22845. kuliginthehooligan - 7/30/2004 6:34:23 AM
Kerry waffles on abortion, again:
"Stepping gingerly into another social issue, Kerry reiterated that he believes that life begins at conception - and that a woman has the right to choose whether to abort.
Asked whether he believes abortion is taking a life, Kerry said a fetus is a "form of life."
"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development. That's what Roe v Wade does. It talks about viability. It's the law of the land." The Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v Wade ruling legalized abortion in America.
"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith," said Kerry, a Roman Catholic."
This tired, old argument, though, ignores entirely that we do this consistently, especially when it comes to protecting the more vulnerable people in our land. In this instance of abortion, Kerry believes that human life begins at conception, yet it doesn't bother him that someone would choose to terminate this life. He retreats into the private/public corner, where he must retreat if he intends to stay in the Democratic Party, which has become so narrow that even moderates are finding it increasingly difficult to stomach.
22846. kuliginthehooligan - 7/30/2004 6:38:52 AM
Interestingly, Kerry used to be consistent when it came to capital punishment, saying he opposed all forms of capital punishment. He has now started, though, to support it for terrorists.
"Kerry has long been an opponent of the death penalty, but in recent years has made an exception for terrorism. The former prosecutor said crimes like rape and child murder do not warrant the highest punishment.
"It's certainly terrorizing to the person who's undergoing it. I understand that," Kerry said. "But terrorism is a political act to terrorize a nation, to try to challenge a way of life and a standard... It's just a different act."
So when it comes to terrorists, he calls for execution, but no capital punishment for any other crime. Fine. But when it comes to abortion, even though he agrees that human life begins at conception, he doesn't think the US should stop this form of human destruction.
Now I fully expect the liberals in The Mote to come here and criticize Kerry for the above positions. Just as a fundie is considered inconsistent by opposing abortion but supporting capital punishment, so too now these same critics should have at it with Kerry and his inconsistent position as well.
jexster, surely you find Kerry unpalatable on such matters, right? I mean, you oppose ALL war and ALL capital punishment, yet Kerry supports both in limited circumstances. Shouldn't you be calling Kerry Beelzebub as well for his support of war, even his fighting in one and killing others?
22847. Ulgine Barrows - 7/30/2004 6:54:16 AM
22842. wonkers2 - 7/23/2004 7:01:22 PM
Bishop Spong appears to have a quite credible resume.
wonkers2, sorry to be irreverent. I could get past Spong's name for about 30 seconds, before the lyrics to Sponge Bob Sqare Pants popped up.
I did enjoy reading the article you linked.
kuliginthehooligan, waffle not. When you can choose to abort or not, then do so.
22848. Magoseph - 7/31/2004 2:08:44 PM
Interesting article, Kuli.
EVANGELICALS V. MUSLIMS IN AFRICA--Enemy's Enemy
Excerpt--This could be good news for the United States. For years, American evangelical missionaries have been coming to Africa, making connections with local populations and doing charitable works in places where few other aid groups dare go. Now, at a time when the United States finds itself losing friends in the developing world, Africa's evangelicals may be one of the strongest pro-American blocs in the world. Grateful for years of patronage by their American brethren, bound by a sense of fellowship to the nation where the contemporary evangelical movement was formed, and respectful of born-again President Bush, these Africans represent a growing constituency of friends. In 2002, the Pew Global Attitudes Project conducted a public opinion poll of 38,000 people in 44 countries including Uganda. It found that nearly three in four Ugandans had favorable opinions of the United States and that 67 percent supported the war on terrorism. The numbers were even higher in C๔te d'Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria--all countries that have experienced religious revivals similar to Uganda's--and they were, collectively, far higher than those in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. And, despite the divisive Iraq war, anecdotal evidence suggests that born-again African Christians still embrace the United States. In fact, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has proudly made Uganda a member of America's "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, knowing he can count on Ugandan evangelicals' powerful support for his decision.
22849. wonkers2 - 7/31/2004 3:11:03 PM
Go KuliganMan!
22850. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 5:35:02 AM
Very interesting article, Mags. Thanks. I suppose that had I said it here myself earlier, I would never have been believed.
22851. Ulgine Barrows - 8/1/2004 9:05:44 AM
It's all about what one believes.
22852. alistairConnor - 8/1/2004 12:14:28 PM
"I don't believe personally that it's the government's job to step in and take my article of faith and transfer it to somebody who doesn't share that article of faith," said Kerry, a Roman Catholic."
Obviously you have to oppose this, Kuligin, insofar as you wish for a religious dictatorship.
Most of us, including those with deeply-felt religious convictions, support the separation of Church and State.
Taking an article of faith, because it is an article of faith, and making it law, would violate this.
It is legitimate for the faithful to seek to pass laws to enforce articles of faith, but only insofar as they provide non-religious justifications for it.
22853. alistairConnor - 8/1/2004 12:35:05 PM
Making a special case for the execution of terrorists?
I'm not a pacifist (I doubt if there are any true pacifists among us) - that would require opposing all war under any circumstances, wishing for all armies to be dissolved etc. While this is a morally admirable position, it lacks any practical application. At a minimum, a nation has to be prepared to kill, in order to defend its own existence. The world being what it is.
I imagine that Kerry's thinking is along these lines. Rapists and murderers do not threaten the existence of a nation, as such. Terrorists might.
I don't agree that the existence of the USA is imperilled by terrorism, so in my view, making an exception amounts to overkill... but I accept the validity of the moral distinction that Kerry makes.
And, given that there appears to be a substantial majority in favour of capital punishment in the US, his position seems to me to be both courageous and didactic.
22854. thoughtful - 8/1/2004 7:13:29 PM
protestant majority evaporating
22855. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 7:45:24 PM
"Obviously you have to oppose this, Kuligin, insofar as you wish for a religious dictatorship."
This is just silly. I'd never want the State to dictate religion, no matter which one. However, I do think it is in the State's mandate to stop murder, such as the killing of innocent, unborn, human life. This isn't simply a "religious" issue. Since 1973 we've exterminated roughly 40 million human lives via abortion. If you can't see past this as solely a religious issue, alistair, I feel sorry for you.
22856. alistairConnor - 8/1/2004 8:42:24 PM
I did not accuse you of wishing for the state to dictate religion; I simply mentioned the fact that you wish for your religious diktats to apply to everyone, regardless of their religion.
If indeed you seek to discuss abortion without reference to religion, then obviously we are in the wrong thread... not my fault, as it happens.
(Interestingly, you seem to be implicitly acknowledging that Kerry is correct in dissociating his religious faith from his policy view concerning abortion.)
I personally have views on abortion, which are independent of my (lack of) religious faith (I consider it to be abhorrent, but I don't consider myself qualified to dictate what a woman can do, or should be obliged to undergo, concerning her own body). I am somewhat sceptical that you, Kuligin, have views on anything at all that are independent of your faith.
22857. jayackroyd - 8/1/2004 9:34:49 PM
However, I do think it is in the State's mandate to stop murder, such as the killing of innocent, unborn, human life.
In vitro fertilization kills embryos. Should the state stop that? The use of fertility drugs often leads to multiple embryos, sometimes dangerously many. The usual procedure is remove some of them. Should fertility drugs be banned?
22858. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 10:23:09 PM
alistair, here's what I said:
"This isn't simply a "religious" issue."
In other words, abortion isn't ONLY of religious concern. I never said it ONLY was, nor did I imply that it was NOT.
Therefore, this comment from you is dead wrong:
"(Interestingly, you seem to be implicitly acknowledging that Kerry is correct in dissociating his religious faith from his policy view concerning abortion.)"
I do not believe it is proper to dissociate one's religious views from the public arena, nor do I think anybody really does it anyway.
"I am somewhat sceptical that you, Kuligin, have views on anything at all that are independent of your faith."
Now then, this statement of yours is accurate. My faith intimately affects all of my worldview, both public and private. However, as I have already noted, I am skeptical of a government - any government -which attempts to dictate which religion the people should adhere to. The people should never be coerced, and your silly earlier comment that I want a religious dictatorship is just nonsense.
However, the government obviously institutes laws and regulations which can affect one's religion, that is obvious.
22859. kuliginthehooligan - 8/1/2004 10:28:14 PM
On the issue of abortion, simply throwing it into the "it's the woman's body so she can do what she wants to" arena is nonsensical. Do you oppose drug use? Why can't a person, in the privacy of his own home, use crack if he wants to? It's his body and his alone, right?
However, abortion doesn't just affect the woman and no one else. It affects at bear minimum the human being in her womb, as well as potentially her husband or partner should she decide to terminate the human life therein.
Abortion need not ONLY be argued on religious grounds, but of course religious grounds should play a part in the debate. We've exterminated roughly 40 million American lives in the past 31 years. Then we hear all the bellyaching about the 1000 American deaths in the past year in Iraq. Seems rather unbalanced to me, at least.
Lastly, if you find abortion abhorrent, then why do you just stand there and say or do nothing? Of course, perhaps you do, but don't you think the State should come in and protect the innocent, that portion of society which has not way of protecting itself? In other words, I think saying one finds abortion abhorrent, but also thinks it's quite okay to stand there and not stop it, is just plain nuts. It is nothing more than a cop-out.
And when it comes to someone like Kerry, it is a political cop-out meant to sidestep the issue so as to not risk losing votes in the process.
22860. jayackroyd - 8/1/2004 10:34:30 PM
On the issue of abortion, simply throwing it into the "it's the woman's body so she can do what she wants to" arena is nonsensical.
That's pretty much a consensus view. As viability moves down from the third trimester, and up into the first trimester, the "woman's body" argument is going to get weaker and weaker.
Do you oppose drug use? Why can't a person, in the privacy of his own home, use crack if he wants to? It's his body and his alone, right?
I don't know. Why not?
22861. kuliginthehooligan - 8/2/2004 4:50:09 PM
"Clinton's formulation--safe, legal and rare"
jay, I've brought your comment over here from the Election thread. The above you actually said twice, but you've also repeated in the past, obviously in favor of the formulation.
I have to dispute your concept of "rare." 1.2 MILLION humans slaughtered annually on average via abortion can hardly be considered rare. The fact is, year in and year out, abortion ranks in the top two medical procedures performed in the US (if memory serves, circumcision is the other one). In short, it is hardly rare.
However, I'll grant you that on average abortions in America have dropped from the 1.5 million per year level. That's a 20% drop. Great, right?
But "rare?" Hardly. 1.2 million of anything cannot be considered rare. And let's try that "rareness" on another topic, and see if it would fly. Let's say that 1.5 million homosexuals used to die every year from AIDS, but now it is "only" 1.2 million. Do you think the homosexual community would be lauding such a great drop in the dead toll?
And how would they respond if you told them not to worry, the deaths are rarer now than they were before?
Nearly half of all abortions are performed on women who had one previously. Abortion is used in very large part as a form of birth control and nothing else. Forget all the talk about the less than 1% in the case of rape or incest. We are slaughtering human lives for no other reason than the women find it convenient to do so, and now we have granted them legal protection to do it.
1.2 million lost American lives EVERY YEAR is harldy rare, jay.
22862. kuliginthehooligan - 8/2/2004 4:51:40 PM
Clinton's formulation is just another example of empty, political rhetoric, and you consistently parrot the party line despite the facts.
Oh, and by the way, 1.2 million is the bottom end of the annual rate. It actually still bounces up to around 1.3 million. But hey, who really cares, right? Rare is what we say it is.
22863. alistairConnor - 8/2/2004 5:36:59 PM
I agree, K, that there is a necessity to promote contraception as a public health measure. Not only is abortion abhorrent, it is a dangerous and expensive procedure. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies is a far better option.
Does your church campaign in favour of contraception?
22864. judithathome - 8/2/2004 5:46:30 PM
Of course, perhaps you do, but don't you think the State should come in and protect the innocent, that portion of society which has not way of protecting itself?
That is sort of what I asked myself when George Bush failed to sign a bill (as Governor) providing health insurance for children living in poverty. Didn't he think it was worth it to protect those chldren, who can hardly go out and earn money on their own to pay for their healthcare?
22865. thoughtful - 8/2/2004 5:55:01 PM
ktheh, why put it all on women? Are there not men involved in the conception process? Are there not couples deciding to have abortions? Are there not women who are told by their husbands/boyfriends/molesters to "get rid of it" whether they want an abortion or not? Are there not teenagers told by their parents to have an abortion whether they want one or not?
And what is this "abortion on demand" thing? As opposed to forcible abortion? If a woman is raped and decides to end the pregnancy, does that make it "abortion on whim" or "justifiable abortion"? Is an unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape any less "convenient" than an unwanted pregnancy resulting from consensual sex? Or is the logic behind drawing that line a desire to punish and shame a woman for having sex voluntarily for non-procreative purposes?
And is a fetus less human with less of a right to life in your view because it was conceived by rape as opposed to conceived voluntarily?
Those issues never made sense to me. Either a fetus has full-blown human rights, or it doesn't. If you're going to draw that line at conception, then the how of the conception should be irrelevant.
And if you draw the line at some point later in pregnancy, as I do, (I view the early fetus as potential human life so it has not yet acquired a right to independent life) then prior to that line, that pregnancy can be terminated for whatever reason, regardless of how it was conceived.
22866. jayackroyd - 8/2/2004 6:33:06 PM
I agree that there are too many abortions, that we should be engaged in an effective public health campaign that would reduce their frequency. Such a campaign would include education and easy access to contraceptives, including the morning after pill.
The fact that the anti-choice folks are opposed to such a campaign indicates that this is not really about abortion.
Still waiting to hear about fertility drugs and in vitro fertilization, both of which lead to the destruction of embryos.
22867. thoughtful - 8/2/2004 8:24:54 PM
Jay, I agree with you on all points the points made in 22866.
22868. angel-five - 8/2/2004 8:45:34 PM
The campaign against abortion in America is just a chosen battleground for the far right, not its raison d'etre. They're less interested in helping people than they are in gaining more political power. Pro-choice, and neutral participants in the debate, have repeatedly pointed out that the anti-abortion advocacies consistently fail to put their money where their mouth is in terms of significantly helping people who choose not to have abortions. They put their money into attack campaigns. The outreach programs the far right fields for actually helping poor mothers with children they decided to keep, or put up for adoption, are dwarfed by the amount of fuel they try to dump on the fire.
Like Jay said, it's not really about abortion. As if you'd need told that, given the demeanor of the people here who are most vehemently anti-abortion.
22869. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 8:49:04 AM
well, there are two layers to that. The politicians who give lip service to anti-choice issues, but never actually get around to anything are one layer. The second layer, the Kulligans of this world, use the rhetoric of murder to advocate not a program of reducing abortions or unwanted pregnancies (both of which are clearly bad things), but a reassignment of women's role in American society. They want to hark back to the Cleavers of the 50s, not recognizing that the Cleavers were a myth.
22870. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 8:57:27 AM
I've said this before, but I'll nonetheless add that the feminist advocacy groups, like NARAL, have also missed the boat on this issue. They only accept the "safe, legal" part of Clinton's formulation, which is shortsighted on their part. They should have clambered onto a ban on late term abortions (Roe v Wade allows states to regulate third trimester abortions iac, so they wouldn't have been giving anything up) in return for a public health campaign to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
22871. thoughtful - 8/3/2004 4:11:59 PM
I don't see how that would work, jay, since anything other than abstinence is not an "approved" message by the rwers. And the rwers for whatever reason refuse to realize that abstinence is simply unrealistic for the majority of humans, especially these days where fecundity is kicking in at age 10 and marriage postponed until well into their 20s. How realistic is it that humans stay celibate for over 10 years during the time in their life that their sex drive is at its peak?
I remember how ticked i was at barbara bush whose family was responsible for bringing in planned parenthood into ct and yet for political reasons refused to speak out on family planning even though she personally supported it.
As long as the radical right keeps a firm grip on the party, there will be no rational approach to sex education, std prevention, or contraception, resulting in even more costs for social programs, medical care, and abortions.
22872. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 5:00:39 PM
"They're less interested in helping people than they are in gaining more political power."
This is utter nonsense, and obviously you have no idea what goes on at the grassroots levels, angel-five.
"the anti-abortion advocacies consistently fail to put their money where their mouth is in terms of significantly helping people who choose not to have abortions."
And this coming from an avowed atheist who has absolutely no clue what churches and religious institutions are doing in America. Angel-five, you are still up to your old tricks, playing the expert in things you have no clue about. Since Roe v. Wade the number of organizations and groups and religious institutions which have gone to help women, unwed mothers, women seeking guidance, adoption agencies, a whole hoard of organizations, have come into existence. You are truly an idiot if you parrot the empty rhetoric you posted above.
22873. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 5:04:13 PM
Shifting gears, there seems to still be some hope for our country and its slide down the moral cesspool. At least the people of Missouri recognized that what the degenerates want isn't right or good, and other states, are moving in the same direction:
"Missouri Voters Approve Consitutional Gay Marriage Ban"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20040804/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
22874. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 5:05:27 PM
"Missouri and 37 other states already have laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. But amendment supporters fear a court could toss aside the state law, and they believe the state would be on firmer legal ground if an outright ban is part of the Constitution.
Louisiana residents are to vote on a marriage amendment Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote on the issue Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.
Four states Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada already have similar amendments in their constitutions."
And yet another sign that John Kerry is out of touch with mainstream America.
22875. angel-five - 8/3/2004 7:55:37 PM
This is utter nonsense, and obviously you have no idea what goes on at the grassroots levels, angel-five.
I live at the grassroots levels, simpleton. What's more, I'm involved in grassroots politics. Your rhetoric about Christian charities sidesteps the point which I actually did mention about the vicious anti-abortion advocacy groups among your kind and the fact that your people poll much, much higher on denying abortion rights to women than it does on providing them government funding to help support their kept children, and charity isn't charity when it comes with proselytization. It's a coercive bribe. Classic Vic, strawmen abounding with your every word.
22876. angel-five - 8/3/2004 8:02:19 PM
And this coming from an avowed atheistwho has absolutely no clue what churches and religious institutions are doing in America.
Wrong again. Twice. It's pretty funny that you followed up that cite with a statement about 'playing the expert in things you know nothing about', isn't it?
Since Roe v. Wade the number of organizations and groups and religious institutions which have gone to help women, unwed mothers, women seeking guidance, adoption agencies, a whole hoard of organizations, have come into existence.
Ignoring for the moment that this sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense nor state a complete thought, the fact is that it doesn't address what anti-abortion advocacy groups are doing, and where they are spending their money. People like you are far more willing to wave the flaming brand and scream about hellfire and take peoples' rights away than you are to help them with the alternatives.
The simple truth is that your church groups aren't solving the problem of abortion, or else you wouldn't be shrieking about it any more. Clearly other efforts must be made to help women keep their babies. And you and your kind are just a lot more interested in trying to threaten them into doing what you want than you are in finding further constructive solutions. It is examples like this which make so many people find your personal politics repulsive.
22877. angel-five - 8/3/2004 8:04:35 PM
Saving the lives of unborn children are secondary to Vic. Promulgating his particular feverish and angry vein of thumper Christianity is primary. I think he'd happily see a few million fetuses aborted with broken bottles if it gave the religious right control of one of the houses of Congress.
22878. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 8:10:23 PM
Still waiting to hear what the anti-choice position is on embryos destroyed by in vitro fertilization and fertility drugs.
22879. pelty - 8/3/2004 10:55:44 PM
"Your rhetoric about Christian charities sidesteps the point which I actually did mention about the vicious anti-abortion advocacy groups among your kind and the fact that your people poll much, much higher on denying abortion rights to women than it does on providing them government funding to help support their kept children, and charity isn't charity when it comes with proselytization."
And it is the government's responsibility to be the Daddy, Mommy and Bank for people who make bad choices? Remind me in which article of the Constitution that is to be found? That said, if someone in that situation is willing to work to get out of their predicament, I am all in favor of a form of temporary support (that is well-defined and, indeed, temporary) so that these people can live the American dream.
22880. jayackroyd - 8/3/2004 11:03:50 PM
That's not the point pelty. The point is that the people who are most up in arms about protecting the unborn are the least up in arms about protecting the born. To say they care about the children here is patently false. As I said earlier, it isn't really even about abortion, because they oppose effective measures to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.
And they skirt issues where embryos are destroyed, in modern fertility techniques.
It's not about the children. It's not about abortion. It's about islamizing American culture, but with a christian face behind the chador.
22881. thoughtful - 8/3/2004 11:06:12 PM
pelty, I think you miss the point. People attempt to make the right choice by preventing or terminating a pregnancy rather than raising a child they can't afford or relying on govt aid to fund the child, but they are prevented from doing so because of blocked access to family planning/contraception/abortion services.
22882. thoughtful - 8/3/2004 11:12:45 PM
jay, xpost!
islamizing? I suppose, but to me it feels a lot more like just getting down on women. While islam certainly does that, it puts restrictions on men as well. This anti-choice doctrine is focused on women, IMHO. I don't hear any of them talking about men doing the right thing, marrying the women they impregnate, financing children born out of wedlock, keeping it in their pants, etc. Especially when you start trying to jail women who are pregnant and alcohol or drug addicted, or drive without seatbelts or smoke, etc.
22883. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 11:45:18 PM
"Saving the lives of unborn children are secondary to Vic. Promulgating his particular feverish and angry vein of thumper Christianity is primary. I think he'd happily see a few million fetuses aborted with broken bottles if it gave the religious right control of one of the houses of Congress."
This is classic. You see, you can't argue on the issues, so you have to resort to basically saying that I really don't care at all if innocent human lives are lost via abortion. Really, all I care about is power.
Hopefully, reasonable people can see through this. But regardless, the Republicans DO have control of both houses, and I'm still talking about abortion and its evils nonetheless. And even if the Repubs had 80 seats in the Senate and an equal majority in the House, I'd still be talking about its evils.
So say what you want to, and make up all the lies you care to make up. Nothing new with you Resonance/angel five.
22884. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 11:47:52 PM
"To say they care about the children here is patently false."
jay, this is also a lie. What do you really know or care, though? You think 1.2 million abortions a year is "rare," remember? Regardless, though, tons of Christians who care about unborn humans do participate in adoption, give millions of dollars to help unwed mothers, donate millions of manhours nationwide each and every year to helping women who are thinking about killing their unborn babies, and so on.
And angel-five, for the future, I ask that you refer to me only by my current moniker. Thank you.
22885. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 11:49:42 PM
pelty, don't waste your good reason on this rabble. As you see, since they can't argue on the basis of facts, they have to result to denigrating character. As you know, of course, I couldn't care less about the actual morality of abortion, or about the countless humans who have been slaughtered via this ghoulish practice. I'm really just interested in power, and all I can get!!
And look how much power I already have. Bwahahahahaha.
22886. judithathome - 8/4/2004 1:19:31 AM
tons of Christians who care about unborn humans do participate in adoption, give millions of dollars to help unwed mothers, donate millions of manhours nationwide each and every year to helping women who are thinking about killing their unborn babies, and so on.
Think of how much time and effort and money all of you would save if you counseled everyone in pregnancy prevention, though.
22887. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:01:15 AM
Not so, judith, because people will still do what they want to do, regardless of whether or not it is right or good for them. For instance, I can see someone arguing that the reason why abortions in America on average have fallen from 1.5 million per year to around 1.2 million is because of the blitz of birth control information we have had. Certainly, it must have played some role, although I don't think the sole or even most important role. But certainly some role.
That still leaves us with 1.2 million per year, and nearly half of those are performed on women who have already had at least one abortion previously. In other words, despite the inundation of information and the varied educational efforts concerning birth control, roughly 600 thousand human beings are slaughtered each and every year by women who just don't really care, and use abortion as another form of birth control.
And the common caricature of evangelicals never teaching their children about forms of birth control, but rather just talking about abstinence of nothing else, is just that, a caricature. I, for one, am proof that that is simply not true. But there really isn't any point in pointing that out to the rabble here, because, well, they tend to never believe the truth anyway.
And despite our varied disagreements in the past, judith, surely you see that I am very passionate about this issue and always have been, and angel five's notion that I really don't care about God's creations in the womb is just nonsense. So can't you even see how the issue is not even addressed, but rather, character assassination is instead opted for (at least in the case of jay and angel five)?
22888. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:06:10 AM
There is a HUGE grassroots movement and organization of people and resources working on the abortion front, attempting in varied ways to save these human beings from the selfish choices of people who should really love them. Again, it is the height of hypocrisy for people to come here and whine about the 1000 American soldiers lost in the last year in Iraq (as bad as that is nonetheless), and not even bat an eye to the MILLIONS of human beings that we needlessly and selfishly slaughter in our country.
Incredibly, if a person drives his car alone, without a seatbelt, he is breaking the law in most states and is subject to prosecution. But if a woman decides to kill the unborn child in her tummy, we call that a private right of that citizen!
We have become a cold, heartless nation. It is part and parcel of the moral dumbing down of America.
22889. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:07:46 AM
On another topic, I saw yesterday that home schooling has exploded in America, up 29% when comparing 2003 to 1999. The main reason given was the condition of public schools, particularly when it came to moral and religious education, as to why more and more parents are opting for home schooling options.
22890. judithathome - 8/4/2004 2:26:56 AM
So can't you even see how the issue is not even addressed, but rather, character assassination is instead opted for (at least in the case of jay and angel five)?
yes, I see this quite clearly and here is but one example:
But there really isn't any point in pointing that out to the rabble here, because, well, they tend to never believe the truth anyway.
I guess that wraps up the entire group, all right. We're just a truth-evading rabble, unwilling to bend to your belief system.
22891. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:39:43 AM
Whatever, judith. But you know full well that if you came in here and said you care for the poor, and I said that that is a lie and that you don't care at all, but rather care about XYZ, that you'd cry foul, and rightly so.
No matter. Believe what you want to, which is, of course, your right to do.
22892. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 2:43:17 AM
"The simple truth is that your church groups aren't solving the problem of abortion, or else you wouldn't be shrieking about it any more."
Huh? It is LEGAL, the law says it is okay. "My church" thinks it is the killing of an innocent human life.
You guys seem to think that if ALL the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and "fill in blank" just taught birth control, there'd be no need for abortion. But not only is that nonsensical, but it also ignored historical fact and what is currently happening right now. Nearly half of all women who have abortions have already had at least one. They don't care, don't you get it?
And yet, the State has labeled this slaughter a woman's right.
22893. arkymalarky - 8/4/2004 2:50:45 AM
The main reason given was the condition of public schools, particularly when it came to moral and religious education, as to why more and more parents are opting for home schooling options.
It's because the government has undermined and underfunded public schools while subsidizing privatization options, including some that facilitate home schooling. Of course this still only benefits those who can afford to take advantage of the government changes, and precious few of them.
The poor (children) you will have with you always, even in the richest country in the world.
22894. judithathome - 8/4/2004 2:59:54 AM
Kuligan, I have said nothing about your caring for the unborn or your beliefs in this matter. All I am saying is birth control would go a long way toward saving people from the need for abortions.
And it is not the church I blame for lack of birth control but women themselves. Especially those who are having their second or third abortion. Birth control is readily available to any woman who chooses to use it. The church may frown on it but it is easier to sin a little by using BC than to sin a lot by getting an abortion, I would think. However, I know many churches frown on using birth control and I think this gives some women a pass from trying to avoid pregnancy in the first place.
22895. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 3:45:50 AM
You think 1.2 million abortions a year is "rare," remember?
No, I don't. I think there are too many unwanted pregnancies. I think we should adopt policies to reduce those numbers. You don't. If you cared about embryos as if they were human beings, you would. Your position is profoundly dishonest.
And I still haven't seen your response to in vitro fertilization and fertility drugs.
22896. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 3:48:08 AM
You guys seem to think that if ALL the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and "fill in blank" just taught birth control, there'd be no need for abortion.
No, we want to know why, if you are deeply concerned about embryos and fetuses, you don't support increased access to contraception and family planning services.
22897. pelty - 8/4/2004 4:27:22 AM
"People attempt to make the right choice by preventing or terminating a pregnancy rather than raising a child they can't afford or relying on govt aid to fund the child, but they are prevented from doing so because of blocked access to family planning/contraception/abortion services."
My problem is the inherent selfishness in this type of reasoning that is wrapped up in the guise of unselfishness, of doing the right thing. I mean, to step back and say, "this child will be born at a severe disadvantage, so let's kill it to save it the misery" is a tragically warped way of looking at the child and its potential future. I readily admit that I was born into a situation very different than the type we are envisioning for this hypothetical child, but even circumstantial evidence from a nightly newscast demonstrates to me that people in the projects hold onto life just as dearly as I and even in the midst of poverty they find reason to laugh and enjoy life. This is not to discount attendant suffering; it surely exists. I would venture to say that Vic might be able to tell us a thing or two about young children in poverty given his experiences in Namibia. Further, why not give the child a shot at adoption rather than making a choice for it, not to mention, a choice for one's own self as many abortions are undertaken not because the child will be at a social disadvantage, but rather because the parent(s) will be inconvenienced, embarassed, etc.
22898. pelty - 8/4/2004 4:27:41 AM
And as Vic rightly mentions, this "pro-life for power" argument is silly. I believe that there is a recent poll that shows the pro-life position to be losing the culture war, so it would seem that the way to gain power with the majority would be to be an abortion rights advocate. Bush aside, it even would seem (admittedly based on nothing of substance save that they are being swept under the carpet at their convention) that the pro-life bloc is becoming an increasingly shunned group within the party that has generally supported the rights of the unborn, the GOP.
22899. pelty - 8/4/2004 4:41:35 AM
"No, we want to know why, if you are deeply concerned about embryos and fetuses, you don't support increased access to contraception and family planning services."
I, for one, support this w/ a couple of caveats. First, I would like a definition of "family planning services." If abortion is included as an option, then I am against it. In my opinion, if one reaches the point where abortion is an option (i.e., the woman is pregnant) then we are past the point of planning and are now at the point of "Oh shit, what are we going to do now (please excuse my language)?!?!?"
Caveat number two would be that abstinence is given a fair hearing. In other words, don't present it as "well, you *could* refrain from sex, but we all *know* that that is a near impossibility at your tender age, so let's move on and talk about IUDs." An explanation of the potential risks, both physical and emotional (and moral as well if the FP center is so inclined) of sex at a young age, while by no means a guarantor of abstinence, will at least give them something to think about and will be a message different from that received from the culture. Present it as a legitimate option, one that is of an equal or superior stature with pre-marital sex, and then proceed to other options (condoms, pill, etc.). The problem is that the adult population just assumes that kids are going to do it no matter what, so we may as well give them the tools. I do not believe that it is necessarily true that kids will go to it at the first opportunity. Some might, I am not so naive to assume that there would be a 100% success rate, but a stronger plea for abstinence might end up saving a young girl from being placed in a situation where she is faced with some awful choices.
22900. sakonige - 8/4/2004 4:49:38 AM
pregnancy can be devastating to a person's health. It can kill you.
22901. sakonige - 8/4/2004 4:57:06 AM
not if you're male, of course. The disease aspects of pregnancy are a non-issue for males. For them, it's just a matter of having sex and waiting for the baby to pop out.
22902. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 5:27:35 AM
I, for one, support this w/ a couple of caveats. First, I would like a definition of "family planning services."
I simply want to know why you are oppposed to contraceptive services.
22903. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 5:29:26 AM
but, pelty, to people who believe life begins at conception, iud is NOT an option as it does not prevent conception...only pregnancy. Morning after pills are NOT an option as they do not prevent conception...only pregnancy. Also, many argue that one cannot educate children about contraception as that is giving tacit approval to premarital sex which is not acceptable. Therefore, the only thing one can teach children is abstinence.
And those who violate the rules deserve whatever punishment they get, even if it's a death sentence due to aids, or death by illegal abortion, or death by child birth.
22904. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 5:31:12 AM
That's how some see protecting the "right" to life, which has been said so many times before, seems to begin at conception and end at birth.
22905. pelty - 8/4/2004 6:22:49 AM
"I simply want to know why you are oppposed to contraceptive services."
I don't think that I said I was. I just may have a different idea of just what such a service should entail.
22906. pelty - 8/4/2004 6:33:16 AM
"And those who violate the rules deserve whatever punishment they get, even if it's a death sentence due to aids, or death by illegal abortion, or death by child birth."
Huh? I don't think dying from AIDS, abortion, or childbirth is something deserved, but it is ultimately the result of lifestyle choices. There are risks inherent in having unprotected sex that include some of the things you mention. If people are aware of these risks, than I can feel sorry for them, but they are not necessarily tragedies. I would certainly prefer that a cure to AIDS be found, that people did not die from botched abortions, and that women would not die in childbirth, but until such a time should arise, make your choice and then live (or die) with it. It called "personal responsibility."
Sakonige, surprisingly, brings up a good point. Men do have it easy when it comes to accidental pregnancy. It stinks. I am open to suggestions as to how to make males more responsible in this day and age. I suspect that it starts from birth and that by the time a young man is of an age to impregnate a young woman, it is too late to reach the one who is of a mind to up and leave when the going gets tough.
22907. angel-five - 8/4/2004 6:36:08 AM
And despite our varied disagreements in the past, judith, surely you see that I am very passionate about this issue and always have been, and angel five's notion that I really don't care about God's creations in the womb is just nonsense. So can't you even see how the issue is not even addressed, but rather, character assassination is instead opted for (at least in the case of jay and angel five)?
I think it's a murderous passion, if anything. And it isn't character assassination to point out obvious truths in your demeanor and the fights you choose to make and how you choose to make them. Whatever you choose to claim about your beneficient beliefs, here you mostly share hate.
22908. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:23:14 AM
You guys seem to think that if ALL the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and "fill in blank" just taught birth control, there'd be no need for abortion. But not only is that nonsensical, but it also ignored historical fact and what is currently happening right now. Nearly half of all women who have abortions have already had at least one. They don't care, don't you get it?
I think if that all the churches and religious groups and evangelicals and etc taught birth control and family planning, there'd be much, much less need for abortion. I believe it would be much more efficacious than your placarded ranting and the applied politics of your religious hate. I believe that overall our world would be a much better place than it is now for the children whom you claim to be concerned about.
There are, simply, far too many abortions in America, and while I believe the right to choose is important, I do not believe I could ever make that choice. You choose to point the finger and say 'They're bad, they must be punished'. I believe, on the contrary, that if our culture were more pragmatic and less dogmatic about adoption, birth control and the philosophies of personal responsibility, that our people would make much better choices overall and that abortion rates would plummet.
22909. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:28:17 AM
You choose to harp on how wrong it is. I choose to realize that it is a problem that hasn't been ameliorated by harping, and might be ameliorated by education. You find the moral center of America in religion -- all well and good. All the more reason for religion to be at the table, discussing instead of finger-pointing, helping people to make smart choices in a complex world instead of demanding that they do what makes no sense to them and threatening to have them thrown in jail if they do not. You believe America is in some sort of moral slide. I believe that historically speaking there have always been people like you saying such things, and that the moral worth of our people depends less on draconian adherence to Procrustean stricture, and more upon our willingness to foster good in the world despite the fact that people don't always do precisely what we want them to. At the end of the day I care less about who got branded a wrongdoer and more about who got a better life despite their occasional error, and I refuse to stand on arcane and irrelevant principle when it will only cause more harm than good. I wish people like you felt the same way, but you don't, and I will stand in your way, and push back, when you attempt to rape the spirit of 'love thy neighbor' in the name of the letter of your Law.
There is simply far more to be gained by working with people than there is to shriek hellfire at them, and it is at times like this that I am most glad that whatever gave rise to me gave me the power of independent reason, rather than slavish adherence to inflexible principle, when it comes time for me to decide what is right and moral and just in a world which ten commandments can neither control nor cage nor command.
22910. alistairConnor - 8/4/2004 10:24:16 AM
The problem is that the adult population just assumes that kids are going to do it no matter what, so we may as well give them the tools.
But the point, Pelty, is that they already have the tools.
Well, half of them do.
22911. alistairConnor - 8/4/2004 10:36:52 AM
But seriously : I agree with you that there should be much more than just technical info on contraception available.
Schools ought to be the place where children can learn and decide about the moral framework that accompanies their sexuality; about the consequences of their choices; about the joys of non-penetrative sex; etc. In particular, there needs to be more social engineering aimed at particular high-risk sub-cultures, empowering young women in their relationships with men. The possibility of abstinence is one part of this; but "just say no" is just stupid.
22912. judithathome - 8/4/2004 3:42:21 PM
Explaining the risks will fall by the wayside as soon as a couple of teenagers have sex for the first time and nothing dire happens. They immediately assume all they've been told was bunk.
22913. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 3:44:18 PM
Huzzah A-5!
22914. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 3:54:30 PM
pelty, personal responsibility is all well and good. however humans are not born with instinct and need to be educated. With the proper information, they are better able to make the right choices. Why create a system that leaves them to their own devices and forces them to live with the consequences, when, with a little education, the "not necessarily tragedies" as you put it, of disease and death may be avoided all together?
22915. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 5:18:10 PM
Speaking of which, Lawsuit Says Women Were Misled to Delay Abortions
In a federal lawsuit, seven women now charge that Mr. Graham never intended to refer them for an abortion at all, but was merely stalling until it was too late....
Five of the women who sued Mr. Graham said in court affidavits that his tactics had forced them to carry their pregnancies to term, either because they had passed the legal time limit for abortions - generally at the end of the second trimester - or they could no longer afford an abortion, which tends to cost more later in a pregnancy.
and
In 2002, Mr. Graham enrolled in the state's anti-AIDS condom distribution program, picked up 30,000 free condoms and discarded them. He pleaded guilty to theft and is on probation.
And talk about irresponsible women getting abortions on demand for the sake of convenience:
With no job, no high school diploma, a boyfriend in jail and a mother who is terminally ill, Mary Schloegel, 19, says she is in no position to raise a child.
and
One of the women already had a child with hemophilia who required constant care. Now she has two. "I also did not want to bring another severely ill child into this world or be in the position where I am unable to give my children the full care and attention they need," she wrote in an affidavit under the name Jane Doe No. 4.
We cannot possibly know the difficult position people who choose abortion are in. We cannot know their personal situations and what choices they face. We should not presume to decide for them.
22916. pelty - 8/4/2004 6:01:14 PM
"personal responsibility is all well and good. however humans are not born with instinct and need to be educated. With the proper information, they are better able to make the right choices. Why create a system that leaves them to their own devices and forces them to live with the consequences, when, with a little education, the "not necessarily tragedies" as you put it, of disease and death may be avoided all together?"
I am obviously not mking myself clear here. Educate. Educate to your heart's content. Just make abstinence a *legitimate* option, not one that is something unattainable and pie-in-the-sky (and perhaps a bit wimpy). Then, by all means proceed to discuss condoms, pill, etc. I am not suggesting that we stick our heads in the ground and decide not to face the reality that teens are having sex. What I am suggesting is that we attempt to make abstinence an option worth pursuing for health reasons and, for those who are so inclined, moral reasons as well.
22917. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:22:27 PM
"There is simply far more to be gained by working with people than there is to shriek hellfire at them"
Then you might take a page from your own suggestions, angel-five. It does little good to wage character assasination on a person, and state that I do not care at all about unborn humans, but rather, about power. That's just nonsensical, and you should apologize for it instead of waxing eloquent and attempting to skirt the matter.
Yours are just dirty games, angel-five.
22918. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:24:10 PM
And if we want to be pragmatic, then let's teach our young people the 100% sure fire way of not getting pregnant, abstinence. You don't have to worry about having an unwanted baby if you abstain from the behaviour that produces them. I'm always amazed at how simple the formula is, and how pragmatic it is as well, and yet, how vehemently people oppose it. Seems to me they are much more interested in "sexual freedom" than in anything else.
22919. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:25:49 PM
"Just make abstinence a *legitimate* option, not one that is something unattainable and pie-in-the-sky (and perhaps a bit wimpy)"
Amen.
22920. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:29:51 PM
And let's keep in mind, the largest class of women having abortions is BY FAR middle to upper middle while women, not the poor and indigent. That is just a red herring. And again, nearly half of the women have already had at least one abortion previously.
So despite all the increase in education for birth control, and even if we did more for it, there'd still be a ton of American lives lost each and every year (hundreds of thousands) due to this practice.
Abortion, except in the case where the mother's life is in jeopardy, should be stopped in this country, period.
22921. sakonige - 8/4/2004 6:29:55 PM
You don't have to worry about having an unwanted baby if you abstain from the behaviour that produces them. I'm always amazed at how simple the formula is, and how pragmatic it is as well, and yet, how vehemently people oppose it.
Muslims are a fine example of these principles in action. They know how to prevent the behavior that produces unwanted babies, yet people vehemently oppose their methods.
22922. sakonige - 8/4/2004 6:31:06 PM
that is to say, many people oppose them, not the Muslims themselves, of course.
22923. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:33:36 PM
And as basically everybody here has agreed on, people often just don't do what they should do. In other words, even given the vast amount of birth control education that we have seen already in this country, people don't care.
My gosh, even in the homosexual community AIDS is on the rise, and it is shown by studies and polling that homosexual men aren't using condoms to protect themselves. They don't particularly care to.
So the argument that "what we need is MORE and MORE education" is just silly, and ignores the fact that, despite how much education you throw at people, many of them just aren't going to listen.
So we make abortion another form of birth control, and as the stats show, that is precisely how it is being used. Get rid of that option, though, and perhaps less and less people would have an "out" when it comes to fooling around. Because at it seems now, often the mentality is, "well, let's not use birth control, and if we get pregnant, we'll just abort."
22924. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:38:01 PM
22925. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:39:26 PM
22926. kuliginthehooligan - 8/4/2004 6:47:31 PM
Here is, literally, the face of abortion:
22927. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 7:18:50 PM
Still wondering about those fertility practices.
And also wondering why the coherent program pelty mentions is not advocated by the religious right. Sure, abstinence should be part of any program that teaches kids about their future choices--and not merely because of unwanted pregnacy. But contraception should also be an important part of such programs, and those on the religious right who say they want to see reductions in abortion rates oppose such aspects.
22928. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:24:11 PM
Then you might take a page from your own suggestions, angel-five. It does little good to wage character assasination on a person, and state that I do not care at all about unborn humans, but rather, about power. That's just nonsensical, and you should apologize for it instead of waxing eloquent and attempting to skirt the matter.
Actually what I said was that you care more for growing the power base of fundamentalism than you do for unborn humans, Kuligin, and I don't intend to apologize for the truth. People here recognize that in you. I don't 'skirt' that matter. It was the conclusion of my first series of posts in this discussion, and I'll reaffirm it whenever necessary.
And if we want to be pragmatic, then let's teach our young people the 100% sure fire way of not getting pregnant, abstinence.
Because that has worked so well for the first several thousand years we've taught it? What, do you think it's a matter of just finally getting it right? How many tries do you need?
I have no problem with abstinence being taught as an option, even the main option, but studies show that teens taught abstinence only, not only still have sex anyway, but they tend to have less protected sex more often than teens taught safe sex.
22929. Absensia - 8/4/2004 7:30:16 PM
This brings to mind a very Catholic and conservative family I knew. They refused to teach their four kids anything about birth control and were adamantly against sex education in school. They bragged about how their children would never, ever have sex before they were married. When it became obvious their 16 year old daughter was 6 months pregnant, the mother said, "I have no idea how this could have happened." Obviously the daughter did.
22930. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:32:26 PM
I mean, WTF. 'Let's make abstinence a legitimate option'. Who here believes that abstinence isn't taught as a legitimate option? Well, besides in those places where abstinence isn't taught as an option, but the entire ball of wax, I mean.
How do you make it a more 'legitimate' option than it already is? Once again, if people think that teaching safe sex methods weakens abstinence, I point you to the results of teaching abstinence only vs. teaching abstinence and safe sex, which is, more teen pregnancy, more teen STD, more teen abortions. Teaching 'abstinence-only' is what makes abstinence an illegitimate option, and it's what's got to stop. There are right-wing advocacies in America that know fully well that abstinence-only has poor results and that the kids do worse for it. Anyone can read the studies. The fact that they know, and still press the abstinence-only programs, is just further example of the fact that they care less about what they claim to champion than the furtherance of their political agenda. The enforcement of conservative Christian values has become the end, and not the means, for these people.
22931. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:37:30 PM
But contraception should also be an important part of such programs, and those on the religious right who say they want to see reductions in abortion rates oppose such aspects.
And that's simply because what was once a means for them has become the desired end. And Kuligin knows this, so much so that he has to distort it when it's said, from 'Conservative Christian prominence is more important to you than the unborn lives you're screaming about' to 'Power is all to you and you don't care at all about unborn lives'. It hits far too close to home.
But good luck getting him to admit it. He doesn't wanna talk about fertility practices, btw. He probably doesn't know much about them.
22932. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 7:45:49 PM
great shots, KtheH...now pray tell what is that first picture a picture of? It may be an aborted fetus, but it certainly doesn't look human. The human fetus in early stages had a disproportionately large head. Makes me mistrust the source.
22933. pelty - 8/4/2004 7:46:17 PM
"I mean, WTF. 'Let's make abstinence a legitimate option'. Who here believes that abstinence isn't taught as a legitimate option? Well, besides in those places where abstinence isn't taught as an option, but the entire ball of wax, I mean."
Ii guess I do, for one. Reflecting on my own experience, I am hard-pressed to remember any discussion of abstinence and if it was mentioned, it was in passing and glossed over. The unspoken understanding in the classroom is that people were going to have sex no matter what, so let's get to those things that will protect them. There is, of course, some truth to this as there will always be teen sex, but there *may* be less of it if abstinence is promoted as zealously as condom usage was in my own experience. I recently heard a poll that suggested abstinence was on the rise in the teenage population, although who knows what is to be learned from this. I do not have the source on that poll, so I mention it anecdotally and with some caution.
22934. judithathome - 8/4/2004 7:51:46 PM
I don't know how old you are, Pelty, but when I was a teenager in the 1950s, it was just understood that you wouldn't have sex until you married. And we had "homes for unwed mothers" to which many of my classmates were sent so obviously, even back in that more innocent time when there was no sex ed in schools, teens who would be ostracized for having pre-maritial sex still did it.
22935. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:56:54 PM
Ii guess I do, for one. Reflecting on my own experience, I am hard-pressed to remember any discussion of abstinence and if it was mentioned, it was in passing and glossed over.
Abstinence was taught as the best option in my schooling, and you would be the first person I've encountered who might not have heard it mentioned. There are no school curricula today I know of where abstinence isn't taught as an option -- except, as I mentioned, where abstinence isn't taught as an option but the only choice. I'd welcome hearing any proof that we aren't teaching abstinence as an option these days.
I recently heard a poll that suggested abstinence was on the rise in the teenage population, although who knows what is to be learned from this.
Could it possibly be as a result of teaching it more sensibly than 'Just don't have sex'? I mean, everyone here was a teenager at some point. Who among us responded well to that sort of direct commandment? Teenagers have a profound sex drive and they are wired to rebel.
22936. angel-five - 8/4/2004 7:59:10 PM
Abstinence was taught as the best option in my schooling, and you would be the first person I've encountered who might not have heard it mentioned.
should end with 'in their sex ed class'. Of course, unfortunately, the generation that gave rise to Roe v. Wade wasn't really taught that much about sex, were they?
22937. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 8:00:08 PM
Actually, I expect that abstinence is a significant part of sex education programs because of concern over STDs.
This WSJ article discusses the issue.
I know that if I had teenaged kids we'd talk about the emotional and physical risks involved with having sex before you're ready for it.
So, pelty, I think you're pushing on an open door. It would be crazy to have a sex education curriculum that didn't make very clear that the surest way to not get pregnant is not to have sex.
22938. jayackroyd - 8/4/2004 8:03:36 PM
From the article:
Among school districts that teach sex education, 51% discuss contraception but require abstinence be taught as the preferred option. About 35% require that abstinence be taught as the only option for unmarried people.
The remaining 14% teach teens that both abstinence and contraception are part of a broad range of options for adolescents.
22939. Magoseph - 8/4/2004 9:16:31 PM
A truly evil man--Lawsuit Says Women Were Misled to Delay Abortions
Unknown to the women, said officials of Planned Parenthood of Louisiana and the Mississippi Delta, Mr. Graham is a vigorous opponent of abortion who has picketed doctors' officers and videotaped people attending events for Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights.
According to a 1995 article in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, Mr. Graham and his wife, Bonnie, once ran A Woman's Day Clinic, which she described as a "pro-life" clinic for pregnant women and women who had had abortions.
In 2002, Mr. Graham enrolled in the state's anti-AIDS condom distribution program, picked up 30,000 free condoms and discarded them. He pleaded guilty to theft and is on probation.
Five of the women who sued Mr. Graham said in court affidavits that his tactics had forced them to carry their pregnancies to term, either because they had passed the legal time limit for abortions - generally at the end of the second trimester - or they could no longer afford an abortion, which tends to cost more later in a pregnancy.
22940. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 9:38:30 PM
magos, see #22915
22941. Magoseph - 8/4/2004 9:41:31 PM
Oh, darn, sorry, thoughful. How could I miss that.
22942. thoughtful - 8/4/2004 10:12:39 PM
it's worth repeating!
;-)
22943. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2004 11:12:59 PM
Pictures of aborted fetuses (or whatever they are) posted in two threads. This certainly represents the low water mark in the history of the Mote. Kuligin is losing his composure and his judgement. Such a pity.
22944. Magoseph - 8/4/2004 11:34:47 PM
These Kuligin types introduce their horror stories, but they never introduce the pictures of young women butchered in their prime by unqualified so-called medical practioneers, simply because they didn't have the food or money to provide for another child. The so-called religious elements that have sponsored this horror, to the best of my knowledge, have never made a serious effort to control the birth of unwanted children, based on their ridiculous notion that an egg is a human being.
22945. Ms. No - 8/5/2004 12:34:43 AM
Good catch, Thoughtful. An 11 week pregnancy is about an inch long and looks like this:
22946. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:37:39 AM
I was hoping you'd say that, pelle. It is, though, simply the truth. Don't want to actually look at the truth, do you pelle?
Mags, doing things that are illegal have their consequences. What people opposed to abortion advocate is adoption, having the woman take the baby to term and not slaughtering it, and then putting it up for adoption. 25% of couples in America are infertile and many are forced to go overseas for adoption.
If the "deal" were, we'll end abortion and you guys on the right adopt the children instead, there wouldn't be one left behind.
22947. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:38:32 AM
"based on their ridiculous notion that an egg is a human being"
Nonsense. Or at bare minimum, Mags, be more precise.
22948. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:42:41 AM
"We cannot possibly know the difficult position people who choose abortion are in. We cannot know their personal situations and what choices they face."
Sure we can. They tell us, or we have in some way experiences it ourselves.
"We should not presume to decide for them."
More nonsense. We decide to people all the time. We tell them they must wear seatbelts, or they can't smoke pot in the privacy of their own homes. We do this with the law all the time.
Why? Because it has been determined that these people don't know good enough for themselves. The laws are created, in essence, to protect people against themselves in many instances.
With abortion, we have needless butchering and slaughtering of innocent human life. It is absolutely mind boggling how, with a wave of the hand, we can condone the death of 40 million Americans over the past 31 years, and then blithely call it a personal right and privilege.
22949. judithathome - 8/5/2004 12:48:13 AM
It is, though, simply the truth. Don't want to actually look at the truth, do you pelle?
Someone might want help with remedies for constipation but that doesn't mean they want to see pictures of turds.
22950. judithathome - 8/5/2004 12:50:01 AM
25% of couples in America are infertile and many are forced to go overseas for adoption.
People go overseas to adopt because of all the red tape put up by rules and regulations from "helpful" government bureaucracy.
22951. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:58:12 AM
judith, people know that turds are turds.
However, we have people in this thread who don't believe that abortions kill human beings? Then what was that head a picture of, a turtle? Zebra? Duck-billed platapus?
They need to see that each abortion kills a human being. There it is, for you to see. Hiding the pictures is a subtle attempt at skirting the issue.
It isn't just an undifferentiate mass. It is a human being.
22952. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 12:59:09 AM
"but it certainly doesn't look human"
Not sure what you think is a human, then, thoughtful, if that doesn't qualify.
22953. sakonige - 8/5/2004 1:06:56 AM
It's human, but it's also a parasite. The host should have some say in ridding itself of a parasite.
22954. sakonige - 8/5/2004 1:07:54 AM
especially a harmful parasite. No one should be forced to host a harmful parasite.
22955. angel-five - 8/5/2004 6:59:31 AM
Kuligin can post as many of those as he wants, as far as I'm concerned. Abortion involves something pretty horrific.
His mistake, I'm thinking, is assuming that it will move people who already know abortion involves something pretty horrific. Maybe he's used to impressionable teenagers as his audience. The fact of the matter is that mature adults are capable of realizing that some decisions come at a horrible cost, and still decide it's the best decision. Maybe he does realize that somehow -- in fact, it seems likely he does. He just seems to think that they opt for that decision for selfish reasons. I know some do. Some do not, some are honestly trying to do the right thing, and in some cases it is assuredly the right thing to do! You can't reduce it all to some kinda caricature of selfish shallow upper class women deciding to murder an infant because it will fuck up their feng shui. Trying to do that just advertises the essential weakness of his position.
22956. Ulgine Barrows - 8/5/2004 7:57:31 AM
22861. kuliginthehooligan - 8/3/2004 2:50:09 PM
The fact is, year in and year out, abortion ranks in the top two medical procedures performed in the US (if memory serves, circumcision is the other one). In short, it is hardly rare.
Oh, please.
I'd guess taking weight and blood pressure readings were tops.
"Abortion is used in very large part as a form of birth control and nothing else."
That's a silly thing to read, how do you like this in response?
Pony up some money and time, and raise those kids yourself.
Not that you have a choice, whether it's legal or not, moral or not. Women can decide, and that just chaps your ass.
22957. angel-five - 8/5/2004 10:55:08 AM
>The fact is, year in and year out, abortion ranks in the top two medical procedures performed in the US (if memory serves, circumcision is the other one). In short, it is hardly rare.
Do you know why this is such obviously retarded propaganda, Kuligin?
How can there be more circumcisions than births?
The fact that you garbled is that abortion is usually one of the top two obstetric medical procedures performed per year in the world. (Childbirth is the number one obstetric medical procedure, go figure!) Pop quiz, Kuligin -- how many sorts of obstetric medical procedure do you think there are?
22958. Ulgine Barrows - 8/5/2004 11:02:56 AM
Slip in anything you like, angel-five.
Is this for real?
22959. angel-five - 8/5/2004 11:25:30 AM
Given that there's no comprehensive world (or US for that matter) database of the total count of medical procedures, really, no, it isn't for real. There's just estimation, especially when you're looking at a procedure that's often kept confidential. Anti-abortion propagandists like to estimate large numbers, for obvious reasons. But when they start claiming that abortions are more common than chest x-rays and childbirth and mammograms and colonoscopies, it becomes plain that they have left the real world far behind.
22960. angel-five - 8/5/2004 11:31:04 AM
I should have had 'fact' in quotes, as far as that goes. But that's a given when you're working with propaganda.
22961. Ulgine Barrows - 8/5/2004 11:43:15 AM
When I'm retired, I hope you or your kids are looking after me!
Go forth!
There are lots of stupid-sounding persons all over the internet.
Take care, candyman.
22962. thoughtful - 8/5/2004 6:41:34 PM
ktheh, if you can't see that whatever it was posted in your first picture is not human, then you only prove how little you know about the topic...or else it demonstrates your willingness to accept total nonsense as fact if it supports your presuppositions.
22963. judithathome - 8/5/2004 7:57:50 PM
That first picture doesn't look human because human embryos have larger heads and eyes before they have fully formed hands and feet...and the sonagrams prove this out.
I'm sure Kuligin knows this but that picture makes a graphic statement so he went with it.
22964. Magoseph - 8/5/2004 8:54:29 PM
Thank you to Judith for asking Hobbes at ATI to put a link for The Mote on his site. Hobbes put it on for us, folks.
22965. Magoseph - 8/5/2004 8:55:54 PM
Sorry for the post above. I thought that I was in the Cafe.
22966. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 10:25:28 PM
"ktheh, if you can't see that whatever it was posted in your first picture is not human, then you only prove how little you know about the topic"
AND
"That first picture doesn't look human because human embryos have larger heads and eyes before they have fully formed hands and feet"
Look again you morons. The head is severed off the body. Geez. Couldn't you at least figure that one out?? That is just the torso, no head in that picture.
22967. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 10:27:03 PM
I am always amazed at how quickly people attempt to divert the issue. Naw, Kuligin doesn't really care about human beings, just political power. Naw, those aren't really humans, something else and Kuligin disengenuously posted them just the same.
Bunch of creeps the lot of you. Dead humans, that's what those pictures are. And all of you call that a right. Losers. Try to skirt it all you want to, but all that shows is that you folks truly have no conscience.
22968. judithathome - 8/5/2004 11:00:55 PM
Look again you morons.
Have you ever addressed someone who disagreed with you without using an insulting name?
I am not a moron; I didn't look that closely at the picture. Just because you drooled over it for hours on end, don't assume we all paid it that close attention.
22969. sakonige - 8/6/2004 1:57:35 AM
parasite An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Don't want to actually look at the truth, do you kuligin? The reality is too raw and complex to be reduced to a slogan.
22970. sakonige - 8/6/2004 2:00:39 AM
unless you have hosted such a parasite in your own body, I think you should shut the fuck up about it, because you don't know what you are talking about.
22971. tmesis - 8/6/2004 4:10:59 AM
sakonige, you're either retarded or disingenuous. The monospecies parasitism you keep harping on about is generally referred to as pregnancy. First, parasitism is understood to involve two different species, not one. Second, there's medical evidence that pregnancy, especially by a certain age, confers health benefits on a woman.
kuligin, stop trying to sensationalize. A person should have the option to participate in the discussion without having to look at abortion photos. Provide a text link, if you must. Have you seen the photo of tubgirl? No? Let's keep it that way.
22972. tmesis - 8/6/2004 4:14:07 AM
sakonige, you're either retarded or disingenuous. The monospecies parasitism you keep harping on about is generally referred to as pregnancy. First, parasitism is understood to involve two different species, not one. Second, there's medical evidence that pregnancy, especially by a certain age, confers health benefits on a woman.
kuligin, stop trying to sensationalize. A person should have the option to participate in the discussion without having to look at abortion photos. Provide a text link, if you must. Have you seen the photo of tubgirl? No? Let's keep it that way.
22973. tmesis - 8/6/2004 4:15:08 AM
Sorry. I guess refreshing causes the browser to repost.
22974. arkymalarky - 8/6/2004 6:08:43 AM
Yep.
22975. angel-five - 8/6/2004 9:50:33 AM
Does it really matter whether he posts pictures of sheep fetuses or human ones? That's what abortion looks like. Of course, it'd be pretty amusing if he bungle-fucked up and posted the wrong dead fetus, but the point is pretty much the same. Kuligin thinks that by shoving it in your face he will make you confront the reality and question your stand on it. It's a pretty patronizing view, and as shown so far in this discussion, it isn't working out terribly well for him, because everyone here's bright enough to understand what an abortion involves, and are all pretty unlikely to ever really take him that seriously anyway because they've seen him in action long enough to know what he's all about. Online ranting thumpers are kinda like street drunks in that regard, sometimes you watch them a bit out of morbid curiosity but usually your eyes slide right on by. The ironic thing is that with a different, reasoned approach he might actually make some points here and there that people would accept.
Tmesis -- He isn't trying to be a sensationalist. That's actually as far from the truth as you can get. Kuligin thinks of himself as some kinda grim footsoldier for an angry Christ, out doing the Lord's dirty work. His end is converting you, and any means will do -- a lie is as good as a truth if it strikes an equal blow for Jesus. Plus he likes to argue. If he had subtlety and charm he'd make a good Jesuit -- as it stands now, he'd make an excellent Witchfinder General. Try not to take it out on the guy, he's just in the wrong century.
22976. angel-five - 8/6/2004 9:53:39 AM
I am always amazed at how quickly people attempt to divert the issue.
Isn't that what you're doing right now?
22977. angel-five - 8/6/2004 9:56:38 AM
I mean, isn't that your old reliable MO? 'If I can't beat them or convert them, I'll just try to discredit them and their arguments, and cover myself by insisting that that's what's being done to me?'
Be honest now. I'm told the Lord hates it when we lie.
22978. tmesis - 8/6/2004 10:36:22 AM
Of course he's trying to sensationalize, to deliberately provoke a quick and powerful emotional or visceral response. In a discussion of deviant sexual practices, it is perfectly possible to verbally describe scatology without shoving a picture of tubgirl in your eyeballs. To do more is to sensationalize. Why else would a fundie(if he is one, as you say) use any means possible to deliver his point?
22979. angel-five - 8/6/2004 10:59:23 AM
to deliberately provoke a quick and powerful emotional or visceral response.
I'd agree with the usage in that sense.
22980. jayackroyd - 8/6/2004 4:20:10 PM
Maybe this is a good time for a recap.
This particular line of discussion began when I disputed Kuligan's claim (and similar claims in the media) that we are living in a very polarized time. I said that's not so--that most people are centrists primarily concerned about their economic future. I further said that to the degree there is polarization, it is happening among politicians, being driven particularly by republicans trying to use social issues as wedges.
Then I pointed out that even on those issues most people are moderate, and indifferent compared with other issues they see as more important. These points have gone unrefuted, as we've been led through the typical "I can't believe you are such heartless morons" rant.
The rant, of course, never dealt with the issues that were raised other than to say the equivalent of "An egg is a chicken, and only a fool thinks otherwise." Moreover, the instances where embryos are disposed of in pursuit of children for people with fertility problems was never discussed.
This is not about abortion.
22981. pelty - 8/6/2004 5:20:02 PM
"being driven particularly by republicans trying to use social issues as wedges."
This may go better in the Politics thread, but Jay, come on, you cannot be serious when you imply that the GOP is the primary party using social issues as wedges. The Dems have used race for decades, abortion in the other direction, environmental programs, gay rights, not to mention health care, social security, and all the other FDR/LBJ legacy programs that have transformed our society into one that looks to the govt. teat for anything and everything. No doubt the GOP does the same in some of these and other areas, but please don't stick your head in the sand and put this all on one party.
22982. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:30:06 PM
"I didn't look that closely at the picture."
Then you truly are a moron, judith. Because you said I knew full well that it wasn't a pic of a human fetus, that it was self-evident that it was not, and that despite that fact, I posted it anyway because is suited my purposes.
Now you admit that you didn't really look all that closely to the picture in the first place!
Only morons give short shrift to something, yet in kneejerk fashion accuse others of lying!
Here's your comment in full, creep:
"That first picture doesn't look human because human embryos have larger heads and eyes before they have fully formed hands and feet...and the sonagrams prove this out.
I'm sure Kuligin knows this but that picture makes a graphic statement so he went with it."
22983. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:31:01 PM
Also, posting pics of abortions is certainly acceptable, since many people who support abortion do so on the grounds that all it is is a mass or blob in the woman's womb. We even have some people claiming it is nothing more than a parasite. Well, looking at the human body therein might help some people realize their error. Perhaps not in this thread of people whose consciences have been seared, but it has certainly been the case with others in this country.
Those aren't undifferentiated cells being removed from the woman's body, folks. That's a human being, nothing less.
22984. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:34:39 PM
Lastly, I am truly amazed at how much deception is used by the pro-death people in this thread. For starters, whether or not that one picture I posted was an aborted fetus (and it clearly is), that doesn't affect the issue one bit. The fact remains, 1.2 million human beings are aborted each and every year in the US. But you guys, in an obvious attempt to skirt the issues, attempt to change the subject to me as a liar, or me as politically motivated, all the while ignoring the FACT of abortion.
Just go back up and take a gander at your posts. You guys consistently bury your heads in the sand on this issue. Or better yet, you claim you care about it, but oppose all efforts to stop it.
There is not one ounce of moral compunction among the whole of you. You simply do not care. And your kneejerk reactions to the pics proves that out. You don't really care at all about those human lives. Not one iota.
22985. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:37:19 PM
And here's the quintessential example:
"I didn't look that closely at the picture."
Yet, judith is very quick and willing to accuse me of lying, to state that the pic is clearly not a human fetus and that I knew it wasn't but claimed it was anyway.
And the whole while, she conveniently skirts the abortion issue.
This is very similar to those people in The Mote who are constantly accusing Bush of lying, yet when Clinton had an extra-marital affair, was caught, and lied about it on oath to the American people, these same people said that wasn't that big of a deal. Hypocrites, all of them.
22986. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:43:33 PM
Yet another example:
"This is not about abortion."
For seven years now, in The Fray and now here, I have spoken out against abortion. This isn't some new hot topic for me just during this election. It has been a consistent theme of mine the entire time I have been in this forum. In fact, it was the second topic I breeched when I first came to The Fray. The first was a theological matter.
But why waste the facts on people like jay? Or angel-five? Or judith? Or thoughtful? You all much prefer to make this issue something else, while conveniently ignoring the real facts: 1.2 million human beings are slaughtered each and every year via this heinous practice we call a woman's right to choose.
Naw, it isn't really about abortions at all. Naw, all those pictures are fake. Yep, Kuligin just cares about political power. Yep, he really doesn't care if we rip those human beings out with broken bottles, so long as the GOP wins.
So let's just go on our merry way, saying how much we wish there weren't so many abortions in this country, yet not doing a damn thing to stop them.
22987. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:45:16 PM
And now, judith, that you admit to not even looking too closely at that picture, and now that you recognize that it is a human fetus without its head, because its head was ripped off the torso during the abortion process...
and because you accused me of lying about it...
I expect an apology from you.
22988. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:46:22 PM
"Just because you drooled over it for hours on end, don't assume we all paid it that close attention."
Close enough to accuse me of lying about it. So please, I expect you to be a big person and apologize for your obvious kneejerk reaction and error in falsely accusing me of lying.
22989. kuliginthehooligan - 8/6/2004 5:49:48 PM
"A person should have the option to participate in the discussion without having to look at abortion photos."
tmesis, well, if we take judith's word on it, those photos weren't looked at much anyway.
However, as I noted above, showing those photos does confer some benefit upon the discussion, because, as you yourself noted in your chastisement of sakonige, some people attempt to make us believe that what is aborted is a parasite, or a mass of cells and nothing more. But as the photos intimately show us, those are human beings being scalded to death with a salt solution, or ripped to pieces by the implements of the abortion doctor.
Seeing the facts for what they truly are can never be harmful to a debate, can they?
22990. PelleNilsson - 8/6/2004 6:21:29 PM
So Judith is "a moron" and "a creep". You have developed into a hopeless boor, Kuligin.
22991. tmesis - 8/6/2004 8:34:52 PM
kuligin, you ghetto faggot, no one argued that fetuses are undifferentiated cell masses. Please learn to read before you tilt your dick at strawmen.
"Seeing the facts for what they truly are can never be harmful to a debate, can they?"
You're right. Since I, probably as you do, believe that homosexuality is a vile, vile disposition contrary to the kingdom of heaven, I will attempt to shed light on its disgusting nature every time it is discussed graphically, as you have. Here's a preview.
I hope this helps.
22992. arkymalarky - 8/6/2004 8:34:57 PM
At what stage of pregnancy were most of those abortion pictures?
22993. arkymalarky - 8/6/2004 8:35:21 PM
Not most--all
22994. judithathome - 8/6/2004 8:37:55 PM
Close enough to accuse me of lying about it. So please, I expect you to be a big person and apologize for your obvious kneejerk reaction and error in falsely accusing me of lying.
Fine...I aoplogize for "accusing" you of lying. I shouldn't have phrased it in those terms. You obviously feel very strongly about this subject and feel compelled to label anyone with a different view with names and slurs to their intellect.
Kuli, if you feel your God approves of this sort of behavior from you, then you are right to do those types of things. I personally don't think it's right but when I do something wrong, I admit it and I am apologizing for implying you lied.
But just so you know, and are very clear on where I stand, I support a woman's right to choose what happens in her body. If that means having an abortion, then so be it. I would prefer that people use birth control to prevent the abortion being necessary...and that includes men AND women...and I think it is deplorable to use abortion as a means of birth control but I still support the laws that make it legal for a woman to choose abortion.
I have a clear conscience about doing so, too. And no amount of bluster from you will change my mind.
22995. Magoseph - 8/6/2004 9:19:27 PM
tmesis, point well-taken.
22996. judithathome - 8/6/2004 9:43:07 PM
Yes, the door has swung open on what is deemed proper graphic depiction, has it not?
A picture is worth a thousand words, right, Kuligin?
22997. woden - 8/6/2004 10:28:47 PM
roughly 600 thousand human beings are slaughtered each and every year by women who just don't really care, and use abortion as another form of birth control.
Right there, is the problem with people like you. As long as you make this only the fault of women you will never, ever end abortion or even significantly reduce the numbers of abortions that occur.
If our child support, paternity, battery laws were very well-enforced, how many fewer abortions would there be? If pregnant women could absolutely count on a decent level of support from the fathers of their children, if there were no way for a man to welch on those responsibilities, and if the women did not fear being abused by those men, then there would be a significant reduction in the number of abortions every year. But, people who oppose abortion choose not to pursue legislation that would have the effect of actually reducing abortion, they want to put the problem entirely on the women, using polarizing, overtly religious crusade language.
I imagine that the reason why anti-abortion activists never seem to attack the problem from that angle (holding men responsible and pursuing legislation that would enforce that responsibility) are the following:
- It simply doesn't occur to them, they just aren't very good at strategizing to achieve their goals, they would rather make it a polarizing moral issue than pursuing legislation which most people could agree.
- They are more interested in controlling women's sexuality than in taking practical measures to prevent abortion.
- They want to uphold male privilege.
That is why I have zero respect for the pro-life movement as a whole and would never, ever support it, even though I do think abortion is morally wrong.
22998. PelleNilsson - 8/6/2004 10:34:49 PM
Good points, woden, and nice to see you here.
22999. woden - 8/6/2004 10:36:19 PM
Thanks, Pelle!
23000. Absensia - 8/6/2004 10:55:10 PM
Wodes, Very, very good to see you here! I hope you will be a regular. (It's Flam`)
23001. woden - 8/6/2004 11:18:47 PM
Flam! I hardly recognized ya!
23002. judithathome - 8/6/2004 11:23:53 PM
Welcome to the Mote, Woden! Good to see you here....
23003. woden - 8/6/2004 11:25:09 PM
Thanks, Judith!
23004. pelty - 8/6/2004 11:29:16 PM
Woden,
You make some good points, but I think you misjudge the motives of the pro-life "movement." I do not think that there is an assignment of blame as much as a reaction to the initial issue and the way it was presented. At its heart, the abortion rights movement was as much about women's rights and the feminist movement as it was about birth control, family planning and any of the other euphemisms thrown about today. Thus, when the battle lines were drawn, they primarily focused on the procedure versus advocating a more holistic approach. I do not believe that your point would be lost on or disagreed with by the pro-life side, but decades-old sclerosis has set in on both sides of the debate and other issues, such as that you mention, become peripheral. As someone who would place himself in the "pro-life" camp, I would absolutely agree with your points re: male responsibilty. OTOH, I have no interest in "upholding male privilege" (whatever you mean by that; a straw man in my mind) or in "controlling women's sexuality" (again, what do you mean by this?). I would venture to say that as many women as men, and possibly more women than men, are a part of the pro-life "movement" (by this, I mean those who would count themselves as pro-lifers, not just those actively involved in pro-life associations), so are you suggesting that they are interested in upholding male privilege and controlling other women's sexuality (and if so, what's to gain?) or are you simply going to stereotype them as vacuous, brainwashed, etc., at which point you discredit your argument?
23005. woden - 8/6/2004 11:55:07 PM
so are you suggesting that they are interested in upholding male privilege and controlling other women's sexuality
Virtually all pro-lifers are religious, usually Catholic or some type of fundie Protestant. I believe they are not interested in strengthening child-support and other legislation of that type because it would probably have the effect of encouraging or rewarding sex outside of marriage. Or, on the flip side, it would take the financial sting out of choosing not to marry or choosing to have sex outside of marriage.
23006. judithathome - 8/6/2004 11:56:38 PM
so are you suggesting that they are interested in upholding male privilege and controlling other women's sexuality (and if so, what's to gain?) or are you simply going to stereotype them as vacuous, brainwashed, etc., at which point you discredit your argument?
Much as others who portray people who support pro-choice as Pro Death supporters do?
23007. woden - 8/7/2004 12:05:16 AM
Good point, Judith.
To clarify what I just said, the religions I mentioned are overtly, explicitly concerned with controlling female sexuality and with upholding male privilege. Though the religious pro-lifers would say that their activity is primarily out of the religious principle of sanctity of life, it is not so neatly and cleanly separated from those other agendas prominent in their religions.
23008. pelty - 8/7/2004 12:34:07 AM
"Much as others who portray people who support pro-choice as Pro Death supporters do?"
I actually miss your point. There is nothing inherently wrong about this categorization, even if it is not one that sits well. Abortion of a fetus inevitably causes the premature death of a developing infant. Thus, if one is pro-abortion one is Pro-Death, in this particular instance. That does not mean they are for death in all areas of life, but in this case, if a=b and b=c, then a=c.
23009. pelty - 8/7/2004 12:43:13 AM
"To clarify what I just said, the religions I mentioned are overtly, explicitly concerned with controlling female sexuality and with upholding male privilege."
Again, define your terms. Are you saying that these religions are monolithic and thus all persons within them are interested in upholding male privilege (whatever it is you mean by this) and controlling female sexuality? Further, have you not noticed that these religions put just as much emphasis on male sexuality and the strict regulation thereof (confines of marriage, etc.) as they do on the women? They do not send them outside the camp during their menstrual periods these days, as far as I know.
If, by "upholding male privilege" you mean having the men in leadership positions, I think you would find that there are a number of "fundie Protestant" churches who do not take this position, or would certainly be open to discussing it. It appears as though you are applying a rather uninformed stereotype to groups who should probably not be seen as some monolithic structure in which there is no variation. You may have a slightly better argument w/ the Catholic church (although there is variation there as well, to a lesser extent), but there are too many groups, denominations, etc. under your umbrella of "fundie Protestant" churches to assume that they all think in one way on this issue.
23010. pelty - 8/7/2004 12:49:25 AM
"I believe they are not interested in strengthening child-support and other legislation of that type because it would probably have the effect of encouraging or rewarding sex outside of marriage."
What do you mean by "strengthening child support"? Do you mean that we should strengthen laws that would make the father of a child support the child monetarily throughout its childhood? Why on earth would someone be against that? That hardly rewards sex outside of marriage. If you mean that the government should support these people with our tax-dollars for 18 years (as opposed to a shorter period which might aid the family as they get their feet on the ground, the parent goes to college, etc.), then you would be right that some might be against this, but not for the reasons you state.
23011. woden - 8/7/2004 12:52:16 AM
The Catholic Church is monolithic. Either you buy the major points listed in the catechism or you can take a hike. It's also quite clear that the leadership of the Catholic church actively participates in the sexual exploitation of women and children by it's clergy.
All Christian churches are based on the New Testament, including the writings of St. Paul and other writings which explicitly repress women.
You can argue all day that your church makes various concessions, interpretations, has different rules, blah blah. I am familiar with the Bible and I think it's sexist. The burden is on the religious anti-abortion activists to present themselves as non-sexist. There is no burden on secular people who are happy with Roe v. Wade to convince themselves that Christianity is not sexist, concerned with upholding male privilege and controlling female sexuality.
23012. woden - 8/7/2004 12:57:54 AM
What do you mean by "strengthening child support"?
Child support laws should be well-enforced. A man should not be able to easily evade his obligation by moving away or concealing his income. He should be legally obligated to provide an amount of money that his kids can actually live on, and if he can't do that, heavier penalties should be levied than those that exist now.
That hardly rewards sex outside of marriage.
Sure it does. Who has more legal options and leverage for getting support, a wife or ex-wife or someone just suing for child support?
23013. pelty - 8/7/2004 6:19:28 AM
Woden,
You demonstrate a lack of sophistication on any number of levels in this regard.
You write this: "You can argue all day that your church makes various concessions, interpretations, has different rules, blah blah. I am familiar with the Bible and I think it's sexist."
This is, of course, not what you stated above. You stated that fundie Protestants are one of the two denominations involved in the movement that seeks to uphold the male power structure and whatever other blather you were spouting. Now you are dismissing the notion that all "fundie" churches cannot be lumped into your broad stereotype and now have decided to point to the Bible as your source of anger or whatever, thereby removing one of your legs upon which you stand.
Further, you never really addressed the fact that there are multitudes of women who consider themselves pro-life, "fundies", or whatever and do not seem to have the same negative feelings that you do nor do they see themselves as upholding the male power structure to their detriment. As I see it, you either have to concede this and deal with it or lump them into the other stereotypes that you have developed in your own mind in which they are naive, stupid, etc.
23014. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 8:46:43 AM
22967...Bunch of creeps the lot of you. Dead humans, that's what those pictures are.
Well, looking at pictures of dead humans just doesn't creep me out. We all end up that way. Some sooner, some later.
I could watch a bloodshot corpse in the rain, little rivulets of blood flowing, and I wouldn't throw up. I bet lots of cops wouldn't throw up, doctors, nurses, morgue attendants, pathologists, and many others would just do their job.
I could go into a house where there had been a suicide by gunshot wound, brains all over the wall, and clean up.
It's all in the design, kuliginthehooligan. Quit fighting death. Some people deal with it every day.
23015. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 8:48:27 AM
I cannot stifle it....
bring out yer dead!!!
But I'm not dead yet!
23016. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 9:15:48 AM
22948. kuliginthehooligan - 8/5/2004 10:42:41 PM.....
Why? Because it has been determined that these people don't know good enough for themselves. The laws are created, in essence, to protect people against themselves in many instances.
And as God is my justice, it is illegal for me to shoot off fireworks on the 4th of July, yet still I do.
And teenagers are having sex. Adults are having sex. The world is pretty normal, here, in my corner of it.
absolutely mind boggling how, with a wave of the hand, we can condone the death of 40 million Americans over the past 31 years, and then blithely call it a personal right and privilege.
Absolutely mind boggling how, with a wave of the hand, you adopted out those 40 million Americans into loving homes that you hold in your fantasy.
23017. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 10:12:53 AM
shriek hellfire at them
22970. sakonige - 8/6/2004 6:00:39 PM
unless you have hosted such a parasite in your own body, I think you should shut the fuck up about it, because you don't know what you are talking about.
Hey sakonige, good to see you, been a while. I read your screed about parasites years ago,but didn't understand. You don't know me, I'm sure, but your words stayed with me. You had the passion. Give me a few days and check back.
23018. Ulgine Barrows - 8/7/2004 10:15:44 AM
And I'm chagrined that it looks like you posted again.
I was just putting your original post in bold.
23019. jayackroyd - 8/7/2004 5:50:36 PM
"controlling women's sexuality" (again, what do you mean by this?).
FOr example, by insisting that chastity is the only acceptable form of birth control.
Still haven't heard about those fertility procedures. If it really were about abortion, then I'd have heard about them by now.
23020. woden - 8/7/2004 6:04:12 PM
Further, you never really addressed the fact that there are multitudes of women who consider themselves pro-life, "fundies", or whatever and do not seem to have the same negative feelings that you do nor do they see themselves as upholding the male power structure to their detriment. As I see it, you either have to concede this and deal with it or lump them into the other stereotypes that you have developed in your own mind in which they are naive, stupid, etc.
That is a ridiculously bad argument. Of course women have participated in institutions which are sexist. I don't have to lump them into a stereotype or think about them in any particular way. Why should I waste my time speculating as to why they would do this? It's not my problem. It is the problem of people like you who want to change the laws of the United States.
The fact that I pointed to the Bible as the source of the sexism doesn't take anything away from my argument. There is no logical reason why both the Bible and fundie churches can't both be sexist at the same time.
Pretty lame. There are probably a bunch of people like me, just kind of here in the center, who have secular arguments against abortion. If you could soft-pedal your dumb religions and engage the middle on their terms, you might end abortion. Your posts demonstrate that Roe v. Wade is perfectly safe from people like you.
23021. sakonige - 8/7/2004 6:34:44 PM
Ulgine Barrows -
That's just the way it works. Mammals begin life as parasites. A fetus is usually welcome in the host's body, but it is undeniably a parasite.
23022. woden - 8/7/2004 6:46:41 PM
(This is res being too lazy to log out) Actually, you got that idea from me. And I was wrong at the time, and knew it, and was just trying to rile some fundamentalists. Fetuses aren't parasites, even if you choose to use the terminology usually reserved for different species living in and on each other. They are symbiotes.
Pelty: What, exactly, is it that's confusing you about my girlfriend's posts? You seem horribly confused about something and I'm not sure what. Is it the sexism of prottie Christianity that you're objecting to? Or is it the overlap between that camp and the anti-abortion crowd that is losing you? Or is it the fact that you think she doesn't understand that fundamentalist protestant Christianity is more than one unit? Or are you just indiscriminately angry? Please feel free to let me know the answer so I can more constructively engage with you on this topic.
23023. tmesis - 8/7/2004 7:26:06 PM
Re: 22970
sakonige, don't be disingenuous. The only parasite you've ever hosted is your ignorance. If empiricism is the sole criterion guiding your speech, the only thing you're fit to wax flatulent about is your mental retardation.
Your claim is as ludicrous as a AIDS patient claiming that HIV, as a matter of fact, is a bacterium and not a retrovirus, and that anyone who hasn't been infected is unfit to speak on the nature of the pathogenesis of AIDS.
Don't be a dishonest trick.
23024. woden - 8/7/2004 7:33:25 PM
Be an honest trick.
23025. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:03:46 PM
tmesis -
Here is the definition again:
parasite - An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
23026. tmesis - 8/7/2004 8:06:03 PM
That's an incomplete and inadequate definition. And I've already noted that the human fetus confers benefits to the carrier. Aren't you overdue for a 173rd trimester abortion?
23027. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:08:57 PM
Actually, you got that idea from me.
Actually, I didn't get that idea from you, resonance. I got that idea directly from the experience of pregnancy. A fetus feels exactly like what it is, a parasite. Ones feelings may be extremely mixed about the sensation, but it is unmistakable. There is a living things inside your body feeding on you, pissing into your bloodstream.
23028. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:20:16 PM
They are symbiotes.
No, they are not.
symbiosis - A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.
23029. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:31:54 PM
There are sometimes benefits associated with overcoming the stress pregnancy puts on a woman's body, sort of like exposure to disease may build ones immunity, but that doesn't change the essential parameters of the physical relationship.
23030. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:32:30 PM
And I've already noted that the human fetus confers benefits to the carrier.
Have you ever wondered why nutrition, healthcare, and hospitalization is so important to the process of childbirth?
Have you ever heard of maternal mortality?
You may wish you weren't a parasite inside your mother's body, but you were. That's just the way it works.
23031. sakonige - 8/7/2004 8:36:21 PM
"Maternal mortality is defined as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management. Maternal morbidity is any illness or injury caused or aggravated by, or associated with, pregnancy or childbirth.
The majority of pregnancy-related deaths occur after delivery (61 percent), in comparison to 24 percent during pregnancy and 16 percent during delivery.
Forty-two percent of the 129 million women who give birth annually experience some complications during pregnancy. Approximately 15 percent of women worldwide develop potentially life-threatening complications, which include chronic pain, impaired mobility, damage to the reproductive system and infertility.
In developing countries, pregnancy and complications from childbirth account for 18 percent of disease among females..."
That's not symbiosis.
23032. tmesis - 8/7/2004 8:50:06 PM
"Have you ever wondered why nutrition, healthcare, and hospitalization is so important to the process of childbirth?"
You're an idiot. Please kill yourself immediately, or failing that, sew your anus shut lest you speak ever again. By and large, healthcare and hospitalizations do little for childbirth with the exception of a few in which complications or birth defects are a concern.
"Have you ever heard of maternal mortality?"
I go to a med school, so yes. Medicine does not regard fetuses as parasites, and no amount of squawking from you will change that.
There's good evidence that intelligence is largely inborn. I hope you don't have children.
23033. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:12:11 PM
tmesis, you are very emotional about this stuff, aren't you?
You drop right down to the lowest level of ad hominem right away.
I go to a med school, so yes.
Since you insist on getting so personal, you said on another website you are flunking out of grad school. Is that the med school you refer to?
Also, I assume you are a male. Is that so?
23034. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:17:49 PM
By and large, healthcare and hospitalizations do little for childbirth with the exception of a few in which complications or birth defects are a concern.
Statistics don't bear that out. Look at a comparison of mortality rates between developed and undeveloped nations.
23035. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:25:36 PM
maternal mortality
"In many developing countries, complications of pregnancy and childbirth are the leading causes of death among women of reproductive age. More than one woman dies every minute from such causes; 585,000 women die every year.1 Less than one percent of these deaths occur in developed countries, demonstrating that they could be avoided if resources and services were available.
In addition to maternal death, women experience more than 50 million maternal health problems annually.2 As many as 300 million women more than one-quarter of all adult women living in the developing world currently suffer from short- or long-term illnesses and injuries related to pregnancy and childbirth."
23036. tmesis - 8/7/2004 9:28:00 PM
"You drop right down to the lowest level of ad hominem right away."
Please learn to distinguish ad hominems from insults.
"Since you insist on getting so personal, you said on another website you are flunking out of grad school. Is that the med school you refer to?"
You're a literal minded idiot. I'm neither emotionally involved in this nor failing out.
"Statistics don't bear that out. Look at a comparison of mortality rates between developed and undeveloped nations"
It's called confounding variables, you idiot.
23037. tmesis - 8/7/2004 9:35:46 PM
re 23035.
Stop. I didn't say that complications don't exist, or that there exist a fairly large number of them in absolute terms. In relation to the number of all pregnancies, however, hospitalizations add little to deliveries.
But that's neither here nor there. This has to do with your disingenuous use of the word parasite. Western medicine does not recognize fetuses to be parasites, nor does your being a cum depository qualify you to modify existing definitions.
23038. woden - 8/7/2004 9:50:24 PM
There is a living things inside your body feeding on you, pissing into your bloodstream.
Fetuses don't share a bloodstream with mothers, nor does amniotic fluid leach into the bloodstream. I'm sure you think now that this was all your idea, but it wasn't, and it's obvious that you're just being bitchy now.
For starters, the same definitional barriers apply between parasites and symbiotes -- the study of parasitology is the study of different species interacting with each other. Symbiotes and parasites are solely distinguished from one another based on whether the two organisms help one another or not. If they can be shown to help one another, regardless of any other issues, they can be described as symbiotic.
Secondly, the fetus in the womb never, ever comes into contact with the mother. It does not share the bloodstream, nutrients are passed via osmosis, there is an entire barrier of foreign tissue between the fetus and the mother known as the placenta. So strictly speaking, the placenta is a parasitical tissue (except that it can be shown to benefit the mother's health) and not the fetus, which is purely symbiotic.
But all this is just a poetic conceit anyway. Science recognizes parasitology and embryology separately primarily because scientists aren't as stupid and divisive as you are, and they use more stable and logical methods of deduction than your old standby schizophrenic 'I have direct knowledge of these sorts of thing and I understand it completely.
23039. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:55:51 PM
tmesis -
You are obviously extremely emotional and irrational on this subject, practically out of control. You are a hateful asshole who will stoop to telling a complete stranger to commit suicide over a disagreement in an internet debate. You're going to make a lousy doctor.
You said:
By and large, healthcare and hospitalizations do little for childbirth with the exception of a few in which complications or birth defects are a concern.
And that's bullshit. Healthcare and hospitalization have a lot to do with childbirth.
For some reason, it is very important to you to believe pregnancy and childbirth have no negative impact on women's health.
23040. sakonige - 8/7/2004 9:57:07 PM
There's reality there you can't stand to look at.
23041. judithathome - 8/7/2004 10:01:24 PM
Healthcare and hospitalization have a lot to do with childbirth.
Women who use midwives do just fine, too. Assuming no complications, of course.
23042. sakonige - 8/7/2004 10:03:39 PM
23038. woden - 8/8/2004 11:50:24 AM
I didn't say I understand "it" completely. I said I understand what pregnancy feels like better than you do.
23043. sakonige - 8/7/2004 10:05:40 PM
Women who use midwives do just fine, too. Assuming no complications, of course.
There are plenty of midwives in the third world, where women are not all doing just fine. It's assinine to claim quality of healthcare has no impact on maternal mortality.
23044. woden - 8/7/2004 10:07:03 PM
Probably more than half of people born today wouldn't make it through their birth without modern medicine. Before modern medicine, it was incredibly common to die in childbirth.
23045. woden - 8/7/2004 10:07:28 PM
This is me now, btw.
23046. judithathome - 8/7/2004 10:10:11 PM
It's assinine to claim quality of healthcare has no impact on maternal mortality
What's assinine is you attributing that claim to me when all I did was point out midwives have success in helping women, too.
23047. sakonige - 8/7/2004 10:11:27 PM
Often, the way a woman first realizes she is pregnant is nausea. She can't stop puking. Some times she gets used to it, sometimes she just keeps on puking until she is no longer pregnant.
Any man who puked his guts out for months on end would realize something was wrong with his body. But the same man might insist that a woman going through that is benefiting from the experience.
23048. tmesis - 8/7/2004 10:13:09 PM
Irrational? Have you noticed that no one agrees with you? Ask any biologist or physician whether a fetus is parasitic and she'll laugh at you.
To sum it up, you're
1. dishonest
2. ignorant
3. stupid
4. literal minded
"For some reason, it is very important to you to believe pregnancy and childbirth have no negative impact on women's health."
I have never said this. I did say that pregnancy is not all detriment. It confers benefits, largely in endocrine regulation.
judithathome, you're absolutely correct. A respected obstetrician at school has told me that midwives are often better at deliveries except in managing obstetric emergencies.
23049. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:07:41 PM
I suspect that there is a direct link between child abuse and the parents who believe that their child/children are parasites.
23050. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:12:52 PM
All Christian churches are based on the New Testament, including the writings of St. Paul and other writings which explicitly repress women.
This is a pretty sweeping generalization, Woden. As pelty rightly pointed out, there are millions of us who do not fit into this - namely me. I am a Protestant (Southern Baptist, specifically) and I am anti-abortion and am NOT repressed by the church. Nor have I ever perceived or received any repression from any writings of Paul.
If you'd like to start discussing feminist theology versus orthodox Christianity, I'm all yours!
;-)
23051. tmesis - 8/7/2004 11:17:52 PM
re 23044.
That's true, but the decreased infant mortality is largely due to public health measures, not hospitalizations per se.
23052. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:18:40 PM
Btw, anyone who can look at the pictures that Kuligin posted and still defend abortion has something terribly wrong with them. What is even more sickening are the mothers who have had children and still defend abortion.
Abortion is the deliberate ending of a human life. Period.
23053. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:20:05 PM
Abortion for the sake of convenience (which accounts for the majority of abortions) is wrong and immoral.
23054. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:21:33 PM
tmesis,
Welcome to the Mote.
23055. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:27:32 PM
Have you noticed that no one agrees with you?
Plenty of people agree with me. That's why abortion is legal.
23056. Jenerator - 8/7/2004 11:30:46 PM
Sakonige,
Abortion is a very divisive topic, and you'd be in the minority down here in Texas. Also, virtually no one agrees with you that a fetus is a parasite.
23057. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:31:46 PM
Are parasites exclusively detrimental to the host? People tend to think of them that way, but I doubt that is part of the formal definition.
23058. sakonige - 8/7/2004 11:36:12 PM
google on "beneficial