Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Freakin' South Dakota.Follow

#77 Mar 07 2006 at 11:44 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,701 posts
Baron von Barkingturtle wrote:

I wrote all of that and never once mentioned virgins being sodomized, I am dissappointed in me.



Me too. Smiley: frown
____________________________
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Then find someone that life has given vodka and have party.


This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
#78 Mar 07 2006 at 11:46 PM Rating: Decent
HeresJohnny wrote:
Baron von Barkingturtle wrote:

I wrote all of that and never once mentioned virgins being sodomized, I am dissappointed in me.



Me too. Smiley: frown



I wish I'd been aborted.
#79 Mar 08 2006 at 2:36 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
gbaji wrote:

Failing to recognize that so many abortions are performed for the "wrong reasons" isn't helping either. Pro-choice doesn't mean "bad choice". Those of us who argue the pro-choice position carry a responsibility to also make every attempt to ensure that it's done for the reaons we argue for.


I don't think this is true. Pro-lifers cry "well, rape and incest is only a small percentage of all abortions" as if that somehow makes the argument that SOME abortions are performed in cases of rape and incest invalid. It doesn't. NO ONE has EVER claimed that a majority of abortions are performed for those reasons. The argument being made is that narrowing the scope of who is allowed to have abortions puts the (admittedly small) percentage of people who need abortion for reasons of rape or incest at risk of not being able to have one for a very legitimate reason. And that is a completely valid claim.

The logic behind arguing for a wide latitude in the legalization of abortion (unrestricted up to a certain gestational point) is that in doing so, we make sure that no one who is in "legitimate" need, even if that only composes a small percentage, is left without a much-needed procedure. We can accept that the unfortunate side effect of this wide latitude is that some people misuse the procedure, but that the interests of keeping the procedure available to those with a legitimate need outweighs the cost of those who have abortions for illegitimate need.

The other aspect of the argument is that allowing "special exceptions" for rape and incest simply isn't good enough. Why? Because who gets to decide if its an actual case of rape or incest? How does one qualify for that "special exception" in such a way as to prevent EVERYONE from simply claiming they were raped. Must there be bruises? A criminal report? A prosecution of the rapist in a court of law? What if there isn't enough evidence to prosecute, is the woman then not allowed to abort? An amniocentesis to determine if the DNA carries out an accusation of incest? How do you restrict abortion to ONLY cases of rape and incest without 1) leaving the definition open to abuse by those willing to lie to get an abortion or 2) restricting it so far that people who actually WERE raped or impregnanted via incest can't get an abortion?

THAT'S the argument being made...not that rape and incest is a large portion of abortions, but that allowing a wide latitude for those seeking abortions is the only way to make sure that victims of rape and incest have access to it when they need it, EVEN IF it means also allowing women to have abortion for the sake of "convenience."

And we really have to revisit this idea that women have abortions for "convenience" sake, because I guarantee you that the definition of "convenience" being used to lump together that 98% of abortions not being done in cases of rape or incest is one that doesn't take into account the women whose lives and livelihoods will be effectively destroyed by having a child. It doesn't include women who exist at the poverty line. Women who will not be able to complete an education needed to become a productive citizen if they have a child. Women who used birth control properly and still got pregnant. Women who are significantly at risk for ending up a "deadbeat" on welfare if they have a child, and whose children are statistically at risk for continuing the cycle of poverty.

What about those women who WANT to have their babies, but whose fetus has birth defects which are incompatible with long-term survival? Just because a child MIGHT be able to live if it has three heart surgeries by the age of 2 years old and a heart transplant before the age of 15 doesn't mean its an issue of "convenience" if a mother decides not to subject her child to that sort of existence.

The idea of an abortion needed for "illegimate" purposes is one which is so exceptionally subjective that to restrict abortion based upon it means that we run the risk of restricting abortion for those who actually ARE "legitimately" in need. Because, honestly, who gets to decide what is "legitimate"?


Quote:

And guess what? If that means allowing states to decide and even possibly illegalize the ability for a woman to get an abortion for any reason other then rape/incest, that's OK with me as long as we're basing the laws on the facts instead of the myths.


But isn't that what the pro-lifers want to do? They want to illegalize abortion because they (most, at least) claim it is the murder of a human being. Okay, fine. Show me the "facts" that prove that a fetus is a person, and not just a "potential" person. You can't. So tell me how the "facts" of the pro-lifers who claim a fetus is a person get to somehow override the "facts" of those who claim abortion should be kept legal to protect the percentage of women who need abortions in cases of rape or incest, or women who are going to have children who will either die soon after birth, (if not in the birthing process) or whose quality of life will simply be unbearable due to horrific medical problems, or women who might die from botched backalley abortions.

And before dismissing the idea that such a situation would be the case, keep in mind that:

1) if abortion is prohibited again, then unlike the back-alley abortion doctors of the 60s and 70s, the new providers of abortion services WILL NOT be doctors, because doctors will be watched much more closely than they ever were back then--by legal authorities, by their malpractice insurance providers, and ESPECIALLY by pro-life "watchdog" groups who can't wait to try to slam through a murder conviction for an abortion provider

2) penicillin exists in the world today, and yet many thousands of women die each year from illegal abortions still

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_0599.html
Quote:
Of the estimated 600,000 annual pregnancy-related deaths worldwide, about 13% (or 78,000) are related to complications of unsafe abortion.


13% of 600,000 is 78,000. Think about that. Nearly EIGHTY THOUSAND women die each year due to unsafe abortions. Now, in the interest of making sure we are dealing with "facts" here, I will acknowledge that most of these unsafe abortions and the resulting fatalities happen in developing countries, but that is due to the simple fact that abortion is legal in most developed countries. So while some of the risk in these procedures, even a large portion of it, may be due to lack of medical advancement in those countries, we cannot dismiss the notion that a significant portion is also due to the fact that these women are unwilling to seek medical help when they know they have had an illegal procedure for which they may very well be prosecuted.

In light of that, think about what abortion would be like in a developed country (such as the U.S.) where it's not only illegal, but where those providing and receiving the procedure are being hunted quite voraciously in an excess of zeal by its opponents (and let's be realistic--the moment anti-abortion laws pass the courts, the next demand on the part of the pro-lifers will be increasingly stiffer and harsher penalties for those found breaking those laws.) Do you think women will be apt to seek out medical aid, even antibiotics, when they know they will be reported for a crime--perhaps even murder--if they do so?

So if we are doing away with "myths" lets do away with the idea that illegal abortions in the current-day climate will bear any resemblence whatsoever to illegal abortions of the 60s and 70s, shall we?


Quote:

Because as long as we continue to argue using false data and false logic, we're vulnerable to a draconian counter.


Again, I say that the "false data and false logic" accusation can be applied to the majority of pro-lifers, whose arguments are not based even remotely upon "facts" but upon sheer emotion. To accuse the pro-choice side of this without acknowledging that there is plenty of it being done all around is misleading, to say the least.

Quote:

Because when you do that, your arguments can't really be distinguished from nutjob-guy up above. And it comes down to who can get more support for their position instead of a society actually arriving at a compromise that represents the best solution for the most people.


And yet again, the idea of accusing the pro-choice faction of being unwilling to compromise when it's the pro-lifers who are repeatedly screaming about how intolerable it is that we allow anyone to "kill a baby" is absurd.



Edited, Wed Mar 8 03:04:02 2006 by Ambrya
#80 Mar 08 2006 at 4:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
I thought I would like this little tidbit. Interesting read. I have no idea what the politics of the writer or his rag are, couldn't be ***** to find out. If half of it is true, some of the hysteria is a little over blown when weighed against the 50 million or so dead babies out there.
Cecil Adams (or his ghostwriter) is about as liberal as the day is long, as is the Chicago Reader, the independant newspaper which has hosted his column since the late 70's.

Which, if anything, only strengthens your position as opposed to if Cecil was a conservative hack looking to discredit Roe v Wade.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Mar 08 2006 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ambrya wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Failing to recognize that so many abortions are performed for the "wrong reasons" isn't helping either. Pro-choice doesn't mean "bad choice". Those of us who argue the pro-choice position carry a responsibility to also make every attempt to ensure that it's done for the reaons we argue for.


I don't think this is true. Pro-lifers cry "well, rape and incest is only a small percentage of all abortions" as if that somehow makes the argument that SOME abortions are performed in cases of rape and incest invalid. It doesn't. NO ONE has EVER claimed that a majority of abortions are performed for those reasons. The argument being made is that narrowing the scope of who is allowed to have abortions puts the (admittedly small) percentage of people who need abortion for reasons of rape or incest at risk of not being able to have one for a very legitimate reason. And that is a completely valid claim.


The first part of your argument is exactly why I'm pro-choice. However, the second is what I'm talking about. I happen to see it exactly the opposite to the way you seem to. In my opinion, by taking that "absolute right" position, we're increasing the odds of draconian abortion laws that will prevent that .5% from being able to get an abortion. We're literally risking throwing out the baby with the bathwater here.

It's a matter of scale. As long as 98% of abortions are performed for convenience and only .5% for reasons of rape and incest, there's going to be a lot of pressure from those who don't agree with that volume of "choice" to change the laws. And the people pushing that side of the agenda *are* the hard core anti-abortion religious folks who will push for laws exactly like Mr. Nutjob up above.

If the ratio were more like 50/50 or so, how much traction would Nutjob get do you think? How much support would he get to limit abortions if most people already felt that they were as limited as possible while still allowing those who "needed" them to get them? Certainly, it's reasonable to argue that many more people would support our current abortion laws if they were scaled such that a larger percentage of them were performed for reasons they agreed with rather then one's they didn't. No matter how pro-choice you are, you must recognize that not everyone else is pro-choice. If that ratio of choice vs need was more reasonable, the support that those desiring to change the laws would diminish significantly, and there'd be a much lower chance of someone like Nutjob getting laws passed that made it harder for that .5% to get abortions.

And in the end, if we believe the rhetoric, and we believe our own arguments, isn't that the *right* course of action?


Quote:
The logic behind arguing for a wide latitude in the legalization of abortion (unrestricted up to a certain gestational point) is that in doing so, we make sure that no one who is in "legitimate" need, even if that only composes a small percentage, is left without a much-needed procedure. We can accept that the unfortunate side effect of this wide latitude is that some people misuse the procedure, but that the interests of keeping the procedure available to those with a legitimate need outweighs the cost of those who have abortions for illegitimate need.


Again though, that's a matter of your perception of the "weight" of the issue. You believe that it's ok for 196 abortions to be performed for choice alone in order to ensure that 1 abortion for rape or incest is possible. But not everyone is going to agree to that ratio. Is it not in our best interests to find ways to trim that number down if we can? Remember. I *am* pro-choice. I'm also pro-legalization (drugs). But I'd be the first to argue that in the case of legalization, we must ensure that we're doing less overall harm by legalizing then by illegalizing. If the statistics were showing nearly 200 times as much "harmful" drug use then "harmless" drug use, I'd be all for advocating more restrictive laws.

Obviously, the analogy isn't perfect, but I hope you get the general idea. We have a responsiblity, not to blindly push for our agenda, but to make sure that the agenda we push for is actually the "right thing" to do. We cannot do that as long as we continue to argue the point by using false information and blown up statistics. We can't do that by taking an absolute moral stance in a position that is at best a matter of relative morality.

That's really all I'm trying to say. The more the current abortion laws are seen to be being "abused", the more pressure there will be to change them. And when that change does come, it'll be in the form of the laws advocated by Mr. Nutjob. Is that what we want?


Quote:
The other aspect of the argument is that allowing "special exceptions" for rape and incest simply isn't good enough. Why? Because who gets to decide if its an actual case of rape or incest? How does one qualify for that "special exception" in such a way as to prevent EVERYONE from simply claiming they were raped. Must there be bruises? A criminal report? A prosecution of the rapist in a court of law? What if there isn't enough evidence to prosecute, is the woman then not allowed to abort? An amniocentesis to determine if the DNA carries out an accusation of incest? How do you restrict abortion to ONLY cases of rape and incest without 1) leaving the definition open to abuse by those willing to lie to get an abortion or 2) restricting it so far that people who actually WERE raped or impregnanted via incest can't get an abortion?


Exactly. And if we allow this process to continue the way it's going that's what we're going to have. A backlash that'll make it nearly impossible for any woman to get an abortion for any reason. Because folks like Mr. Nutjob *will* demand requirements that will necessitate examinations for rape and tests for incest, and full inquiries at ever level. All the more why it's important to come up with *reasonable* standards for abortion *before* that happens.

This is one of the reasons why I totally disagree with some of the legal positions many pro-choice groups make. Why *not* require that those going in for abortions sit through a counseling session advocating options other then abortion first? Many pro-choice proponents seem to think that even suggesting to a woman that she not get an abortion is somehow a violation of "choice" (which I find absurd unless you're assuming that the woman has no will of her own upon which to make the choice). Guess what? Those who feel strongly about wanting an abortion will get one (like those who've been raped or are victims of incest). But if it makes some women think twice and maybe change their minds about getting one, and that lowers that 98/.5 statistic a bit, and that reduces the pressure out there to enforce more draconian requirements, then isn't that a better route?

There are a ton of legal options that can help reduce the numbers of abortions for convenience without removing a womans ability to choose at all. Pro-choice is about choice. It's not "pro-abortion". Choosing not to have one is *also* a choice. But to hear some pro-choice advocates talk, they don't seem to grasp that...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Mar 08 2006 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Let me add one more thing:

Ambrya wrote:
And yet again, the idea of accusing the pro-choice faction of being unwilling to compromise when it's the pro-lifers who are repeatedly screaming about how intolerable it is that we allow anyone to "kill a baby" is absurd.



The mistake you are making is tailoring your position to the extreme opposing one. By doing that you give them power. You take the argument to their level and fight it on their terms.

The people you need to sway aren't the hard core pro-lifers. You will never change their minds on the issue, so don't even try. The people you need to target are the moderates who are sitting on the fence of the issue. And those are the exactly the people who are going to look at those statistics, and look at the rhetoric, and look at the "greater good" concept and make a decision based on that. The way to win them to your side is to *not* take a position that makes you look exactly like the nutjobs on the other side.

Get it? Political debate in the US is won in the middle, not on the edges. Liberals *really* need to figure that out...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Mar 08 2006 at 7:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Get it? Political debate in the US is won in the middle, not on the edges. Liberals *really* need to figure that out...
Ironicly, this is the same argument the editorial I linked earlier made only to the opposite side.

The folks at the Tribune editorial board wrote:
Though the activists on both sides of this debate get most of the attention, many people favor the goal often stated by President Bill Clinton, which was to make abortion "safe, legal and rare." The anti-abortion movement has had some successes in recent years, notably on "partial-birth" abortion and parental notification laws. But it has not been able to convert widespread ambivalence about abortion into firm opposition.

What South Dakota lawmakers have approved may shake some people out of ambivalence, but not in the direction the lawmakers favor. The ban allows no exceptions for rape, incest or serious dangers to the mother's health. Only when the mother's life is at risk would it be allowed. Faced with this ban, voters on the fence are more likely to be pushed toward the abortion-rights camp than pulled away from it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Mar 08 2006 at 8:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Joph. You're making the mistake of assuming that "Conservative==ReligiousRight".


My point is that conservatives who are also pro-choice (again. there's a lot more of us then you might think) tend to adopt the "balance the value of abortion versus life" position. Liberals who are pro-choice tend to adopt the "absolute right of a women to abort" position.


I agree 100% with Clinton's argument. The problem is that he was opposed by the Religious Right and hard core pro-life folks. And he was *also* opposed by the hard-core pro-choice guys on the left. Had the latter group realized then that it was really in their best interest to take that position at that time, we might not be having this whole discussion today.

I remember when he was pushing that agenda. He did propose exactly what I was just talking about. Counseling in order to provide alternatives to abortion (among others). These actions were blocked by groups like Planned Parenthood vehemently. That's what I'm talking about. As long as the argument is made on the edges (on both sides!), no one wins. Compromise is reached in the middle. The hard core pro-life folks wont compromise on their position no matter what you, I, or anyone else says or does. Adopting a similarly hard core position in the opposite doesn't accomplish anything except define the argument in their terms.


Dunno. Seems kinda obvious to me. You can't win that way. And all of us conservatives who would like to see a solution to this issue (and certainly some moderate liberals as well), can't get it because we're blocked by people who have no underlying reason to be absolute in their beliefs. The Religious Right wont bend on the issue due to their religious beliefs. So what's the Liberal's excuse for being equally adamant? Why is the hard left so hard when they'd win a lot more battles being soft?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Mar 08 2006 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Joph. You're making the mistake of assuming that "Conservative==ReligiousRight".
I am? Here I thought I was quoting an editorial that had opined that S. Dakota's hardline stance against abortion was more likely to align moderates with the pro-choice faction than it was to end abortion.

But hey, I just wrote my post. Not like I'd know what I was doing. Carry on.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Mar 09 2006 at 3:55 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
Gbaji:

You know, I am still trying to decide if you've been playing devil's advocate so long you don't actually understand what the real issues here are, or if you are just completely divorced from the reality the rest of us live in, or if you just don't CARE what the facts of the matter are, so long as you can find a way to tell someone they are "wrong."

gbaji wrote:

Is it not in our best interests to find ways to trim that number down if we can?


And isn't that what people who tend to be pro-choice are trying to do with comprehensive sex education programs that give thorough and factual contraceptive use information, and programs to make contraception affordable to everyone, and making sure women have access to the morning-after pill?

But the people who tend to be pro-life throw back their heads and howl about abstinence-only education being the only "moral" approach and that the distribution of condoms "encourages" people to have sex, and how pharmacists shouldn't have to provide morning-after pills. THEY are the ones inflating the rate of unwanted pregnancies every time they fail to recognize that study after study after study has demonstrated that abstinence-only education not only failes to prevent kids from having sex, but that it also INCREASES the likelihood that when they do decide to have sex, they'll make poor contraceptive choices. They're the ones inflating the unwanted pregnancy rate every time they try to make it harder for women to get access to affordable birth control.

I would LOVE to see the rate of unwanted pregnancies get so low that a larger portion of abortions performed are done in cases of "legitimate" need, such as rape and incest. I've said time and time again that I don't like the idea of abortion, and that I can't ever see myself choosing to have one in any but the most extreme situations, and I can't see myself encouraging anyone to have one except in the most extreme of circumstances. My career of choice is to bring babies INTO this world; I hate the idea that babies aren't having the chance to be born.

But that's NOT what the pro-lifers want, and if you don't recognize that, you are simply not functioning on the same plane of reality the rest of us are. Sometimes I think their goal is to make pregnancy a punitive measure for being immoral enough to have sex in the first place. Whatever their reasons, they aren't willing to allow the necessary steps to be taken that will reduce the abortion rate. They want the whole damned pie, and if I have to go to the other extreme to keep them from getting it, then fine, that's what I am doing, because that is where they are FORCING me to go.

Quote:

We have a responsiblity, not to blindly push for our agenda, but to make sure that the agenda we push for is actually the "right thing" to do.


I agree. That's why I am for comprehensive sex ed and widespread access to dependable contraception, and over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill. Because those are the means by which the abortion rate is going to be successfully reduced, which I would LOVE to see happen. So why aren't the pro-lifers all for it? There's the middle ground I want to reach. Lower abortion rates, that's what they want, right? Few or no abortions except in cases of extreme circumstances. I'm all about the compromise. So why do they insist on legislating their own brand of morality with regards to who has sex and how and why, rather than in taking the necessary steps to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies?

Don't you see? I wasn't the one who ran to the far left. I was pushed there because it was the only way to combat the far right, which is so very unwilling to compromise on ANY of these issues.

Quote:

We cannot do that as long as we continue to argue the point by using false information and blown up statistics.


Which I have never done. I've said illegal abortions means abortion becomes unsafe and costs women their lives. I've never pretended that rape and incest presents a majority of the rate of abortions, only that its a valid argument for keeping abortion legal.

But...let's look at some of the blown-up statistics coming from the other side:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

Women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile


Of course, that is just the tip of the iceberg of the misinformation coming from the pro-life/abstinence-only/let's-legislate-sex-until-you-can-only-have-it-
after-5-years-of-marriage-with-the-doors-locked-and-the-lights-off-
under-the-covers-with-the-woman's-nightgown-over-her-head lobby. You act as though Nutjob, as you call him, is an isolated case, AND HE'S NOT. He's representive of a very large lobby, and you seem to not understand that it's not just the far left driving the moderates toward the right. In fact, I daresay that's the minority of situations. It's the Nutjobs out there that are driving people (like me) who would want to be moderate into a far-left defensive posture.

Quote:

We can't do that by taking an absolute moral stance in a position that is at best a matter of relative morality.


Then quit playing f'ucking devil's advocate and tell that to your Republican buddies who are courting the Nutjobs of the world for their campaign dollars by promising to make their "absolute moral stance" into law.

I'm not the one taking the "absolute moral stance." I'm just trying to make sure that THEIR "absolute moral stance" doesn't destroy the lives of countless women.

Quote:

That's really all I'm trying to say. The more the current abortion laws are seen to be being "abused", the more pressure there will be to change them. And when that change does come, it'll be in the form of the laws advocated by Mr. Nutjob. Is that what we want?


Then what do you propose? I've given a bazillion arguments on this board for sex ed as a means to reduce abortion, for wider availability of contraception to reduce abortion. Nutjob doesn't want to hear it. So what the hell are we SUPPOSED to do? Just keep being "moderate" until the world is overrun by Nutjob enforcing his brand of moral absolutism upon us all? Thanks, but no.

Quote:
Why *not* require that those going in for abortions sit through a counseling session advocating options other then abortion first? Many pro-choice proponents seem to think that even suggesting to a woman that she not get an abortion is somehow a violation of "choice"


If it were simply a matter of counselling, I doubt many pro-choice advocates would object. But it's not. The definition of "counselling" being advocated by the pro-life lobby is not "counselling" so much as it is an attempt to psychologically coerce women into not aborting. There are "crisis pregnancy centers" springing up all over the country in which, if you go there, they browbeat you into getting an ultrasound and tell you how wonderful your pregnancy is, and REFUSE to give you information on abortion as an alternative, until you either don't decide to abort, or when you do so, you are completely traumatized over how bad they've made you feel about the decision.

Quote:
(which I find absurd unless you're assuming that the woman has no will of her own upon which to make the choice). Guess what? Those who feel strongly about wanting an abortion will get one (like those who've been raped or are victims of incest).


Guess what? You're not a pregnant woman, and you have just completely demonstrated your ignorance of the state of mind experienced by pregnant women. You have no idea how hard the decision is to make, how much guilt and uncertainty is ALREADY attached to it. When you add in a "counselor" essentially browbeating you and forcing even MORE guilt into the decision, then yes, these women CAN be swayed, or they will be punitively traumatized.

That's what the pro-choice lobby is fighting against. If it were simply a matter of having a counselor lay out ALL options without passing judgement, or at the very least asking the woman, "before you make your decision, would you like information about other alternatives" then you would find most pro-choice advocates wouldn't object. Believe it or not, we don't feel this is a decision which should be made lightly or uninformedly. But that's NOT what is being advocated by the "informed consent" laws that are being passed. What is being advocated by those laws is a means by which women are required to be lectured at and preached to in the middle of the hardest decision of their lives.

Quote:

But if it makes some women think twice and maybe change their minds about getting one, and that lowers that 98/.5 statistic a bit, and that reduces the pressure out there to enforce more draconian requirements, then isn't that a better route?


Again, IF it were done in a non-judgemental way, then yes. But it's not. What pro-life advocates are shooting for here is a way to browbeat women out of making the choice to abort. And do you know why?

Because to pro-lifers, "informed consent" counselling sessions, and mandatory waiting periods, and parental notification laws aren't seen as being "compromise" measures. They are see as being chinks in the wall. Let's say that tomorrow, every state in the union instituted an informed consent law. Do you think the pro-life lobby would rest upon their laurels and say, "hey, good job, this will help reduce the numbers of abortions, we've reached a good compromise." Of course not. Their next step would be waiting periods following those "informed consent" counselling sessions. And then there would be another step, and another after that. They would lobby to chip away at the right to choose until there was no right to choose. They're not trying to reach a compromise...they're trying to restrict a woman's right to choose by taking a "baby steps" approach. And if you believe otherwise, you're incredibly uninformed as to what the pro-life lobby is shooting for.

Quote:

There are a ton of legal options that can help reduce the numbers of abortions for convenience without removing a womans ability to choose at all. Pro-choice is about choice. It's not "pro-abortion". Choosing not to have one is *also* a choice. But to hear some pro-choice advocates talk, they don't seem to grasp that...


I agree, there are a ton of options out there to reduce the number of abortions. There's sex ed that deals with the facts about sex, not pie-in-the-sky myths. There's making contraception available even to impovershed women. There's the morning-after pill. But you don't hear pro-lifers speaking out in favor of them, because those aren't measures which will ultimately lead to the complete abolition of abortion, and that's what they want.

As for your claim that decisions are made by the moderates...what, did you completely miss the 2004 elections? You know how Bush got his 51% majority? By mobilizing the extreme right on the subject of gay marriage and stem-cell research and late-term abortion. Don't try to pretend that it's the moderates making the decisions in this country. I wish to God it were, but it's not. It's the extremists. If it weren't, then hot-button topics wouldn't become such a huge rallying point in election years.




Edited, Thu Mar 9 04:01:21 2006 by Ambrya
#87 Mar 09 2006 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Here's the problem in a nutshell.

Ambrya wrote:
I agree. That's why I am for comprehensive sex ed and widespread access to dependable contraception, and over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill. Because those are the means by which the abortion rate is going to be successfully reduced, which I would LOVE to see happen.


We have publically mandated sex education in all public schools from like 3rd grade to 12th grade. How much more do you want? We can argue about the minutia of curriculum, but I don't think it's possible to say that there's even a small percentage of teenagers out there in the US who aren't aware how pregnancy occurs or how to prevent it.

We have widespread access to dependable contraception. You can buy a condom in virtually every grocery and convenience store in the US. Various forms of birth control pills are available. Patches, pills, implants. All available. Yes. You need a prescription. But these are medications that do have side effects that require a doctor to prescribe them (whether you like that or not). The morning after pill is recent enough of an issue not to have a significant impact just yet, but we can discuss that elsewhere if you want.


The point is that over the last 35 years or so we've done *exactly* what you say we should to reduce the rate of abortions. Guess what? It hasn't worked. We have a higher rate of abortion today then we did before we did all of that stuff. We *also* have a higher rate of single parent births.


This is a totally different issue then what we were talking about earlier, but it is an important one. The problem is that just making these things available isn't working. The problem is that statistically, we're taking less responsibility for our actions. The result is a greater overall percentage of unwanted/unplanned pregnancies in this country. That is the only rational explanation for the increase in both abortion *and* births to single mothers.

All that stuff you listed isn't working. Some would argue that it's having the opposite effect from what you think it will (I'm not 100% in agreement with that assessment, but it's a valid argument to make giving the statistics). Clearly, that's not all that's needed. And as long as we do have this culture of irresponsibility, I can't really blame some people for thinking that the "solution" is to restrict the actions (like abortion) that result from that irresponsibility.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Mar 09 2006 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
And Joph?

Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Joph. You're making the mistake of assuming that "Conservative==ReligiousRight".
I am? Here I thought I was quoting an editorial that had opined that S. Dakota's hardline stance against abortion was more likely to align moderates with the pro-choice faction than it was to end abortion.


It's interesting that you see this side of the issue so clearly, but don't seem to get that it works in reverse as well. By the exact same reasoning the hardline pro-choice position pushes moderates into the pro-life side of the equation. That's *why* the folks in SD thought they could do this. It's logical to assume that they'll continue to try, right?

You're absolutely counting on a continued protection of the pro-choice position in the Supreme Court. Eventually, if we continue to give them enough support via adversarial positioning, they might succeed in getting the numbers and then we will see laws like that in SD pass constitutional muster.



I'm just saying that it seems silly to adopt an "all or nothing" approach to an issue that clearly is about degrees.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Mar 09 2006 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I am?

Are you having trouble understanding that I don't work for the Tribune in any capacity, much less on their editorial board? 'Cause it really seems like you're having struggles with seperating me from the article I linked.

You gave a position. I said I found it ironic that an column I linked (and that you said you largely agreed with) gave the opposite position but using the same rationale. Based on that, you've decided that I confuse the conservatives with the religious right, am counting on the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v Wade, alienating moderates and.. hell, who knows what else. All apparently based on me linking an article since that was the first time I've posted about the S. Dakota law.

Strawman much? I never said any of those things. I linked and quoted an article.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Mar 09 2006 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I am?

Are you having trouble understanding that I don't work for the Tribune in any capacity, much less on their editorial board? 'Cause it really seems like you're having struggles with seperating me from the article I linked.

You gave a position. I said I found it ironic that an column I linked (and that you said you largely agreed with) gave the opposite position but using the same rationale. Based on that, you've decided that I confuse the conservatives with the religious right,


I was responding to your "opposite side" comment Joph, not the article in general. I said that "Liberals really need to figure this out" (referring to needing to get the middle on their side on this issue). You quoted the article and said that it was the same logic, but arguing in the opposite direction.

I responded to *that* by saying you were confusing conservatives and religious right. It's the religious right that's pushing for anti-abortion laws, not conservatives in general. My argument is that many conservatives would join liberals on the issue of pro-choice if only the liberals would adopt a more flexible position on the issue. We *know* that the religious right wont budge on it (and I honestly can't fault them for that since that's their belief and they're sticking to it). But Liberals adopt a similarly absolute and opposite stance on abortion that forces everyone in the middle to pick a side. In typical political fashion, they tend to gravitate to "their side", meaning a lot of conservatives who would otherwise be pro-choice end up supporting to some degree advocates of the pro-life position.


Let me be clear on this. The last statistic I found placed rougly 22% of the Republican party in the "Religious Right". That means that over 3/4ths of Republicans do *not* hold a pro-life position because of religious reasons, but might do so because of simply political dynamics. Most republicans are pretty darn moderate on the issue of abortion in fact. But because the Liberals who seem to run the pro-choice position arguments choose to adopt an absolutist position in opposition to those in the Religious Right, it *forces* many conservatives to adopt a position they don't agree with 100% because they do agree with it 51% more then that of the other side.


Does that make a bit more sense? I'm simply suggesting that if Liberals would lighten their stance on abortion just a bit. Maybe allow for a more open discussion of changes to existing abortion laws aimed at reducing the rate at which women choose to have them. Maybe allowing the counseling idea instead of blanketly opposing anything that might sway a woman to choose something other then an abortion. Maybe, if they did that, they'd gain a lot more supporters and the fear that abortion laws would be changed in a draconian fashion wouldn't exist. I know a lot of conservatives that are ok with legalized elective abortion, but not if it's seen as an alternative to responsible activities. Is it such a hardship for liberals to take a step or two in that direction to win those people from the pro-life camp?

I don't think so. Clinton didn't think so. But he was opposed by pro-choice Liberals as much as pro-life Conservatives when he suggested that we make changes to make abortion more rare. What do you think that means? And what do you think is the best solution for it? I believe that in this case the only chance for a middle ground solution is going to have to come from the Left. But for some reason that I simply can't fathom, they refuse to budge on an issue in which it makes no sense for them to be so inflexible.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Mar 09 2006 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji wrote:
You quoted the article and said that it was the same logic, but arguing in the opposite direction.

I responded to *that* by saying you were confusing conservatives and religious right.
Wow.. it's as if you decided on this really neat theory about liberals and really, really want to share it.
The Tribune editorial board, which I'm not a part of, wrote:
What South Dakota lawmakers have approved may shake some people out of ambivalence, but not in the direction the lawmakers favor. The ban allows no exceptions for rape, incest or serious dangers to the mother's health. Only when the mother's life is at risk would it be allowed. Faced with this ban, voters on the fence are more likely to be pushed toward the abortion-rights camp than pulled away from it.
No one is equating "conservatives" and the "religious right" here except perhaps the people in your own mind so that you can give lengthy sermons on why they're wrong. The editorial uses the generic "voters". I quoted the editorial. I'm not confusing anyone with anyone.

The editorial, in simple terms, states that faced with a decision to either ban abortion completely or else uphold pro-choice convictions, voters are more likely to lean towards the latter. This is the opposite of your asserations that voters would rather side with a total ban than allow the principles of Roe v Wade to continue. Whether the voters or lawmakers are religious, athiests, liberal, conservative, whatever isn't important. The point is that, on this issue, people may well prove more likely to support a Roe v Wade style decision/law than one which bans abortion completely.

You're welcome to have your own opinions on how wrong the liberals or Democrats or whoever are. After all, the editorial is merely the opinions of those people on the staff. But stop putting words into peoples' mouths just to feed your own opinions.

Edited, Thu Mar 9 18:48:35 2006 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Mar 09 2006 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
But stop putting words into peoples' mouths just to feed your own opinions.


Steady on, now, Joph. Remember who you're talking to.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#93 Mar 09 2006 at 6:49 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

#94 Mar 09 2006 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sigh. You're not getting it. I said Liberal. My words. You said that quote was about the "opposite side". Now. Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth but most people consider "Conservative" to be opposite to "Liberal". Hence, my response. I was clarifying that what the quote is really referring to is the actions of the Religious Right and their movement to ban abortion. One, I might add, which most conservatives don't agree with. Doubly so when presented in the draconian terms such as the SD law.


I was merely pointing out that you need to be clear that when you're talking about those banning abortion, it's not conservatives, but religious right that are doing it. And, as I've tried to point out many many times, most conservatives would join Liberals on this issue if only the Liberals would present them with an alternative that wasn't equally draconian.


Consider this

Quote:
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.



Note, those are people who "consider themselves" to be pro-life or pro-choice. What I'm saying is that the position of the hardline pro-choice guys forces a lot of people into calling themselves pro-life. They don't do that because they want to ban all abortions. They don't do that because they agree with the Religious Right on that. They do it because they *also* don't agree with absolute rights to abortion regardless of situation. They don't agree with the appearance that those who push the pro-choice position are really pro-abortion. And certainly when you've got organizations called "The Abortion Access Project", it's not hard to see why they might see that as negative.

Obviously, when some nutjob fundie pushes some legistlation like the one in SD, those same people push back. However, if the Left wasn't so absolute in its position, they wouldn't force so many people to identify themselves as "pro-life", and those fundies wouldn't even get that far in the first place.

That's what I'm trying to say.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Mar 09 2006 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I was clarifying that what the quote is really referring to is the actions of the Religious Right and their movement to ban abortion.
No, the quote said lawmakers. You will, I presume, agree that everyone who voted in the S. Dakota legislature on this ban was a lawmaker, yes?

Now, whether or not the entire legislature (minus the scant few who voted against) of S. Dakota are members of the religious right isn't something the Trib is giving an opinion on. The point is that nearly all of the lawmakers voted to ban abortion (for whatever reason) and that this would perhaps bite them in the *** in a way that a less draconian restriction of abortion would not.

Anyway, you're just putting words into the Tribunes's mouth instead of mine. Gotcha. You're pretty much trying your damnedest to find someone blaming this all on the "Religious Right" so you can position the liberals as the opposite of the RR, disassociate the conservatives and make them the solid, rational middle ground between extremes. It's a nice dance, but no one from the Tribune was playing the music for you.

Edited, Thu Mar 9 19:20:32 2006 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#96 Mar 09 2006 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Lol. The OP made the somewhat obvious connection to the fact that there are multiple game sites at Alla's. Depending on how you access the forums, the look and style is different. Also, depending on how you access the site, you get different links in the "Forums..." section to the left (see! Look to the left).

Those of us who access the site from the EQ POV see Main EQ forum, Quest Forum, OOT, and Asylum. Presumably, all but the last two are different if you access it from a different game path.

I think it just suddenly dawned on the OP that the OOT and Asylum links in the FFXI form were not "special" ones just for FFXI players, but were in commmon across all games.

Should have been obvious. Certainly didn't need a thread about it. Then again, if he didn't know, maybe others never caught on either, and maybe they'll read this and realize that they really shouldn't post stuff bout their particular game here.

Probably wont make any different though.
#97 Mar 09 2006 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ok. You're still not getting it:

Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Get it? Political debate in the US is won in the middle, not on the edges. Liberals *really* need to figure that out...
Ironicly, this is the same argument the editorial I linked earlier made only to the opposite side.


I said "Liberals". You said "Opposite side". It doesn't matter what's in the quote, because that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about *you* labeling the position referrenced as that of the "opposite side" to Liberals.

By inference, the opposite side to Liberals is Conservatives, thus, it's reasonable to assume you were saying that it's the Conservatives who need to figure out that political debate is won in the middle. That is, after all, what I said when you apply it to the "opposite side".

I'm simply saying that conservatives are not so overly pro-life as some might think, and that if liberals lightened the absolute pro-abortion aspect of their pro-choice position, they'd probably win a lot of conservatives on that issue. This does *not* support what you seemed to be saying, because it's not conservatives who oppose the pro-choice position, but the Religious Right. It's Conservatives who the Liberals should be trying to win over to their position.

Assuming that they are the "enemy" on the issue forces them to be... Which is the whole point I was trying to make.

Edited, Thu Mar 9 19:45:25 2006 by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Mar 10 2006 at 11:09 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
There are bills in Ohio now under consideration that could have an effect on abortion.

Ohio House Bill 288 would ban all abortions, with no exceptions. It would also prevent clinics from coordinating transportation out of state.

One bill lets Ohio pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription if they think the medication could cause an abortion.


Well it is an election year. Homosexuality is so last election. This is the perfect hot button issue to get Rebulicans back in office for another term.
#100 Mar 12 2006 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Word to my Home Fry who posted the above.

Edited, Sun Mar 12 19:02:02 2006 by Alissah
1 2 3 4 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 292 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (292)