And if there is any sort of corruption in the abortion industry, then perhaps it needs to be better regulated, but that's not the same as saying abortion should be outlawed. Again, a pointless argument.
Your right. Let's get to the central issue. The unborn child is human and it is a being. Is it okay to kill the child on a whim? You obviously think it is, Allison.
The notion that human life or personhood begins at the moment of conception is the foundation of anti-choice language.
THE NOTION...
The simple facts speak for themselves....
"I was once pro-choice and the thing that changd my mind was, I read my husband's bioligy books, medical books, and what I learned...At the moment of conception, a life starts. And this life has its own unique set of DNA, which contains a blueprint for the whole genetic makeup. The sex is determined. We know there's a life because it's growing and changing." - Kathy Ireland
Reproductive choice means women having control over their bodies, without government interference, and an equal place in all aspects of national decision-making.
How can anyone claim that they have the "freedom" or "right" to kill an innocent baby?
BTW, the baby is innocent.
The only "choice" in abortion is between a dead baby and a live baby. Plus, those who defend this "choice" aren't consistent.
Why is it only in the case of abortion they argue that "choice" should be absolute?
Using the same rationale, wouldn't people have the right to "choose" to use drugs... ("it's my body") or the right to "choose" to practice prostitution?
Humane societies don't tell people they have a "freedom of choice" to kill their own children.
(Goes back to my 2weeks after suggestion. It just would not go.)
There are right choices and wrong choices.
The right choices are ones that do not kill babies.
The Public relation firms did a wonderful job snowing everyone with their emotional "buzz" words to further the money making industry of baby killing.
Abortion hurts women!
And... speaking of middle ground, what exactly does that mean... Does that mean I get the stomach area, Dennis gets the dismembered legs... of the dismembered baby. It's a child it's not a choice!
Where are your statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control from 1972? My source says a total of 39 women died from illegal abortions in that year.
Provide me with the CDC link that says otherwise.....
CDC is a realiable source of information, don't you agree?
So I went to the CDC website. I haven't seen anything about deaths from past years, but in the most recent years they have numbers for, in 1999 375 women died from "complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and the pueparium" while 31 died of "pregnancy with abortive outcome" (which I'm guessing means they were getting an abortion?). In 2000, 333 died from pregnancy/childbirth and 37 died from pregnancy with an abortive outcome. And even if that second category isn't referring to women who had abortions, the numbers Paula posted were about the same. So the numbers seem to state pretty clearly that not having an abortion is significantly more dangerous than having one. Roughly on a scale of 10 to 1, a woman is more likely to die from child birth than having an abortion. Yet again, many of you insist a woman ought not to have the right to choose between those two options.
pregnancy with abortive outcome can also mean miscarriage.
Now to clear up some of jethro's imaginative language, first trimester fetuses are basic groups of cells which are simply vacuumed up, then the bloody lining and placenta are suctioned off. There is no 'ripping them apart limb by limb'. That is a perfect example of inflammatory language used by those who will not use rigorous thought when debating what they plan to say. If you are going to get anywhere, you must be precise.
to put Paula's and Jethro's et al, point most succintly They feel that the fetus is paramount and the woman is a slag, slut, etc because she chose to have sex although she knew that she maybecome pregnant and therefore deserves what she gets. Or did I read you wrong? The undertones of your statements all seem to be she made her bed and now must lie in it - much the same was said of women who stayed in abusive marriages.
My point is since she is damned either way - leave the choice to her.
Now to clear up some of jethro's imaginative language, first trimester fetuses...
Fetus is a Latin word that means "offspring" or "child". So you are admitting that it is a child even at this early stage.
...are basic groups of cells...
In the first month the fetus has eyes, mouth and head, legs and arms are growing. The heart has begun to beat and the lungs have begun to form.
In the second month all of the baby's organs are present.
By the third month (the end of the first trimester) you will be able to hear the baby's heartbeat through a stethoscope. The baby has fingers, toes and soft nails.(source: surebaby.coman online magazine for expectant mothers.)
A bit more than just a few basic cells.
That is a perfect example of inflammatory language used by those who will not use rigorous thought when debating what they plan to say. If you are going to get anywhere, you must be precise.
You use this retoric when your own logic is full of holes?
They feel that the fetus is paramount and the woman is a slag, slut, etc because she chose to have sex although she knew that she maybecome pregnant and therefore deserves what she gets.
I can't speak for the others, but I feel that the unborn child is a person who should be afforded the same protection that I enjoy from the law.
much the same was said of women who stayed in abusive marriages.
But if these women were to abort the person who is being abusive, they would have to answer to the laws of the land. The women who abort their unborn child do not.
I happened across the surebaby site myself, though I found another site that has some contradictory information (imagine that!) But this site http://pregnancy.about.com/library/blwbw.htmseems to have some good information that breaks down development week by week along with ultrasound picture to go with it.
Personally though I don't care how developed it is or how much it looks like a baby. It's just a body, not a person, and a body shouldn't have rights exceeding those of a person.
They'll try to scare women away from legal, professionally administered abortions by claiming they're dangerously unsafe, going against all credible, independent, medical evidence to the contrary.
Simultaneously, in a brainwashing effort aimed at making an authoriatarin abortion ban seem more palatable, they preposterously contend that the terribly unsafe, illegal abortions before Rose v. Wade took only a handful of female lives each year.
Under this rape of reality, the respective mortality circumstances are made to trade places, with today's abortions supposedly being a hugely bloody risk, but yesteryear's backalley slashings and pokings portrayed as no big deal.
What horrendous sophistry!
Here's another contradiction:
On the one hand, anti-choicers will try to manipulatively bolster their cause by asserting that women and girls with "unwanted" (objectively unacceptable) pregnancies got that way through loose morals and careless irresponsibility.
But, in attempting to de-legitimize contraception -- and please be aware that very many anti-choice fanatics are just as zealous in opposing birth control -- they'll stress things like "58% of all unwanted pregancies result from contraceptive failure."
If the latter is true, it's pretty tough to viably play the poisonous blame game.
Additionally, anti-choicers routinely accuse women's rights advocates of being "liars". Or they'll present suspiciously, tellingly worded "quotes" from alleged former women's healthcare workers who are said to have defected to the anti-choice side. I'm not saying none never have, but fabrication is not above people who are so fixated on a take-no-prisoners assault on female reproductive rights that, in their street presence especially, they'll engage in constant harassment, frightening intimidation, clinic break-ins and bombings, frivolous law suits, video surveillance and subsequent Internet postings...and the murder of abortion doctors.
"Fibbing" fits into that unethical patchwork without any difficulty.
Always look for impartial verifications for what the anti-choicers claim. Far more often than not, it won't be found.
Let's not make the mistake of allowing such people -- employing such unsavory extremes -- to gain traction against our female loved ones' most basic, private rights.
Kit says....They feel that the fetus is paramount and the woman is a slag, slut, etc because she chose to have sex although she knew that she maybecome pregnant and therefore deserves what she gets.
Dan says....I can't speak for the others, but I feel that the unborn child is a person who should be afforded the same protection that I enjoy from the law.
Please, Kit, do not put words in my mouth.
I feel the unborn child is a person equal to and deserving as the same rights as any other person.
As I have said before, I would be there to comfort a friend who has gone thru with an abortion if that person came to me. I have done so in the past. I think abortion is horrid. What it does to babies, and Jethro is right it rips a child with limbs apart, is unacceptable.
But the trauma a woman suffers after the abortion (the courts and profit driven organizations say is ok) is awful too.
We'd first have to rebuild the destroyed cities from the initial decade of rioting that resulted from any law that would require someone to take a pill to reduce sex drive.
Just among the youth, if say in the Jr. High and Sr. High age groups instead of the option of birth control medications (the pill), what about sex drive supression medications?
Son, if you want a car at graduation, take the supression pill.
If it caught on, it could really do some good.
But then you would have to find a way to get at another problem area, the male perverts who target younger girls.
I think with the right marketing campaign it could work.
Flood the TV with ads for it just like they are doing now with Viagra, Allergy medications, and Anti-depressant medicines, and oh yes, the never ending yeast infection medications.
If you watch tv any amount of time you would think everybody is on the stuff.
I'm not on any of it, but the rate of people on anti-depression meds and other well advertised meds, has skyrocketed and in part, I'm sure it has to do with the agressive ad campaigns.
If you mean guys would move to Canada, after this country went completely sexless, troglodyte neo-conservative, and I were a single guy, it would be Montreal over Vancouver.
Montreal is more hip, and the women are very stylish.
If it was a voluntary thing, I don't know that it would be drastically different from a birth control pill. It certainly would be better than having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
that'd take a hell of a marketing campaign though. the ads you're referring to deal with things that people want to make go away for themselves. allergies, depression, yeast infections, inability to perform. you're gonna have a hard time convincing someone to take something that will make something go away that they really don't want to go away.
<edit>rick, yeah, but i like the climate in vancouver better, and i wouldn't have to re-learn how to communicate in french to live there.
Yes, so the ad campaigns target the perverts with agressive ad campaigns making it very appealing, something more desirable than not being on the meds, and viola!
You could have little pop ups all over the internet (especially at the porn related sites), etc.
Our society is much happier, less diseased, less depressed, more focused on careers, positive long term lifestyle choices, and then abortion becomes obsolete.
You could have little pop ups all over the internet (especially at the porn related sites), etc.
i don't have any numbers, but i imagine that those are the most hated, objectionable things on the internet. problems that are easily solved by this. i've not seen a pop-up ad in months since i started using it. (and given the amount of pop-ups that typically come along with porn sites (no pun intended there), having a program like that is invaulable.
"Our society is much happier, less diseased, less depressed, more focused on careers, positive long term lifestyle choices, and then abortion becomes obsolete."
I think of the fhe famous line from "1984"
"We're making you sane, Winston."
There was an anti-sex society in Orwell's world, too.
Guys, Canada would be the first to sell it. And Americans would be crossing the border in droves for the cheaper Canadian supression pill.
Maybe the appeal of the pill could be the side effect of stimulating the desire to work out, stay in shape and eat well.
Then we could all have really hunky men whenever We want. Oh, honey if your a good boy... you can leave your pills at home and we can go away for the weekend... Ooh, la la!
Then we could all have really hunky men whenever We want. Oh, honey if your a good boy... you can leave your pills at home and we can go away for the weekend... Ooh, la la!
Sorry, I just got carried away with the fantasy of it.
But seriously, I think something like this does have a place in our world.
Think about impoverished countries like Africa, Afghanistan, etc. where they are starving, warring tribes, no economic development, poor malnourished pregnant women and starving kids.
We could use this pill to help them help themselves make some real progress.
But we need to find a way to make it acceptable and appealing to men.
kit wrote: Now to clear up some of jethro's imaginative language, first trimester fetuses are basic groups of cells which are simply vacuumed up, then the bloody lining and placenta are suctioned off. You should know that that is pure crap.
to put Paula's and Jethro's et al, point most succinctly They feel that the fetus is paramount and the woman is a slag, slut, etc because she chose to have sex although she knew that she may become pregnant and therefore deserves what she gets. Or did I read you wrong? Talk about inflammatory language. Not to mention it is an outright lie.The undertones of your statements all seem to be she made her bed and now must lie in it - much the same was said of women who stayed in abusive marriages. Its called responsibility. When it comes down to inconvenience or life. I believe the law should protect life and the mother should bare the inconvenience.
My point is since she is damned either way - leave the choice to her. You point is not reasonable when it comes to life or death.
Rick wrote: "How about controlling the sex drive? "
Do I detect the desire for some new laws in this area?
How about people controlling their own sex drive? Controlling the sex drive should be a societal value but it isn't. In fact it is the opposite. Hence the increased rate of unwanted pregnancy and STDs. It is absurd to think laws would help. Only a cretin would think that. But there is such thing as societal standards, or at least here were.
The man show and the juggies would have no effect on males.
But if women were not given the pill, we would really rule! Ohhh this is scary!
Women would rule? Hardly. If men had no sex drive women's place in society would plummet. The only reason men do all the things they do for women is ultimately because we want to have sex with them. If the sexual dynamic were reversed, and women needed men for sex but not vice versa, and then add that to the fact that men on average are already physically superior in terms of size and strength, men would truly have all the power. You couldn't possibly deal a bigger blow to the equality of women than to take away one the primary sources of their power.
kit wrote: Now to clear up some of jethro's imaginative language, first trimester fetuses are basic groups of cells which are simply vacuumed up, then the bloody lining and placenta are suctioned off. You should know that that is pure crap.
I'll concede that point. At the website I posted, by the 13th week, the fetus does clearly resemble a human and has moved past the set of cells stage. Though personally I don't see what difference it makes. How much it looks like a human shouldn't matter intellectually. It's no more or less human at that point than it was to begin with. It only matters on an emotional level.
The first step would be to link uncontrolled sexual drive with a defective gene.
Then advertise for volunteers for clinical trials to determine how the "wonder drug" would affect them.
example advertisement:...Men, do you have sexual thoughts more than 10 times a day, do you find your thoughts about women at work are keeping you from moving ahead in your career, are you distracted from your school work because of your thoughts about your female classmates, have you had to compete for the same woman, have you ever upset a woman because of your sexual advances...
...then you may be suffering from sexual drive dysfunction. But there is hope.
Clinical trials are being conducted at leading universities to try the new drug "Libitopro".
This exciting new class of drugs isolates the gene "zip" and corrects the misfiring scientist believe is occuring within the brain.
There is hope for a new you, a more confident, less distracted, more successful, healthier you.
Side effects are mild and comparative to placebo. Most disappear after the first week. Side effects most reported are headaches, and more time on your hands.
The benefits seen in experiments have been increased intellectual abilities, more confidence, increased social communication, and a general feeling of well being.
Why is this not a possibility? The field of science is still discovering things about the brain and body that were once unimaginable.
Only partially kidding. But think about it, all the "rules" we have, or at least had in society: "Ladies first", holding the door open for a lady, "women and children first", etc. Do men defer to women in all these circumstances just because we maybe think they are somehow superior to us and deserve such preferential treatment as a consequence? Or is it because ultimately, perhaps even just on a subconscious level, they have something we want? "The woman is always right". Don't you think somewhere behind that statement is the implication that the woman is right because she has something the man wants? For virtually all of history man has been the pursuer and women have been the pursued. And anywhere that the right of a woman to say "no" has been defended, the woman acquired a sort of power. If a man wanted her to say yes, he had to prove himself worthy to her by whatever standards she chose to set (tempered somewhat by what standards the competition were using).
Now if you take away all men's sex drives, men no longer need to pursue women in the same way. Hanging out with a woman is no different than hanging out with a guy for the most part. And consequently they will be expected to compete on an equal level. In today's increasingly intellectual society that might not as big a deal anymore, but men still hold the physical edge in terms of size and strength. In a world where the physical was more important as it was in the past, women would be viewed simply as people who are less capable. Right now there is a sort of precarious balance of power, but if you made everything else equal, except that men were still physically superior, it would ultimately, over time, result in a corresponding shift in the balance of power between what would essentially become the "haves" and the "have-nots".
The male sex drive is a double edged sword as far as women are concerned, though the edge that benefits them isn't often acknowledged publicly. But if you think it's not there, then I'd have to say you're pretty naive.
and the current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestation is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures.
Depends on how you look at it. I see it as a 100% death rate.
They should be very proud of themselves.
And if there is any sort of corruption in the abortion industry, then perhaps it needs to be better regulated, but that's not the same as saying abortion should be outlawed. Again, a pointless argument.
Your right. Let's get to the central issue. The unborn child is human and it is a being. Is it okay to kill the child on a whim? You obviously think it is, Allison.
Rahkonen: Pro Baby Butcher!!!
Back to debunking...
Dennis Rahkonen 6/13/02 1:39pm
THE NOTION...
The simple facts speak for themselves....
"I was once pro-choice and the thing that changd my mind was, I read my husband's bioligy books, medical books, and what I learned...At the moment of conception, a life starts. And this life has its own unique set of DNA, which contains a blueprint for the whole genetic makeup. The sex is determined. We know there's a life because it's growing and changing." - Kathy Ireland
How can anyone claim that they have the "freedom" or "right" to kill an innocent baby?
BTW, the baby is innocent.
The only "choice" in abortion is between a dead baby and a live baby. Plus, those who defend this "choice" aren't consistent.
Why is it only in the case of abortion they argue that "choice" should be absolute?
Using the same rationale, wouldn't people have the right to "choose" to use drugs... ("it's my body") or the right to "choose" to practice prostitution?
Humane societies don't tell people they have a "freedom of choice" to kill their own children.
(Goes back to my 2weeks after suggestion. It just would not go.)
There are right choices and wrong choices.
The right choices are ones that do not kill babies.
The Public relation firms did a wonderful job snowing everyone with their emotional "buzz" words to further the money making industry of baby killing.
Abortion hurts women!
And... speaking of middle ground, what exactly does that mean...
Does that mean I get the stomach area, Dennis gets the dismembered legs... of the dismembered baby. It's a child it's not a choice!
Pro-woman & Pro-life
Dennis Rahkonen 6/13/02 1:25pm
Where are your statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control from 1972? My source says a total of 39 women died from illegal abortions in that year.
Provide me with the CDC link that says otherwise.....
CDC is a realiable source of information, don't you agree?
So I went to the CDC website. I haven't seen anything about deaths from past years, but in the most recent years they have numbers for, in 1999 375 women died from "complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and the pueparium" while 31 died of "pregnancy with abortive outcome" (which I'm guessing means they were getting an abortion?). In 2000, 333 died from pregnancy/childbirth and 37 died from pregnancy with an abortive outcome. And even if that second category isn't referring to women who had abortions, the numbers Paula posted were about the same. So the numbers seem to state pretty clearly that not having an abortion is significantly more dangerous than having one. Roughly on a scale of 10 to 1, a woman is more likely to die from child birth than having an abortion. Yet again, many of you insist a woman ought not to have the right to choose between those two options.
pregnancy with abortive outcome can also mean miscarriage.
Now to clear up some of jethro's imaginative language, first trimester fetuses are basic groups of cells which are simply vacuumed up, then the bloody lining and placenta are suctioned off. There is no 'ripping them apart limb by limb'. That is a perfect example of inflammatory language used by those who will not use rigorous thought when debating what they plan to say. If you are going to get anywhere, you must be precise.
to put Paula's and Jethro's et al, point most succintly They feel that the fetus is paramount and the woman is a slag, slut, etc because she chose to have sex although she knew that she maybecome pregnant and therefore deserves what she gets. Or did I read you wrong? The undertones of your statements all seem to be she made her bed and now must lie in it - much the same was said of women who stayed in abusive marriages.
My point is since she is damned either way - leave the choice to her.
Now to clear up some of jethro's imaginative language, first trimester fetuses...
Fetus is a Latin word that means "offspring" or "child". So you are admitting that it is a child even at this early stage.
...are basic groups of cells...
In the first month the fetus has eyes, mouth and head, legs and arms are growing. The heart has begun to beat and the lungs have begun to form.
In the second month all of the baby's organs are present.
By the third month (the end of the first trimester) you will be able to hear the baby's heartbeat through a stethoscope. The baby has fingers, toes and soft nails.(source: surebaby.coman online magazine for expectant mothers.)
A bit more than just a few basic cells.
That is a perfect example of inflammatory language used by those who will not use rigorous thought when debating what they plan to say. If you are going to get anywhere, you must be precise.
You use this retoric when your own logic is full of holes?
They feel that the fetus is paramount and the woman is a slag, slut, etc because she chose to have sex although she knew that she maybecome pregnant and therefore deserves what she gets.
I can't speak for the others, but I feel that the unborn child is a person who should be afforded the same protection that I enjoy from the law.
much the same was said of women who stayed in abusive marriages.
But if these women were to abort the person who is being abusive, they would have to answer to the laws of the land. The women who abort their unborn child do not.
I happened across the surebaby site myself, though I found another site that has some contradictory information (imagine that!) But this site http://pregnancy.about.com/library/blwbw.htmseems to have some good information that breaks down development week by week along with ultrasound picture to go with it.
Personally though I don't care how developed it is or how much it looks like a baby. It's just a body, not a person, and a body shouldn't have rights exceeding those of a person.
ANTI-CHOICE DISHONESTY AND DISHONOR
Anti-choice propagandists are shameless.
They'll try to scare women away from legal, professionally administered abortions by claiming they're dangerously unsafe, going against all credible, independent, medical evidence to the contrary.
Simultaneously, in a brainwashing effort aimed at making an authoriatarin abortion ban seem more palatable, they preposterously contend that the terribly unsafe, illegal abortions before Rose v. Wade took only a handful of female lives each year.
Under this rape of reality, the respective mortality circumstances are made to trade places, with today's abortions supposedly being a hugely bloody risk, but yesteryear's backalley slashings and pokings
portrayed as no big deal.
What horrendous sophistry!
Here's another contradiction:
On the one hand, anti-choicers will try to manipulatively bolster their cause by asserting that women and girls with "unwanted" (objectively unacceptable) pregnancies got that way through loose morals and careless irresponsibility.
But, in attempting to de-legitimize contraception -- and please be aware that very many anti-choice fanatics are just as zealous in opposing birth control -- they'll stress things like
"58% of all unwanted pregancies result from contraceptive failure."
If the latter is true, it's pretty tough to viably play the poisonous
blame game.
Additionally, anti-choicers routinely accuse women's rights
advocates of being "liars". Or they'll present suspiciously, tellingly worded "quotes" from alleged former women's healthcare workers who are said to have defected to the anti-choice side. I'm not saying none never have, but fabrication is not above people who are so fixated on a take-no-prisoners assault on female reproductive rights that, in their street presence especially, they'll engage in constant harassment, frightening intimidation, clinic break-ins and bombings, frivolous law suits, video surveillance and subsequent Internet postings...and the murder of abortion doctors.
"Fibbing" fits into that unethical patchwork without any difficulty.
Always look for impartial verifications for what the anti-choicers claim. Far more often than not, it won't be found.
Let's not make the mistake of allowing such people -- employing such
unsavory extremes -- to gain traction against our female loved ones' most basic, private rights.
Dan Zachary 6/13/02 9:41pm
Yeah Dan, you go w/the facts!!!
Kit says....They feel that the fetus is paramount and the woman is a slag, slut, etc because she chose to have sex although she knew that she maybecome pregnant and therefore deserves what she gets.
Please, Kit, do not put words in my mouth.
I feel the unborn child is a person equal to and deserving as the same rights as any other person.
As I have said before, I would be there to comfort a friend who has gone thru with an abortion if that person came to me. I have done so in the past. I think abortion is horrid. What it does to babies, and Jethro is right it rips a child with limbs apart, is unacceptable.
But the trauma a woman suffers after the abortion (the courts and profit driven organizations say is ok) is awful too.
I have solved the problem anyway.....
The problem has to do with sex drive doesn't it?
If there were no desire for sex, then we wouldn't have to have people using means to deal with the results of their actions from their sex drive.
How about controlling the sex drive?
Paula:
"How about controlling the sex drive? "
Do I detect the desire for some new laws in this area?
If so, you'll be hearing from some pissed off guys.
Come on, guys, go with me on this one. Let's explore the possibility, shall we?
Imagine how low the rate of STD's and abortion and rape would drop if there was a pill (accepted and recognized) to supress the sex drive?
great theory, paula. in practice, it can't work. at least not as long as compliance isn't mandatory.
Rick, just guys? They are the only ones with a sex drive?
That would be at least 20 years out.
We'd first have to rebuild the destroyed cities from the initial decade of rioting that resulted from any law that would require someone to take a pill to reduce sex drive.
rick, the solution to your problem there is easy: vancouver.
Just among the youth, if say in the Jr. High and Sr. High age groups instead of the option of birth control medications (the pill), what about sex drive supression medications?
Son, if you want a car at graduation, take the supression pill.
If it caught on, it could really do some good.
But then you would have to find a way to get at another problem area, the male perverts who target younger girls.
and getting it to catch on would be the first obstacle.
But then you would have to find a way to get at another problem area, the male perverts who target younger girls.
isn't this something of a problem already though?
I think with the right marketing campaign it could work.
Flood the TV with ads for it just like they are doing now with Viagra, Allergy medications, and Anti-depressant medicines, and oh yes, the never ending yeast infection medications.
If you watch tv any amount of time you would think everybody is on the stuff.
I'm not on any of it, but the rate of people on anti-depression meds and other well advertised meds, has skyrocketed and in part, I'm sure it has to do with the agressive ad campaigns.
Ares:
If you mean guys would move to Canada, after this country went completely sexless, troglodyte neo-conservative, and I were a single guy, it would be Montreal over Vancouver.
Montreal is more hip, and the women are very stylish.
If it was a voluntary thing, I don't know that it would be drastically different from a birth control pill. It certainly would be better than having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
that'd take a hell of a marketing campaign though. the ads you're referring to deal with things that people want to make go away for themselves. allergies, depression, yeast infections, inability to perform. you're gonna have a hard time convincing someone to take something that will make something go away that they really don't want to go away.
<edit>rick, yeah, but i like the climate in vancouver better, and i wouldn't have to re-learn how to communicate in french to live there.
ares 6/14/02 6:15am
Yes, so the ad campaigns target the perverts with agressive ad campaigns making it very appealing, something more desirable than not being on the meds, and viola!
You could have little pop ups all over the internet (especially at the porn related sites), etc.
Our society is much happier, less diseased, less depressed, more focused on careers, positive long term lifestyle choices, and then abortion becomes obsolete.
You could have little pop ups all over the internet (especially at the porn related sites), etc.
i don't have any numbers, but i imagine that those are the most hated, objectionable things on the internet. problems that are easily solved by this. i've not seen a pop-up ad in months since i started using it. (and given the amount of pop-ups that typically come along with porn sites (no pun intended there), having a program like that is invaulable.
And then maybe Dennis would stop shooting his wad, glorifying Planned Parenthood.
The supression pill would be a better option than even his most loved organization's solution.
"Our society is much happier, less diseased, less depressed, more focused on careers, positive long term lifestyle choices, and then abortion becomes obsolete."
I think of the fhe famous line from "1984"
"We're making you sane, Winston."
There was an anti-sex society in Orwell's world, too.
ares 6/14/02 6:24am
I have a firewall that does a great job for me most of the time.
ya gotta love a filtering proxy server, dontcha?
The thought of this supression pill really has me going.
Imagine if it was only given to males.
The man show and the juggies would have no effect on males.
But if women were not given the pill, we would really rule! Ohhh this is scary!
<edit>rick, yeah, but i like the climate in vancouver better,
Like rain?
"and i wouldn't have to re-learn how to communicate in french to live there."
The women would take pity on us poor Americans. Imagine how popular you could become.
...the juggies would have no effect on males.
no chemical can undo *that* particular brain wiring, paula :)
The women would take pity on us poor Americans. Imagine how popular you could become.
hmm. on second thought, it wouldn't take much to pick up the french again :)
Guys, Canada would be the first to sell it. And Americans would be crossing the border in droves for the cheaper Canadian supression pill.
Maybe the appeal of the pill could be the side effect of stimulating the desire to work out, stay in shape and eat well.
Then we could all have really hunky men whenever We want. Oh, honey if your a good boy... you can leave your pills at home and we can go away for the weekend... Ooh, la la!
The possibilities are endless!
But my interest in this isn't.
Outta here.
I'm back to hunting, fishing and sports.
Keep your pills to yourself.
AND I'M GOING TO HOOTERS FOR LUNCH, TOO!
Then we could all have really hunky men whenever We want. Oh, honey if your a good boy... you can leave your pills at home and we can go away for the weekend... Ooh, la la!
keep talking about it like that and it'll be doomed to fail. no man in his right mind would voluntarily take such a pill at the whim of his wife/girlfriend/fiancée, if you're using that as a marketing line.
ares 6/14/02 7:06am
Sorry, I just got carried away with the fantasy of it.
But seriously, I think something like this does have a place in our world.
Think about impoverished countries like Africa, Afghanistan, etc. where they are starving, warring tribes, no economic development, poor malnourished pregnant women and starving kids.
We could use this pill to help them help themselves make some real progress.
But we need to find a way to make it acceptable and appealing to men.
bye for now.
Gotta go work out at the gym.
kit wrote: Now to clear up some of jethro's imaginative language, first trimester fetuses are basic groups of cells which are simply vacuumed up, then the bloody lining and placenta are suctioned off. You should know that that is pure crap.
to put Paula's and Jethro's et al, point most succinctly They feel that the fetus is paramount and the woman is a slag, slut, etc because she chose to have sex although she knew that she may become pregnant and therefore deserves what she gets. Or did I read you wrong? Talk about inflammatory language. Not to mention it is an outright lie.The undertones of your statements all seem to be she made her bed and now must lie in it - much the same was said of women who stayed in abusive marriages. Its called responsibility. When it comes down to inconvenience or life. I believe the law should protect life and the mother should bare the inconvenience.
My point is since she is damned either way - leave the choice to her. You point is not reasonable when it comes to life or death.
Rick wrote: "How about controlling the sex drive? "
Do I detect the desire for some new laws in this area?
How about people controlling their own sex drive? Controlling the sex drive should be a societal value but it isn't. In fact it is the opposite. Hence the increased rate of unwanted pregnancy and STDs. It is absurd to think laws would help. Only a cretin would think that. But there is such thing as societal standards, or at least here were.
Imagine if it was only given to males.
The man show and the juggies would have no effect on males.
But if women were not given the pill, we would really rule! Ohhh this is scary!
Women would rule? Hardly. If men had no sex drive women's place in society would plummet. The only reason men do all the things they do for women is ultimately because we want to have sex with them. If the sexual dynamic were reversed, and women needed men for sex but not vice versa, and then add that to the fact that men on average are already physically superior in terms of size and strength, men would truly have all the power. You couldn't possibly deal a bigger blow to the equality of women than to take away one the primary sources of their power.
kit wrote: Now to clear up some of jethro's imaginative language, first trimester fetuses are basic groups of cells which are simply vacuumed up, then the bloody lining and placenta are suctioned off. You should know that that is pure crap.
I'll concede that point. At the website I posted, by the 13th week, the fetus does clearly resemble a human and has moved past the set of cells stage. Though personally I don't see what difference it makes. How much it looks like a human shouldn't matter intellectually. It's no more or less human at that point than it was to begin with. It only matters on an emotional level.
The fact remains that the "fetus" is human from the moment of conception.
But I wouldn't call it a person.
Is it your belief that we are really nothing more than our bodies?
It's no more or less human at that point than it was to begin with.
Then neither are you.
The only reason men do all the things they do for women is ultimately because we want to have sex with them.
OMG! You're kidding, right?
thx, ask me2 sometime what the stat is on how often men think about sex.
I don't believe those stats.
Sure, sex is great but it isn't my guiding force.
The first step would be to link uncontrolled sexual drive with a defective gene.
Then advertise for volunteers for clinical trials to determine how the "wonder drug" would affect them.
example advertisement:...Men, do you have sexual thoughts more than 10 times a day, do you find your thoughts about women at work are keeping you from moving ahead in your career, are you distracted from your school work because of your thoughts about your female classmates, have you had to compete for the same woman, have you ever upset a woman because of your sexual advances...
...then you may be suffering from sexual drive dysfunction. But there is hope.
Clinical trials are being conducted at leading universities to try the new drug "Libitopro".
This exciting new class of drugs isolates the gene "zip" and corrects the misfiring scientist believe is occuring within the brain.
There is hope for a new you, a more confident, less distracted, more successful, healthier you.
Side effects are mild and comparative to placebo. Most disappear after the first week.
Side effects most reported are headaches, and more time on your hands.
The benefits seen in experiments have been increased intellectual abilities, more confidence, increased social communication, and a general feeling of well being.
Why is this not a possibility? The field of science is still discovering things about the brain and body that were once unimaginable.
Only partially kidding. But think about it, all the "rules" we have, or at least had in society: "Ladies first", holding the door open for a lady, "women and children first", etc. Do men defer to women in all these circumstances just because we maybe think they are somehow superior to us and deserve such preferential treatment as a consequence? Or is it because ultimately, perhaps even just on a subconscious level, they have something we want? "The woman is always right". Don't you think somewhere behind that statement is the implication that the woman is right because she has something the man wants? For virtually all of history man has been the pursuer and women have been the pursued. And anywhere that the right of a woman to say "no" has been defended, the woman acquired a sort of power. If a man wanted her to say yes, he had to prove himself worthy to her by whatever standards she chose to set (tempered somewhat by what standards the competition were using).
Now if you take away all men's sex drives, men no longer need to pursue women in the same way. Hanging out with a woman is no different than hanging out with a guy for the most part. And consequently they will be expected to compete on an equal level. In today's increasingly intellectual society that might not as big a deal anymore, but men still hold the physical edge in terms of size and strength. In a world where the physical was more important as it was in the past, women would be viewed simply as people who are less capable. Right now there is a sort of precarious balance of power, but if you made everything else equal, except that men were still physically superior, it would ultimately, over time, result in a corresponding shift in the balance of power between what would essentially become the "haves" and the "have-nots".
The male sex drive is a double edged sword as far as women are concerned, though the edge that benefits them isn't often acknowledged publicly. But if you think it's not there, then I'd have to say you're pretty naive.