Mary Valdez, President
of Oscaloosa NOW.
"A bill called "The Women's Right to Know Bill" has just passed out of
committee in the Florida House of Representatives. The bill would force
abortion providers to give women contemplating abortion the gestational age
of the fetus, details on it's development, the names and addresses of
alternative organizations such as adoption agencies and information on
financial assistance during pregnancy.
"The supporters of the bill say that they are not trying to limit women's
access to abortion but instead ensuring that women in a crisis pregnancy have
all the information necessary to make an informed decision about something
that could potentially affect the rest of their lives. OK, I will give them
the benefit of the doubt; yes, they care about women. Then the bill is
woefully inadequate as it only covers one option, abortion, and ignores
adoption or keeping and raising the child. I would like to see the following
added:
Women contemplating continuing their pregnancy should be advised as to the
extent of their legal responsibility for that child, including but not
limited to the number of years of responsibility.
"Women contemplating continuing their pregnancy should be advised as to the
average cost of feeding, clothing and raising a child to majority.
"Women contemplating continuing their pregnancy should be advised as to the
emotional toll involved in giving up a child for adoption.
"Women contemplating continuing their pregnancy should be advised as to the
likelihood children given up for adoption will someday come into and disrupt
their lives looking for either a relationship with their "real Mom" or
revenge on the one who gave them up.
"Women contemplating continuing their pregnancy should be advised as to the
average monthly child support payment in the State of Florida.
"Women contemplating continuing their pregnancy should be advised as to the
success (or lack thereof) rate of child support collections in the State of
Florida.
"Women contemplating continuing their pregnancy and are victims of Domestic
Violence should be advised as to the legal rights of the abuser as a parent
and the possible consequences of being tied to their abuser for life by the
child in question.
"Women contemplating continuing their pregnancy should be told the exact
amount of a welfare grant along with the amount of food stamps they can
receive and just how far below the poverty line this will leave them.
"Women contemplating continuing their pregnancy should be advised as to how
long the waiting list for subsidized day care and subsidized housing is and
the shortfall between this and the time limit on welfare.
"Women contemplating continuing their pregnancy should be advised as to the
possible complications of pregnancy and the risks and mortality rate
associated with giving birth.
"Women have a right to know the consequences of ALL of their options so they
can make truly informed decisions. Let us not leave out the consequences of
not aborting.
Mary M. Valdez"
|
| 20.8833 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Thu Apr 17 1997 19:40 | 2 |
| Wow, there are alot of young men and women who have socially lived
under a rock all their lives eh??
|
| 20.8834 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Apr 17 1997 19:44 | 5 |
|
.8833 well _somebody_ has to keep you and the salamanders company.
|
| 20.8835 | | ASGMKA::MARTIN | Concerto in 66 Movements | Thu Apr 17 1997 19:48 | 1 |
| Recede......
|
| 20.8836 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Ferzie fan | Fri Apr 18 1997 12:42 | 3 |
|
di, getting awfully feisty lately. what happened to the sweet, nice,
naive person we all know and love?
|
| 20.8837 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Apr 18 1997 12:51 | 1 |
| she's two outta three, anyway.
|
| 20.8838 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Apr 18 1997 14:48 | 3 |
|
milady if far from naive. She is great!
|
| 20.8839 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | looking for deep meaning | Fri Apr 18 1997 14:59 | 1 |
| great is the opposite of naive?
|
| 20.8840 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Fri Apr 18 1997 15:01 | 1 |
| great surpasses naive, or anything negative. Milady is the greatest!
|
| 20.8841 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | A stranger in my own life | Fri Apr 18 1997 15:01 | 1 |
| what a felicitous thing to say!
|
| 20.8842 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | looking for deep meaning | Fri Apr 18 1997 15:04 | 1 |
| great balls of fire!
|
| 20.8843 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri Apr 18 1997 15:32 | 1 |
| <== Try miconizole.
|
| 20.8844 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Apr 18 1997 16:04 | 5 |
| .8832
After reading such tripe it is no wonder that there is little progress
made.
|
| 20.8845 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Apr 18 1997 16:07 | 7 |
| Tripe?
I think it only fair that all options and consequences should be put in
front of a person dealing with a crisis pregnancy. Particularly given
the current atmosphere around single parenthood in the US.
meg
|
| 20.8846 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | Ferzie fan | Fri Apr 18 1997 16:11 | 3 |
|
tripe? isn't that a delicacy in some parts of the world? you know, cats
got your tongue.
|
| 20.8847 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Apr 18 1997 16:14 | 1 |
| Tripe is a requirement for Menudo
|
| 20.8848 |
| ACISS1::SCHELTER | | Fri Apr 18 1997 16:15 | 5 |
| <-- No wonder they dance like that.
Mike
|
| 20.8849 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri Apr 18 1997 18:19 | 8 |
| .8845
More smoke and no substance. The same position you and the writer of
this nonsense have put forward can be incorporated into any
legislation, which might not be all that bad since then nothing would
get passed and we would be far, far better off if legislators stopped
passing bills.
|
| 20.8850 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Fri Apr 18 1997 19:08 | 3 |
| Are you saying you don't like disclaimers?
|
| 20.8851 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon Apr 21 1997 13:11 | 11 |
| .8850
No, what I'm saying is that a reasonable request related to a very
polarizing issue should not be subject to silly statements such as the
ones included in the article referenced.
I suppose you can support this type of nonsense, but if the intent is
to actually try and reach a consensus regarding this issue, and try and
create a true compromise that would address the concerns of each side,
this silliness only provides greater fodder to polarize.
|
| 20.8852 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Fri May 02 1997 14:47 | 17 |
| Heard a report on the radio this morning that the rate of teen sexual
activity and teen pregnancy dropped. The reasons given for this drop
was an increase in AIDS awareness and abstinence instruction.
It struck me as odd that there was no mention of improved or increased
use of contraception. It appears that what has influenced teens has
been a clear message that sexual activity can kill you as no condom,
etc can protect you and that abstinence is the best way to avoid
pregnancy and death.
Seems that those who recommended this approach have been justified as
there is not just a reduction of teen pregnancy but sexual activity
based on an approach to self-respect through abstinence.
Hopefully we will keep up the good work. Although I wouldn't be the
least surprised to see people complain about this.
|
| 20.8853 | According to excerpts from the report.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Fri May 02 1997 15:20 | 10 |
|
| It struck me as odd that there was no mention of improved or increased
| use of contraception.
Condom use at first intercourse is *WAY* up! Up from 18% before 1980,
25% in the early eighties, 33% in the late eighties, to over 50% in the
early 1990s. Women reporting that they use contraception every time is
also increasing.
-mr. bill
|
| 20.8854 | I think the TV report was CNN | SHOGUN::KOWALEWICZ | Are you from away? | Fri May 02 1997 15:22 | 19 |
|
+********************
Boston Herald Friday May 2, 1997
Page 2
Washington - Fewer teenage girls are having sex, and those who do are more
likely to have partners who use condoms, the government reported yesterday.
+*********************
The report I saw on TV listed a 5% drop in teenage girls having sex.
Of those who do, there was a large increase in the percentage of their
partners using a condom the first time.
kb
|
| 20.8855 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Fri May 02 1997 15:24 | 3 |
| Mr. Bill, we don't want to hear about contraceptive use especially for
first timers. That would be a bad thing. Abstinence=good,
contraceptive=bad.
|
| 20.8856 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri May 02 1997 15:24 | 6 |
| NHPR reported that NH shows one of the lowest teen preg
rates in the country (about 60 in 1000) and specifically mentioned
that increased use of condoms was a contributing factor. There was
no mention that levels of sexual activity had changed that I remember.
However, any polling on sexual behaviour is notoriously inaccurate
and margins of error would be great.
|
| 20.8857 | Pull your head out of {the sand | wherever}. | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Fri May 02 1997 15:27 | 11 |
| re: .8852
Nice Spin!! If you weren't so biased, it might even be believable!
Fortunately, even the dim-bulbs among us will realize that "AIDS Awareness"
includes information about, and use of, condoms. While not a perfect
contraceptive, I'm quite sure it qualifies as one.
In fact, this report directly trashes your ilk's "Abstinence Only" position.
\john
|
| 20.8858 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 02 1997 15:33 | 1 |
| Rocush has an ilk too? Did he get it at the same place as Glen did?
|
| 20.8859 | Anybody got a program? | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Fri May 02 1997 15:42 | 7 |
| re: .8858
>Rocush has an ilk too? Did he get it at the same place as Glen did?
I was actually talking about the ilk that always talks about Glen's ilk.
\john
|
| 20.8860 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | Are you married or happy? | Fri May 02 1997 15:52 | 7 |
|
> <<< Note 20.8859 by ALPHAZ::HARNEY "John A Harney" >>>
> -< Anybody got a program? >-
an ilk-conceived request.
|
| 20.8861 | | MRPTH1::16.34.80.132::slab | labounty@mail.dec.com | Fri May 02 1997 16:38 | 4 |
|
60 in 1000? So that's ONLY one pregnant teen out of sixteen?
|
| 20.8862 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 02 1997 16:43 | 3 |
| According to the article in the Globe, "40% of women would become pregnant
before they turned 20." Yet the 1992 national rate of teen pregnancy is
112 per 1000. How does that work?
|
| 20.8863 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri May 02 1997 16:43 | 1 |
| Over to Glenn.
|
| 20.8864 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Pangolin Wielding Ponce | Fri May 02 1997 16:49 | 1 |
| ?
|
| 20.8865 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri May 02 1997 16:50 | 7 |
| >According to the article in the Globe, "40% of women would become pregnant
>before they turned 20." Yet the 1992 national rate of teen pregnancy is
>112 per 1000. How does that work?
11.2% become pregnant in any single year. Since each female is a
teenager for 7 years, it is not difficult to believe that in those 7
years, 40% have at least one pregnancy. Some have more than one.
|
| 20.8866 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri May 02 1997 16:59 | 3 |
| 20.8864
See 18.5905
|
| 20.8867 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Pangolin Wielding Ponce | Fri May 02 1997 17:00 | 1 |
| geez. so I didn't parse the k.
|
| 20.8868 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 02 1997 17:01 | 1 |
| Not 7 years. The numbers are for 15-19, i.e. 5 years.
|
| 20.8869 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | Are you married or happy? | Fri May 02 1997 17:04 | 7 |
|
.8868 >The numbers are for 15-19, i.e. 5 years.
gerald gets a lot of use out of those college
math courses, i notice.
|
| 20.8870 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri May 02 1997 17:06 | 1 |
| I'm just proving I'm not one of Glenn's personalities.
|
| 20.8871 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri May 02 1997 17:07 | 2 |
| You say that like you're expecting mercy instead of schadenfroo..
shadefra.. schadenfor... er, pisstakes.
|
| 20.8872 | same explanation applies, however | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Fri May 02 1997 17:09 | 4 |
| >Not 7 years. The numbers are for 15-19, i.e. 5 years.
Ok, 5 years, not 7. (I wasn't paying attention to what figures you were
quoting, only inferring them from the word "teen".)
|
| 20.8873 | Temporarily available at www.covert.org/~covert/whichkills.gif | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Sat May 03 1997 19:13 | 16 |
|
There seems to be a big brouhaha at BC over a political
cartoon in one of the student newspapers.
It has three frames. The first shows a KKK rally with
a cross burning. The second shows a group of skinheads
in front of a swastika. The third shows a doctor
donning surgical gloves in front of a Planned Parenthood
Abortion Clinic sign.
The cartoon has been labelled racist by people who do
not understand the point: that abortion, in these
United States, is performed in disproportionate
numbers on blacks.
/john
|
| 20.8874 | | DPE1::ARMSTRONG | | Sat May 03 1997 19:56 | 11 |
| > The cartoon has been labelled racist by people who do
> not understand the point: that abortion, in these
> United States, is performed in disproportionate
> numbers on blacks.
I fail to see why that is the 'correct' interpretation.
Or why that interpretation makes any sense at all.
Seems like the simpler interpretation that it is trying
to liken abortion to other evils makes more sense.
bob
|
| 20.8875 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Sun May 04 1997 04:21 | 19 |
| John,
No one is forcing abortions on anyone of any color, unless you are
speaking of Welfare deform, which will likely increase the abortion
rate over the next few years, judging by the churches' complaints that
they can't keep up with demand as people are no longer granted aid for
themselves and children.
The fact has been that the more impovershed a group percieves itself to
be after a pregnancy influences the number of abortions, at least in
CO. I will be interested to see what the rates of pregnancies to
births will be in CO with the new reforms. Currently with teens one of
4 hispanics abort, compared to one of 3 for blacks and whites. One
reason for the lower rate among hispanic teens has been the ability of
same to get family and government aid to continue the pregnancies.
meg
meg
|
| 20.8876 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Mon May 05 1997 10:46 | 6 |
| it appears to give a different message without knowing the caption.
it went something like "Can you choose the one that is killing
the most blacks" or something along those lines.
that is where the racist theme has come to play.
|
| 20.8877 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon May 05 1997 13:03 | 5 |
|
And it isn't surprising the caption was left off of John's reply,
either. What a macaroon!
|
| 20.8878 | Temporarily available at www.covert.org/~covert/whichkills.gif | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Mon May 05 1997 13:42 | 17 |
|
There seems to be a big brouhaha at BC over a political
cartoon in one of the student newspapers.
It has three frames. The first shows a KKK rally with
a cross burning. The second shows a group of skinheads
in front of a swastika. The third shows a doctor
donning surgical gloves in front of a Planned Parenthood
Abortion Clinic sign. The caption is "Which one of these
kills more blacks."
The cartoon has been labelled racist by people who do
not understand the point: that abortion, in these
United States, is performed in disproportionate
numbers on blacks.
/john
|
| 20.8879 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon May 05 1997 13:53 | 4 |
|
I see the caption has made an appearance. It's amazing how a caption
can give a whole new meaning to a note.....
|
| 20.8880 | | GAAS::BRAUCHER | And nothing else matters | Mon May 05 1997 14:15 | 9 |
|
Haven't seen the cartoon, but I'm afraid it sounds dreadfully
ineffective. One good thing about all the "comparison to the
Nazis" editorial comments of the last few years, for just about
everybody under the sun, is that the effect is worn out and all
it reveals is the poor thought processes of the comparers to use
such a tawdry and shopworn idea.
bb
|
| 20.8881 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | No one has a right to my life | Mon May 05 1997 15:39 | 7 |
| >The cartoon has been labelled racist by people who do
>not understand the point: that abortion, in these
>United States, is performed in disproportionate
>numbers on blacks.
Why isn't the point that abortion causes more deaths to blacks than
racism?
|
| 20.8882 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | Are you married or happy? | Mon May 05 1997 15:52 | 9 |
|
> <<< Note 20.8881 by SSDEVO::RALSTON "No one has a right to my life" >>>
> Why isn't the point that abortion causes more deaths to blacks than
> racism?
that's what i would have thought the point was, too.
|
| 20.8883 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | looking for deep meaning | Mon May 05 1997 15:57 | 7 |
|
/Why isn't the point that abortion causes more deaths to blacks than
/racism?
because people thinking along those lines could conclude
that that, in itself, is racist.
|
| 20.8884 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | No one has a right to my life | Mon May 05 1997 16:04 | 4 |
| >because people thinking along those lines could conclude
>that that, in itself, is racist.
Why?
|
| 20.8885 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | looking for deep meaning | Mon May 05 1997 16:11 | 7 |
|
why? nipping the black population in the bud?
a genocide through the looking glass?
you don't see how some people might look at it this
way?
|
| 20.8886 | | BIGQ::SILVA | http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/ | Mon May 05 1997 16:18 | 3 |
|
It's so good to have Tom back!
|
| 20.8887 | he's a heart breaker | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Pangolin Wielding Ponce | Mon May 05 1997 16:31 | 1 |
| Tom's petty at times.
|
| 20.8888 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | No one has a right to my life | Mon May 05 1997 16:41 | 3 |
| >you don't see how some people might look at it this way?
Because it's stupid?
|
| 20.8889 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | looking for deep meaning | Mon May 05 1997 16:44 | 3 |
|
oops. i sorta added on to the original context -
that of the _cartoon_ being racist. forgive me.
|
| 20.8890 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | looking for deep meaning | Mon May 05 1997 16:48 | 3 |
|
hey tom, one man's stupidity is another man's philosophy.
|
| 20.8891 | | ACISS1::ROCUSH | | Mon May 05 1997 17:45 | 13 |
| Gee, I must have stepped on some toes. Gee, too bad.
AS I indiciated the report mentioned a drop not just in pregnancy rates
but in rates of sexual activity. This would seem to indicate that
fewer girls are getting involved sexually. When was the last time
rates dropped?
The report indicated AIDS awareness and abstinence. Even though all of
the adults here want to ignore it, apparently kids have gotten the
message that sex can kill you and it is not all that much fun when you
look at the consequenses. Some kids must be getting the message that
safety and abstinence is really a good combination.
|
| 20.8892 | yes, it declined... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | And nothing else matters | Mon May 05 1997 17:51 | 11 |
|
I went back and read it, and yes, Rocush, you are correct. More
teenagers did in fact claim to abstain altogether from sex. It is
interesting to note that the rates for sex, unprotected sex,
pregnancy, abortion, and births among both blacks and hispanics
in the USA remain doubles those for whites and orientals, and
correlate negatively with income. The richer you are, the less
sex you have, the less unprotected sex, the less pregnancy, the
less abortion, and the less births.
bb
|
| 20.8893 | | SSDEVO::RALSTON | No one has a right to my life | Mon May 05 1997 18:34 | 3 |
| >hey tom, one man's stupidity is another man's philosophy.
So true.
|
| 20.8894 | | LUNER::WALLACE | | Mon May 05 1997 18:39 | 6 |
| <<< Note 20.8892 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>
<<< The richer you are, the less sex you have............"
Explain the Kennedys.
|
| 20.8895 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Pangolin Wielding Ponce | Mon May 05 1997 18:46 | 3 |
| easy.
the hornier you are, the more money you get.
|
| 20.8896 | I should have Sagans of dollars by now | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | Spott Itj | Mon May 05 1997 18:47 | 1 |
| explain me, then.
|
| 20.8897 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Pangolin Wielding Ponce | Mon May 05 1997 18:48 | 3 |
| easy.
you want to be a Kennedy.
|
| 20.8898 | | ACISS1::BATTIS | EDS bound | Mon May 05 1997 18:48 | 4 |
|
.8896
well, there are always exceptions for everything.
|
| 20.8899 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | Are you married or happy? | Mon May 05 1997 18:48 | 3 |
|
.8895 shouldn't you be fabulously wealthy by now, then?
|
| 20.8900 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Pangolin Wielding Ponce | Mon May 05 1997 18:50 | 5 |
| re Note 20.8899 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS
ah well, see, this is where my theory falls to the ground. I was hoping
you wouldn't make that particular point, but I can see you're more
than a match for me.
|
| 20.8901 | A portion of "The Silent Scream" with Hebrew subtitles | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue May 06 1997 04:28 | 3 |
|
http://www.efrat.org.il/abort.mov
|
| 20.8902 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | be the village | Thu May 08 1997 23:08 | 1 |
| Were they honest about the gestation this time?
|
| 20.8903 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue May 20 1997 14:25 | 10 |
| The AMA has endorsed the partial birth abortion ban now being considered by
the Senate.
The bill is identical to the one Clinton vetoed last year; the Senate is
trying to pass it with a veto-proof majority.
Supporters of the bill hope that the AME endorsement will help get the
five or six extra votes to guarantee overriding Clinton's promised veto.
/john
|
| 20.8904 | | DECXPS::HENDERSON | Give the world a smile each day | Tue May 20 1997 14:34 | 3 |
|
<insert sounds of Bill rifling through poll stats>
|
| 20.8905 | What are the three changes, /john? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Tue May 20 1997 14:41 | 10 |
| |The AMA has endorsed the partial birth abortion ban now being considered by
|the Senate.
Yes it has.
|The bill is identical to the one Clinton vetoed last year;
No it is not.
-mr. bill
|
| 20.8906 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue May 20 1997 15:20 | 9 |
| >What are the three changes?
If you know, please tell us.
I obviously haven't been paying attention; it was my understanding that
it had been introduced with the identical wording, and I haven't tracked
any changes.
/john
|
| 20.8907 | | LJSRV1::msodhcp-124-216-232.mso.dec.com::mzdebra | We'llMeetYouThere! | Tue May 20 1997 15:24 | 27 |
| Here's some clips from the most recent news article I can find.
It's not really complete.
Sponsors said the measure, among other changes,
now protects doctors from prosecution when they
are intending to deliver a baby but are forced to
resort to the abortion procedure to save the
mother's life.
``Although our general policy is to oppose
legislation criminalizing medical practice or
procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation
where the procedure was narrowly defined and not
medically indicated,'' AMA executive vice president
P. John Seward wrote in a letter to Sen. Rick
Santorum, R-Pa., sponsor of the bill.
Seward said the bill ``now meets both those tests.''
Santorum said the changes are designed to shelter
doctors from overzealous prosecution. Any doctor
accused of performing an illegal procedure would
have the right to a review by a state medical board
before trial. The bill also narrowly defines the
proposed outlawed procedure to assure a
permissible procedure is not banned.
|
| 20.8908 | | SUBSYS::NEUMYER | Here's your sign | Tue May 20 1997 15:28 | 14 |
|
Also from the Boston Herald.
"President Clinton vetoed an identical bill last year and said he
will do so again this year because it does not make exceptions to
preserve the health of the pregnant woman."
Acording to Santorum, its a 'slightly modified' version of last year's
bill.
But the changes are only clarification of wording.
ed
|