Well, before we get excited about Kerry 'n' Edwards...

A repository for everything else. Introductions, off-topic threads, testing and so on. When in doubt, post it here.

Moderators: Moderators Emeritus, Moderators

User avatar
Betty Felon
Posts: 1779
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 4:15 pm
Location: miserable degrees fahrenheit
Contact:

Postby Betty Felon » Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:51 am

First of all, I want to be clear that I'm pro-choice and always will be. It feels weird arguing the other side. Also, this is the most civil abortion discussion I've ever encoutered...you guys are amazingly awesome.

thanks for the research, liesbeth...I stand corrected.

The reason that I don't buy the "anti-choice" argument completely is that the reason that the choice is in question is because it's not crystal clear that someone should ever have the choice to end a human life.

Yes, I want the choice to choose whether or not to give birth. Like Steph, I would CHOOSE NOT to have one should I (god forbid!) ever accidentally become pregnant. So in the sense, the choice is consistent with pro-lifers.

But that doesn't change the fact that IF you consider terminating a first trimester pregnancy a murder, then you are allowing murder. It's not like you'd ever argue that one should have the right to elect to terminate thier two year olds but that they should CHOOSE not to do it.

User avatar
No You Are
Posts: 619
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:53 pm
Current Heading: North
Location: Rochester, MinneSOta
Contact:

Postby No You Are » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:26 pm

Rick Santorum couldn't have been serious when he wrote:"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"



I used to think that it was stupid to try and deny people rights because you disagree with their sexuality. Why should we care if 2 homosexual people that are already living together in a committed relationship have a slip of paper that says they are married, I thought.

But now I know that we HAVE to ban gay marriage because all gay people are terrorists.

DAMN YOU GAYS!!! DAMN YOU ALLLLLL!!!!!!

User avatar
Liesbeth
Posts: 3259
Joined: Sat May 03, 2003 4:27 am
Current Heading: West
Location: megaland
Contact:

Postby Liesbeth » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:51 pm

frigging hell, there are three or four discussions going on here, all interesting stuff, but why the hell don't you guys speak my language - it takes me ages to put down my thoughts coherently

would really love to say more, but I'm switching off for now, but not before I say that I think Angel raised an interesting topic with the AIDS/abstinence thing - what a load of bull is that, it's this kinda thing that I hate about the huge power position of the USA.

If HIV posed the kinda threat to the US as it does to most African countries, even the prudest American would realise that the whole economy falls apart if a considerable part of your working population is dead or dying, and that practical solutions are of the utmost importance.
So fuck* abstinence as a solution, because it's not realistic
(*but do it safe, for god's sake)

User avatar
angel
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:10 pm
Location: westside

Postby angel » Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:56 pm

No You Are wrote:
Rick Santorum couldn't have been serious when he wrote:"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"



I used to think that it was stupid to try and deny people rights because you disagree with their sexuality. Why should we care if 2 homosexual people that are already living together in a committed relationship have a slip of paper that says they are married, I thought.

But now I know that we HAVE to ban gay marriage because all gay people are terrorists.

DAMN YOU GAYS!!! DAMN YOU ALLLLLL!!!!!!


It makes perfect sense. If we get married (and are straight) and stay married, the terrorists will join forces with us against all the damn gay people. YAY!

User avatar
Squid
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:52 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Postby Squid » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:40 pm

Laura Suzanne wrote:My understanding was that the amendment would
have DENIED same-sex couples the right to marry.
i'm getting my info from Moveon.org and they may
not know everything, so i could be wrong.

But, if that is the case, 48-50 is pretty terrifying.


OOPS. sorry, yes, i'm reading way too fast and getting my facts screwed up.

So yes, per your comment 48-50 is scary. Very scary.

User avatar
Betty Felon
Posts: 1779
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 4:15 pm
Location: miserable degrees fahrenheit
Contact:

Postby Betty Felon » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:55 pm

The gay marraige issue confuses the hell out of me. Who are these people that the polls are turning up who give a shit whether gays marry or not?

And this "civil unions" crap? I'm ashamed of politicians who go this route. This is semantics.

We are at fucking war and our elected officials, charged with managing a country in a fragile state, are dicking around with no brainer crap like this.

This "sacred instution" bullshit is utterly amazing. It's so obviously a way of hiding predjudice and marginalizing people. UGH!

the hutch
Posts: 568
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:47 pm
Location: previosly no pic

Postby the hutch » Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:13 pm

I had a somewhat unique view into this discussion during my (rather tiring) time in the NICU (neonatal ICU), wherein, if the "fetus" was on that borderline of viability of 23-25 weeks, and we knew mom was imminently about to deliver, the discussion was about the mother's preference. And if that mom wanted that baby, anywhere from 500,000 to 2 million dollars (mostly tax $) would be spent to get that baby to the point where it was safe to go home. Yet, at the same time, groups were lobbying for the right to terminate a fetus of the same age. So sadly, a "fetus" is only a human life if it is "wanted", that seemed to be the message. That is sad.

My problem with this right vs left discussion is that no one comes from First Principles, meaning if you were "pro-life" you should be anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-war, and pro-gun control. Both sides are inconsistent, both sides practice regular, daily rationalization. Damn, if only the Libertarians weren't so wacky.

User avatar
grant
wears the boots
Posts: 1485
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:16 am
Current Heading: West
Location: peninsular america
Contact:

Postby grant » Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:06 am

Betty Felon wrote: Touche, Mr. Grant. Looks like I had it backwards. You know what I meant though. (and very nice blog entry, btw.)



It's always interesting when the Dark Ages shows a more egalitarian, enlightened view on social issues than we in the post-Enlightenment world do. Not that it happens terribly often.

Not allowing gay couples to adopt orphaned children makes me irate. I can't believe people who would deny a loving home to child who is already a step behind can actually claim to have "God's love in thier hearts". It's unbelievable.


Yes, I live in one of those states. And yes, it is a bit insane. My better half, she's a social worker. I believe those who acutally deal with the issue on a day-to-day basis are more apt to agree with your assessment than those who are safely ensconced in the privileged position of not having to deal with the issue in anything other than a hypothetical way.

Betty Felon, later wrote:This "sacred instution" bullshit is utterly amazing.


Well, to be fair, the institution of marriage is unfortunately one which blurs the boundaries between church and state. It's the only sacrament offered by City Hall, to put it one way. I don't think this is literally true -- I think there's a difference between a church wedding and a civil wedding (one of my metaphysical tangents I alluded to earlier) -- but the fact that they have the same name and confer the same legal benefits, well, that leads to things like "civil unions" and debates about the foundation of society.

stephanie wrote:Sure, the "pro-life" stance is that abortion is murder (kinda like capital punishment, only, uh.. bad), but that's not the rhetoric the anti-choice side is trying to push through the American justice system, and that's the argument I'm talking about. Pro- and anti-choice groups aren't dedicated to furthering discussion as to when the miracle of humanity starts -- ex: NARAL and Planned Parenthood haven't exactly taken positions on when foetal viability begins. These groups' sole focus and purpose is taking decisive legal action in regards to whether or not abortion should remain a federally sanctioned option.


Yes, there's some pithy, terribly suitable quote about the birth of tragedy that should go right here, but I can't remember it right now. People have been using the word "rhetoric" to describe how the argument has developed on either side. I will go one further -- not only has the abortion debate accreted a fusty layer of rhetoric around itself, it has become hopelessly politicized.

My experiences on religious bulletin boards has led me to the conclusion that the primary reason most people who vote for Bush are voting for Bush is because he's taking a stand against those who "murder those little babies." Were abortion not an issue, the Powers That Be would have to find another line to divide the parties -- one that might actually relate to a social problem rather than the somewhat intangible (or at least paradoxical) matter of deciding when life begins.

The only statement about when "foetal viability begins" that I've heard (in the sense you're using the term, stephanie) was from some group of scientists, who said that brain activity was only detected after the sixth week of development -- about halfway through the first trimester. At this point in the national debate, I don't think anyone in a position of power is willing to use that as a talking point for a potential compromise because they fear (quite rightly) that the Other Side would seize upon it and trample them down. ("Ah ha!" they will say. "You agree that a fetus could have rights/that abortions are valid before a certain point! Therefore we have been right all along!"). It's a systemic problem. Instead of moving the line of compromise closer to the center, the force of debate is splitting it in two and driving them further left and right.

The fear of the slippery slope is not a terribly productive one.

hovering
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 8:44 pm
Location: get me out of F-L-A

Postby hovering » Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:47 am

angel wrote:
I remember reading an article on the effects of abortion on the human body and how it is less harmful to a woman than birth control pills.


It's true. Also, herbal/"at home" abortions are much safer, easier, less painful, etc than the vacuum. Any form of birth control (uh, besides that thing called "abstinence" and condoms) pretty much completely fucks up your uterus. Not to say that having multiple abortions can't screw a person's reproductive system up, because they can, but yeah, I'm shutting up.

User avatar
Liesbeth
Posts: 3259
Joined: Sat May 03, 2003 4:27 am
Current Heading: West
Location: megaland
Contact:

Postby Liesbeth » Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:08 pm

grant wrote:Well, to be fair, the institution of marriage is unfortunately one which blurs the boundaries between church and state. It's the only sacrament offered by City Hall, to put it one way. I don't think this is literally true -- I think there's a difference between a church wedding and a civil wedding (one of my metaphysical tangents I alluded to earlier) -- but the fact that they have the same name and confer the same legal benefits, well, that leads to things like "civil unions" and debates about the foundation of society.

Maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but I read this as saying that in the USA a couple can get married in church without a civil wedding and be legally married. If that is the case, that strikes me as quite amazing.

User avatar
grant
wears the boots
Posts: 1485
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:16 am
Current Heading: West
Location: peninsular america
Contact:

Postby grant » Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:51 am

At the conclusion of a church wedding, the officiant (priest, minister, high druid, etc.) signs a Certificate of Marriage along with the bride, groom and two witnesses (usually the matron of honor and best man). This certificate is usually obtained from City Hall or the local clerk of court three days or so beforehand.

User avatar
Liesbeth
Posts: 3259
Joined: Sat May 03, 2003 4:27 am
Current Heading: West
Location: megaland
Contact:

Postby Liesbeth » Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:04 pm

Wow, that's quite amazing.
Over here, the actual legal marriage is done by a council appointed civil servant, and then if you want to seal it in church, you do that separately. Although the civil marriage can take place in almost any place imaginable (if you pay enough for it), I don't think it is allowed during a religious service or mass.
Well, I guess that's this week's lesson about cultural differences.


Return to “Cattywampus”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests