But if I misunderstood specifically your posistion I'll ask you flat out. Yes, you did.If the mothers life is at risk should she be allowed to have an abortion ? Yes. That was my point. I don't know of any "prolifer" that takes a different view. There may be a few but it is mostly proabortion propaganda.
O.K so we agree that the mother should be allowed to if in danger. Then why were you breaking my balls and telling me that I bought into what the pro abortion movement told me ? You must have too if in your book having that opinion means you've somehow bought into the proabortion movement. So why were you saying I had if you feel the same ? I was saying to you that I think the hardcore element who are absolutists are doing more harm than good, they are out there even though you might not know any I've heard it before from them directly and not some pro abortion propoganda all though I agree the pro abortion crowd do use it as propoganda and are the most vocal their are the extreme absolutists who give them material. I was merely telling you that I think they are hurting the cause, I wasn't saying you but you got defensive over some percieved belief. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. Glad to hear you feel the same.
Is society made a better place by banning abortion? To really answer that you have to define what society is. Is an unborn child part of our society? If not, then the outlawing of abortion does nothing to improve society. Those not involved with the child are unaffected and those who are involved are now forced to have a child they do not want. By that definition of society, outlawing abortion makes society an unhappier place.
If you do consider an unborn child to be part of society, then you must consider them in calculating overall happiness. Still, just how unhappy is someone who was never born? I still maintain they feel nothing at all. And how happy is the child that would have been aborted but instead ends up with the family that didn't want it? Hard to say really. Still, to say society is happier just because more people are being born would imply that anytime you do anything to deter a pregnancy you're harming society. In a world that is quickly becoming overpopulated, I doubt that's really the case.
So I would contend that an aborted pregnancy makes society really no better or worse off than a pregnancy that never occured to begin with.
So then the question might become why is it wrong to kill anyone at all? If you're willing to look past the concept of absolute morals, the idea of not allowing murder is that it is detrimental to society. The citizens of a society are unlikely to achieve any appreciable degree of happiness if they believe they could be killed at any moment. Thus one of the keys to a happy society is to guarantee a right to life. It's still not really a guarantee, but at the very least you can feel comfortable enough to look forward to the future.
In that light, outlawing abortion still offers no benefit to society. Anyone capable of contemplating such a thing is already well past the point of having to worry about being aborted themselves. Thus outlawing abortion offers no sense of security to the existing members of society. It's merely a way of trying to extend a sense of security to those who aren't even capable of contemplating their own existence. Thus they aren't made any happier by it.
Abortions in the third term are actually very rare and made only in extreme cases, which is how the law is set up right now. If you want to believe a fetus in the third trimester is more than just a nearly fully developed body, there's still the issue of the struggle of one person against another for survival and a person's right to defend themselves. That's generally the circumstances of such an abortion. They are not available on demand.
In the second trimester abortions are generally only allowed where severe abnormalities are present or other such circumstances. Again, one could question whether requiring that such children be brought to term would really make society a happier place.
And in the first trimester the brain hasn't even developed yet so there's no need to worry about how "happy" the fetus is.
So who's really made happy by outlawing abortion other than perhaps those who would like to see women punished for having sex?
I think abortion has contributed to a number of socieital ills. The devaluation of human life being the biggest. Watch the news on any given night for evidence of that. Bad things have always happened and there have always been bad people. We continue to make it easy for people to be less and less responsible. I can hear the loony lefties moaning already. That's part of the problem. The social changes that have happened in the last 30 years have had some nasty side effects. We didn't have the large scale of problems we had 40-50 years ago. Was everything perfect back then ? Heck no. Have we made some good strides ? sure we have but we have also seen our society decay. But no matter what side of the debate you are on acnnot deny the fact that overall compared to 40 years ago that in general violent crime is up, out of wedlock births are up drug use is up. Etc. Have you ever stopped to ask why ? What is going on in our world that makes more people act this way. What happened ?
Why ? it's a hard question and not one particular thing can be pointed too. But there used to be a stigma to being pregnant out of wedlock. Not that is always a good thing and it's happened for thousands of years now it's more the norm. Why is it happeneing on such a large scale. Each year teenagers are having sex younger each year. Why ? Something is obviously not working. But I think in our rush to never judge anyone we have removed a level of decencey or expectations. Everyone is a victim and not in control of thier own circumstances or ations. We have also removed or are slowly eroding consequences for actions. If there aren't many or little consequence for young people there is little incentive do make the right choices in the first place. Same goes for some adults. Now does this mean that people don't make mistakes ? Sure, of course we do we are all human and use bad judgement from time to time but the consequences of our actions seem to be less and less and the results are obvious. Can abortion be pointed to as the sole reason ? No, probably not. Has it helped ? I don't think so. Something has changed and that is one thing that has and we as a society don't seem to be any better off than before it wasn't leagal.
BTW,
Alison Wonderland.
Ares and I talked about it yesterday and I wanted to ask you. Why do you think they kill a fetus before removing it from the mother ?
----- The child asked God, "They tell me you are sending me to earth tomorrow but how am I going to live there being so small and helpless?"
"Your angel will be waiting for you and will take care of you."
The child further inquired, "But tell me, here in heaven I don't have to do anything but sing and smile to be happy."
God said, "Your angel will sing for you and will also smile for you. And you will feel your angel's love and be very happy."
Again the child asked, "And how am I going to be able to understand when people talk to me if I don't know the language?"
God said, "Your angel will tell you the most beautiful and sweet words you will ever hear, and with much patience and care, your angel will teach you how to speak."
"And what am I going to do when I want to talk to you?"
God said, "Your angel will place your hands together and will teach you how to pray."
"Who will protect me?"
God said, "Your angel will defend you even if it means risking it's life."
"But I will always be sad because I will not see you anymore."
God said, "Your angel will always talk to you about me and will teach you the way to come back to me, even though I will always be next to you."
At that moment there was much peace in heaven, but voices from Earth could be heard and the child hurriedly asked, "God, if I am to leave now, please tell me my angel's name."
Maryland Declares Death Penalty Moratorium Reuters May 9 2002 1:19PM
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Reuters) - The state of Maryland declared a temporary moratorium on executions on Thursday, citing "reasonable questions" about the integrity of capital punishment in the state and across the nation.
Gov. Parris Glendening said he would stay all pending executions until the completion of a two-year University of Maryland study on the death penalty's legal and racial implications.
State officials said the study was due to be completed in September.
"I continue to believe that there are certain crimes that are so brutal and so vile that they call for society to impose the ultimate punishment," Glendening, a Democrat, said in issuing a stay of execution for convicted killer Wesley Eugene Baker, who was due to die by lethal injection next week.
So a while back someone proposed that abortion was one of the causes of the "decline" of society. I've been thinking about it, and here's what I think are some of the causes of the decline.
1. The Media. Not so much that it has caused the decline of society, but it has made us far more aware of society's ills than we ever were before. Many of the problems we have today have always been around. It was just easier to ignore them when they weren't being beamed into our homes via TV, radio, and the like.
2. The internet. People are communicating with each other on a totally unprecedented level than ever before. Previously there was a much greater pressure to conform to societal norms because if you didn't, you might become an outcast which would result in utter social isolation. These days, if you don't fit in with the people around you, you can find people across the country or even around the world with whom you do fit in. You can now search people the way you might search a database to find those with whom you fit in withough having to change yourself to fit some sort of "norm".
3. The automobile. Having a car has allowed us to isolate ourselves from each other more and more by moving farther and farther from the core of the city. It's made us more self-reliant and caused us to lose contact with those we meet along our way. As cars are designed to better shut out the world around you as you go, we tend to forget that there are actually real people inside of those other cars.
4. The Sexual Revolution. Once people realized they could talk about sex, and it didn't bring the world to an end, there was no going back. Years of repression were replaced with freedom of expression. There are those who would prefer to go back to an era of repression, but there's little evidence to support the notion that repression of anything is a healthy thing.
5. Medicine. We can now keep people alive far beyond the time in which they can lead productive lives, and beyond the point where the care of a family is considered sufficient. In a way, by trying to prolong life, we've actually devalued it extending it beyond it's point of vitality and shipping our elders off to some other place to die where we don't have to think of them as real people anymore. In making death antisceptic, life has become nearly the same.
6. Decline of Religion. It used to be that whatever other differences people had, there was a semi-common higher authroity to appeal to that people would abide by, and could even be used as a tool to ensure conformity. There was also a mystical element to it all that bound people together. As society gets away from that, and focuses more on the individual and relative morals, society becomes more complex and it becomes harder to appeal that element of commonality to resolve disputes.
Is society really declining? We ll it's certainly changing. Humans are still social creatures, but the way we interact with one another is growing ever more impersonal. We have people we call friends whose real names we don't even know. It's easy to think of some people as relevant and others as almost something less than human, almost like a computer simulation. And the rules of society are changing. Not even changing, but disappearing. We don't need to all fit a certain mold anymore to find people to fit in with. We're more free than ever to be ourselves, but at the same time it's easier than ever to ignore those we don't share things in common with. There are fewer and fewer things to bind us together as a society, and consequently we are becoming more and more factionalized.
Are these changes all bad? I don't know. It's hard to take the position that repression was a good thing. Having societal norms can be a good thing for those that fit them, but it can be hell on those who don't. And I don't want to claim that technological advances are harmful. But it is a tradeoff. In allowing people greater degrees of individuality than ever before, keeping society together becomes a greater challenge than ever before.
Likewise, legalized abortion no doubt has had some effect on society, but those effects are both good and bad. Its really just a change and whether it's a positive change or not depends on what one values. Personally I'd rather live in a society where abortion was legal than one in which it was not.
Allison asked: Is society really declining? He answered his own question with: Humans are still social creatures, but the way we interact with one another is growing ever more impersonal.
A society that is "growing ever more impersonal" is a society that is declining.
Interesting and well thought out post A.W. I would agree with quite a bit of it. Some of it was right on the mark. Some I disagree with but what the hay.
I do disagree about wanting to live in a society that keeps abortion legal. But you know what struck me as odd or should I say what puzzles me.... After reading all the things you listed and seeing in black and white how far we've come and how far we've also gone downhill, you still feel that we are better off with abortion legal. I am not saying that to be a smartass or being flippant I just observed all these things you wrote and see that you see many of these things as a decline as well ad most do but yet still rationalize or wish to see abortion kept legal. I just found it interesting. Good post though.
Change is the only "constant" in life. Our species is undergoing perpetual evolution.
The values, attitudes and notions of the fading past are sources of comfort, prosperity and security for some. For many others, they are the basis of sexist, racist, classist and other forms of exploitation and oppression.
We've seen it all before.
Reactionaries, finding gain in certain social relationships that are inimical to entire groups and the whole laboring mass, have always self-servingly invoked a supposedly immutable "human nature" (there's no such thing) and the chauvanistic/benighted aspects of religion...to try to hold back a future that would be more fair and just -- and consequently less open to the few acquiring power and profit at the multitude's expense.
How many times have slaves, workers, suffragettes, gay rights activists, modern feminists, etc., been forcefully told that God doesn't want this, that or another classification of the objectively powerless and dispossesed to win equality?
Equality with white, conservative, "Christian", straight, business-oriented males who've heretofore controlled all societal institutions to their own enormous benefit -- as discrimination and deeply depriving denial have befallen the consequently victimized.
God, we've been repeatedly told, considers such objectively empowering victories for the downtrodden..."sin" and an "abomination"!
Turn on your TV. Find an "inspirational" cable network. I guarantee it won't take but ten or fifteen minutes of watching before you'll hear the preacherman start railing against "liberal assaults on the bastions of our tried and true morality".
Sure...
The morality of one-sided multinational corporate profiteering, ala overseas sweatshops that displaced thousands of workers here at home.
The ethics of brutal wars against independent-minded states that are termed "rogue" because they want to retain their own riches via sovereign destinies, rather than have them disappear into western coffers.
The Godliness of forcing women to go through with pregnancies males created. Males who, if guys could get unwantedly knocked up, would make abortion a sacrament in no time flat. Men would be lining up at abortion kiosks at Wal-Mart!
I don't fear the future. Let it kick out the jambs and tear down the walls.
Tomorrow will bring advances, enlightenment, liberty and justice for all.
I'm looking forward to our first lesbian, Latina, socialist president who'll aggressively govern in behalf of the common American people (not privileged elites, like Bush) from her pink, motorized wheelchair.
A society that is "growing ever more impersonal" is a society that is declining.
Yet isn't the "rugged individualist" a conservative ideal?
I think some of the changes that have occured have indeed hurt society. The thing that actually inspired me to make that post was when I was watching a movie set about 100 years ago and some people got into a carriage to go somewhere. Then I got to thinking about how back then, if you wanted to go somewhere, you wouldn't just jump in your car and drive there. You would get into a carriage of some sort possibly that would have a driver. Or maybe you'd walk or ride a horse, but you would still have a sort of contact with people as you went by them. And society had this sort of interdependence thing going on, even though some people did live all alone out on the frontiers. Even farmers had a sort of community going. And the people you associated with were the people around you, and to survive, you had to find a way to get along with those people.
These days a lot of us may not even know our neighbors. People become expendable because between the telephone, the internet, and our cars, it's easy enough to find others to replace them. I can get away with having no idea who my neighbors are, because I can while away the hours with all of you, and I don't even know the real names of most of you.
But on the flip side I actually have met some of my neighbors, and I really don't have much in common with them. If I had only them and/or coworkers to associate with, my life would be far less enriched than it is now. I don't have to worry if they think I'm crazy for treasure hunting, belonging to secret societies, or being kinky, because I find other people who do share those interests and can enjoy their company without having to change who I am. Bigotry becomes less of an issue with less power because it's easier to escape and ignore it. Society, in terms of the overall social fabric, is fraying, yet the individuals within that society are quite possibly better off than they ever have been before. So is society really getting worse, or is it just changing?
I do disagree about wanting to live in a society that keeps abortion legal.
Well I figured that. :-P
But you know what struck me as odd or should I say what puzzles me.... After reading all the things you listed and seeing in black and white how far we've come and how far we've also gone downhill, you still feel that we are better off with abortion legal.
Well, if you follow what I'm really getting at, it shouldn't be too surprising. Like I said in my previous post, it's kind of a matter of the overall fabric of society vs. the freedom of the individual. It's hard to increase one without decreasing the other. So what I'm saying is that while the overall fabric of society has started to pull apart a bit, the overall welfare of the individual has increased. People are more free to pursue the lifestyle that's best for them without as many constraints from society at large. In the case of minorities, gays, and such, you can see how that would be a benefit to them. Legal abortion would fall into that same category. It doesn't fit in the goal of having a common national ethic, but it does allow the individual the maiximum opportunity to make the most of their life that they can.
Now whether you value a strong societal bond or individual freedom more strongly is a personal choice. One can claim society is going downhill, because we are losing that bond, and point to abortion as an example of it. But I think at the same time we can claim that we, as members of this society, are actually not any worse off than before, perhaps even better off, because we have more freedom, and also point to legalized abortion as an example of that.
Allison, I noticed that you pointed out the much more intimate communication between us as a people, because of the Internet, and then you said that because of "Cars", we have moved apart as never before.
I cannot help but ask... "Which Is It"?
Well both really. It's a question of which people we're connecting to. We no longer need to connect to the people around us. We can connect to people halfway around the world. Yet the internet personal connection is almost inherently more impersonal, and we're shutting ourselves off from those immediately around us, so really, both are making people more impersonal.
Also, Rob...you said you would much prefer to live in a society that does not have legalized abortion. Can you pont out any societies where that is the case? I am not saying there aren't any, I am asking if there are.
Of course I would rather live here than anywhere else on earth. It doesn't mean their aren't aspects that I would like to see changed. Nothing is nor ever will be perfect but it doesn't mean that we all have things as citizens we want to change. But it's because of this nation and the meaning of the constitution and what a great nation it has made us. I believe right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of hapiness is just one of the things that makes it that I and many others want to live here. And I believe that the right to life, not only is it listed first but I believe tanamount since without life, the other two are pretty tough to accomplish.
As far as nations that don't have abortion I couldn't tell you. I have been to many other countries as well and I never really stopped to ask when I got off the plane. Generally there were enough other things I disliked about the country I was in. So even if they did have abortion outlawed there were so many other things that were unlikable about that society that it would have overridden it anyway I suppose. I just think it's wrong that we still allow a living human to be killed as long as it's inside the mother when we do it, it's as simple as that in my opinion, and it comes down to right and wrong and I happen to see it as wrong and others don't.
I was struck by the uniform illegality in Catholic Latin America, except Cuba.
And Africa, except South Africa.
And among the Islamic states.
Women have always obtained abortions, and they certainly always will.
Since males will continually knock them up when OBJECTIVE circumstances don't rationally or safely allow for resulting pregnancies.
The obvious opposite of being asked if you support safe and legal abortions is:
"Do you favor unsafe and illegal ones?"
Because abortions WILL not stop occurring.
In other words, being an advocate of female criminality, and injury and death, to girls and women.
Anyone who can honestly answer "yes" to that inescapable outcome of their "pro-life" outlook really needs to seriously entertain the possibility that -- maybe, just maybe -- their values are archaic, oppressive and simply all messed up.
And that they ought to find new ones, more humane, and in tune with undeniable reality.
Jethro, what he's saying is that it doesn't do you any good to demand that abortion be illegal. You don't get to choose if women will have them or not. Legal or illegal, they will have them.
Abortion isn't "safe" for the mother, and it certainly isn't "safe" for the child!
Because abortions WILL not stop occurring.
Neither will stupidity.
Abortions just may be looked at as the sick act it is, just like our horrid reaction to Andrea Yates who drowned her five children one by one in a tub full of excrement and water.
Sick and horrid people who would mame their own bodies and hurt and kill their children definitely DO need help.
In other words, being an advocate of female criminality, and injury and death, to girls and women.
In other words, being an advocate of the life of each and every individual, all of whom are worthy of existence rather than violent extinction.
In other words, being an advocate of present and future physical, mental, and spiritual health to girls and women.
The Wall Street Journal today has a extensive article on the activists who stand outside of abortion clinics photographing the women going in and placing their pictures on various websites.
I won't list the websites. You can find them in the article.
But, in my opinion, given the kind of over the top rhetoric used by the antiabortionists, we will see dead women littering the street. Of course, the antiabortionists will not take responsibility for their part in this by inciting those amoung their numbers who are unstable. Sounds familiar? Soon these 'wonderful' and 'compassionate' people will also post the women's names and addresses along with their pictures and medical records. Gee, it must make them feel awfully good to spear these women in the side after they have basically crucified themselves due to the world these self righteous antiabortionists have constructed. And their major problem? Well, it is all about the money, now isn't it? They do not want to have to support an unwed mother and her kids but then again they do not want to allow abortion either. I am sitting here making book on when the shooting will start.
How've you been ? We haven't seen you in a while. Hope all is well.
For what it's worth, as someone who thinks abortion is wrong I also think it's quite wrong to do what some of the pro-life people are doing in posting pictures adress etc. It's a poor poor tactic and one from the fringe element again that doesn't help a cause. Any extremist(s) do little to promote a cause because they are exactly that, extremist. Wether they be a Palestinain murder bomber or a dometic terrorist, neither will win much support with those tactics of those undecided and in many cases will push the undecided to the other cause.
When you say it's a "poor, poor tactic" do you think it's merely counterproductive?
If they are trying to eventually outlaw or ban abortion, yes, it's a bad or counterproductive tactic that will perhaps sway someone the other way who might otherwise be undecided on their posistion. I find it at the very least distasteful. I think there are ways to bring about change in a legal manner although I think it might be legal to post those pics, just distasteful. There are also ways to do it in a manner that would perhaps sway someone who is on the fence through education and facts.
For example. The Animal rights movement has some valid points. However they lose their message when they take those "extreme" or distasteful tactics to market. When they trash labs and burn McDonalds, set free 1,000 mink who die because they can't survive in the wild or pour paint on a woman wearing fur. The message is lost on how it's delivered and instantly has most people tuned off to whatever they might be trying to say.
This is what Andrew Sullivan called "The Scarlet E-mail."
It's Shame. A concept that the right want's to bring back into fashion, don't they?
Rick, they would no more be a representative of the mainstream right than A.L.F would be would be of the left. Generally speaking we are talking about extreme elements of a movement.
Hang your head America!!!!
Sad that people resorted to that no doubt, even sadder is that some get more outraged over that than they do killing a human baby inside of a woman at will. We should hang our heads to allow such a horrid practice to continue.
Interesting that you would draw a correlation to the animal rights movement. Because trashing laboratories and extreme tactics are almost always, tacitly or outrightly supported by mainstream (or as close to mainstream as they get) animal rights groups, like PETA. They may not do it themselves, but you'll hear hardly any, or no condemnation. And the efforts of the ALF are often praised. The leaders of PETA have expressed hope cattle plagues like BSE make it to the United States and wipe out the beef industry.
So you're saying the posting the pictures on the Internet are "at the very least distasetful" or "distasteful" (one of the two). More or less distasteful to you than an abortion?
If the answser is "less" which I suspect , can you reach a point where, barring legal progress or change on the issue of abortion, that photographing young women walking into abortion clinics is an acceptable tactic, despite it's distastefulness?
And barring progress after that, what's the next step required?
What do you think about that Kit? Everything that sticks in my mind that I have read from you seems like it is written to inflame people.
Shouldn't there be complete access to information?
Could you stomach it? ... than how can you be SO supportive of abortion.
For too long there has been a media blackout on abortion matters. For example, when do you ever see a "Right to Life" center make the news because they have been vandalized? They do get vandalized you know.
The tv ad where the super models wearing fur walking down the runway and blood starts dripping, running, splattering really got my attention. And baby seals being clubbed to death also got my attention. I do not belong to PETA because they have the rap of being extremists, but I do not wish innocent animals any harm.
But if I misunderstood specifically your posistion I'll ask you flat out. Yes, you did.If the mothers life is at risk should she be allowed to have an abortion ? Yes. That was my point. I don't know of any "prolifer" that takes a different view. There may be a few but it is mostly proabortion propaganda.
Bingo. I would add to it and say the fanatics on both sides have each hurt thier cause.
Oh yeah!
I would argue that it has hurt the right more than the left.
For some reason it's more acceptable to be a left wing fanatic than a right wing fanatic.
Jethro,
O.K so we agree that the mother should be allowed to if in danger. Then why were you breaking my balls and telling me that I bought into what the pro abortion movement told me ? You must have too if in your book having that opinion means you've somehow bought into the proabortion movement. So why were you saying I had if you feel the same ? I was saying to you that I think the hardcore element who are absolutists are doing more harm than good, they are out there even though you might not know any I've heard it before from them directly and not some pro abortion propoganda all though I agree the pro abortion crowd do use it as propoganda and are the most vocal their are the extreme absolutists who give them material. I was merely telling you that I think they are hurting the cause, I wasn't saying you but you got defensive over some percieved belief. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. Glad to hear you feel the same.
Is society made a better place by banning abortion? To really answer that you have to define what society is. Is an unborn child part of our society? If not, then the outlawing of abortion does nothing to improve society. Those not involved with the child are unaffected and those who are involved are now forced to have a child they do not want. By that definition of society, outlawing abortion makes society an unhappier place.
If you do consider an unborn child to be part of society, then you must consider them in calculating overall happiness. Still, just how unhappy is someone who was never born? I still maintain they feel nothing at all. And how happy is the child that would have been aborted but instead ends up with the family that didn't want it? Hard to say really. Still, to say society is happier just because more people are being born would imply that anytime you do anything to deter a pregnancy you're harming society. In a world that is quickly becoming overpopulated, I doubt that's really the case.
So I would contend that an aborted pregnancy makes society really no better or worse off than a pregnancy that never occured to begin with.
So then the question might become why is it wrong to kill anyone at all? If you're willing to look past the concept of absolute morals, the idea of not allowing murder is that it is detrimental to society. The citizens of a society are unlikely to achieve any appreciable degree of happiness if they believe they could be killed at any moment. Thus one of the keys to a happy society is to guarantee a right to life. It's still not really a guarantee, but at the very least you can feel comfortable enough to look forward to the future.
In that light, outlawing abortion still offers no benefit to society. Anyone capable of contemplating such a thing is already well past the point of having to worry about being aborted themselves. Thus outlawing abortion offers no sense of security to the existing members of society. It's merely a way of trying to extend a sense of security to those who aren't even capable of contemplating their own existence. Thus they aren't made any happier by it.
Abortions in the third term are actually very rare and made only in extreme cases, which is how the law is set up right now. If you want to believe a fetus in the third trimester is more than just a nearly fully developed body, there's still the issue of the struggle of one person against another for survival and a person's right to defend themselves. That's generally the circumstances of such an abortion. They are not available on demand.
In the second trimester abortions are generally only allowed where severe abnormalities are present or other such circumstances. Again, one could question whether requiring that such children be brought to term would really make society a happier place.
And in the first trimester the brain hasn't even developed yet so there's no need to worry about how "happy" the fetus is.
So who's really made happy by outlawing abortion other than perhaps those who would like to see women punished for having sex?
Yes.To really answer that you have to define what society is. Is an unborn child part of our society? Wrong question. The question is the child human?
and society is a better place by banning abortion how, jethro?
Respect for life. I am sure you don't understand that. I doubt that you can.
I think abortion has contributed to a number of socieital ills. The devaluation of human life being the biggest. Watch the news on any given night for evidence of that. Bad things have always happened and there have always been bad people. We continue to make it easy for people to be less and less responsible. I can hear the loony lefties moaning already. That's part of the problem. The social changes that have happened in the last 30 years have had some nasty side effects. We didn't have the large scale of problems we had 40-50 years ago. Was everything perfect back then ? Heck no. Have we made some good strides ? sure we have but we have also seen our society decay. But no matter what side of the debate you are on acnnot deny the fact that overall compared to 40 years ago that in general violent crime is up, out of wedlock births are up drug use is up. Etc. Have you ever stopped to ask why ? What is going on in our world that makes more people act this way. What happened ?
Why ? it's a hard question and not one particular thing can be pointed too. But there used to be a stigma to being pregnant out of wedlock. Not that is always a good thing and it's happened for thousands of years now it's more the norm. Why is it happeneing on such a large scale. Each year teenagers are having sex younger each year. Why ? Something is obviously not working. But I think in our rush to never judge anyone we have removed a level of decencey or expectations. Everyone is a victim and not in control of thier own circumstances or ations. We have also removed or are slowly eroding consequences for actions. If there aren't many or little consequence for young people there is little incentive do make the right choices in the first place. Same goes for some adults. Now does this mean that people don't make mistakes ? Sure, of course we do we are all human and use bad judgement from time to time but the consequences of our actions seem to be less and less and the results are obvious. Can abortion be pointed to as the sole reason ? No, probably not. Has it helped ? I don't think so. Something has changed and that is one thing that has and we as a society don't seem to be any better off than before it wasn't leagal.
BTW,
Alison Wonderland.
Ares and I talked about it yesterday and I wanted to ask you. Why do you think they kill a fetus before removing it from the mother ?
This looks like an interesting forum.
Do you mind if I post here?
the door's open, paula. post away.
C'mon In Paula, New faces and ideas are always welcome :)
The people who are trying hard to restrict our rights are NOT democrats anymore.
Oh yes they are.
Because your points are ALL wrong.
"Jethro, why don't you answer the points I raised instead of giving your A-Typical "I know you are but what am I" response?"
Atypical actually means "not typical".
"Because your points are ALL wrong."
Isn't that the point of debating? To show that they are wrong and how, not just simply declare it?
Who's debating?
shove it, fold, you are a petty little man that isn't worth my time. In addition, I DESPISE you.
A CHILDS' ANGEL
----- The child asked God, "They tell me you are sending me to earth tomorrow but how am I going to live there being so small and helpless?"
"Your angel will be waiting for you and will take care of you."
The child further inquired, "But tell me, here in heaven I don't have to do anything but sing and smile to be happy."
God said, "Your angel will sing for you and will also smile for you. And you will feel your angel's love and be very happy."
Again the child asked, "And how am I going to be able to understand when people talk to me if I don't know the language?"
God said, "Your angel will tell you the most beautiful and sweet words you will ever hear, and with much patience and care, your angel will teach you how to speak."
"And what am I going to do when I want to talk to you?"
God said, "Your angel will place your hands together and will teach you how to pray."
"Who will protect me?"
God said, "Your angel will defend you even if it means risking it's life."
"But I will always be sad because I will not see you anymore."
God said, "Your angel will always talk to you about me and will teach you the way to come back to me, even though I will always be next to you."
At that moment there was much peace in heaven, but voices from Earth could be heard and the child hurriedly asked, "God, if I am to leave now, please tell me my angel's name."
You will simply call her "Mom."
Thanks, Paula
BUT... That doesn't mean that I wish you ill or harm, quite the contrary. I wish you success in everything you do.
I think that you are lying.
Beleive me, I waste no time or energy hating anyone.
This time I know you are lying.
Maryland Declares Death Penalty Moratorium
Reuters
May 9 2002 1:19PM
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Reuters) - The state of Maryland declared a temporary moratorium on executions on Thursday, citing "reasonable questions" about the integrity of capital punishment in the state and across the nation.
http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0700&id=0205091319450357
Gov. Parris Glendening said he would stay all pending executions until the completion of a two-year University of Maryland study on the death penalty's legal and racial implications.
State officials said the study was due to be completed in September.
"I continue to believe that there are certain crimes that are so brutal and so vile that they call for society to impose the ultimate punishment," Glendening, a Democrat, said in issuing a stay of execution for convicted killer Wesley Eugene Baker, who was due to die by lethal injection next week.
So a while back someone proposed that abortion was one of the causes of the "decline" of society. I've been thinking about it, and here's what I think are some of the causes of the decline.
1. The Media. Not so much that it has caused the decline of society, but it has made us far more aware of society's ills than we ever were before. Many of the problems we have today have always been around. It was just easier to ignore them when they weren't being beamed into our homes via TV, radio, and the like.
2. The internet. People are communicating with each other on a totally unprecedented level than ever before. Previously there was a much greater pressure to conform to societal norms because if you didn't, you might become an outcast which would result in utter social isolation. These days, if you don't fit in with the people around you, you can find people across the country or even around the world with whom you do fit in. You can now search people the way you might search a database to find those with whom you fit in withough having to change yourself to fit some sort of "norm".
3. The automobile. Having a car has allowed us to isolate ourselves from each other more and more by moving farther and farther from the core of the city. It's made us more self-reliant and caused us to lose contact with those we meet along our way. As cars are designed to better shut out the world around you as you go, we tend to forget that there are actually real people inside of those other cars.
4. The Sexual Revolution. Once people realized they could talk about sex, and it didn't bring the world to an end, there was no going back. Years of repression were replaced with freedom of expression. There are those who would prefer to go back to an era of repression, but there's little evidence to support the notion that repression of anything is a healthy thing.
5. Medicine. We can now keep people alive far beyond the time in which they can lead productive lives, and beyond the point where the care of a family is considered sufficient. In a way, by trying to prolong life, we've actually devalued it extending it beyond it's point of vitality and shipping our elders off to some other place to die where we don't have to think of them as real people anymore. In making death antisceptic, life has become nearly the same.
6. Decline of Religion. It used to be that whatever other differences people had, there was a semi-common higher authroity to appeal to that people would abide by, and could even be used as a tool to ensure conformity. There was also a mystical element to it all that bound people together. As society gets away from that, and focuses more on the individual and relative morals, society becomes more complex and it becomes harder to appeal that element of commonality to resolve disputes.
Is society really declining? We ll it's certainly changing. Humans are still social creatures, but the way we interact with one another is growing ever more impersonal. We have people we call friends whose real names we don't even know. It's easy to think of some people as relevant and others as almost something less than human, almost like a computer simulation. And the rules of society are changing. Not even changing, but disappearing. We don't need to all fit a certain mold anymore to find people to fit in with. We're more free than ever to be ourselves, but at the same time it's easier than ever to ignore those we don't share things in common with. There are fewer and fewer things to bind us together as a society, and consequently we are becoming more and more factionalized.
Are these changes all bad? I don't know. It's hard to take the position that repression was a good thing. Having societal norms can be a good thing for those that fit them, but it can be hell on those who don't. And I don't want to claim that technological advances are harmful. But it is a tradeoff. In allowing people greater degrees of individuality than ever before, keeping society together becomes a greater challenge than ever before.
Likewise, legalized abortion no doubt has had some effect on society, but those effects are both good and bad. Its really just a change and whether it's a positive change or not depends on what one values. Personally I'd rather live in a society where abortion was legal than one in which it was not.
Allison asked: Is society really declining? He answered his own question with: Humans are still social creatures, but the way we interact with one another is growing ever more impersonal.
A society that is "growing ever more impersonal" is a society that is declining.
Interesting and well thought out post A.W. I would agree with quite a bit of it. Some of it was right on the mark. Some I disagree with but what the hay.
I do disagree about wanting to live in a society that keeps abortion legal. But you know what struck me as odd or should I say what puzzles me.... After reading all the things you listed and seeing in black and white how far we've come and how far we've also gone downhill, you still feel that we are better off with abortion legal.
I am not saying that to be a smartass or being flippant I just observed all these things you wrote and see that you see many of these things as a decline as well ad most do but yet still rationalize or wish to see abortion kept legal. I just found it interesting. Good post though.
Change is the only "constant" in life. Our species is undergoing perpetual evolution.
The values, attitudes and notions of the fading past are sources of comfort, prosperity and security for some. For many others, they are the basis of sexist, racist, classist and other forms of exploitation and oppression.
We've seen it all before.
Reactionaries, finding gain in certain social relationships that are inimical to entire groups and the whole laboring mass, have always self-servingly invoked a supposedly immutable "human nature" (there's no such thing) and the chauvanistic/benighted aspects of religion...to try to hold back a future that would be more fair and just -- and consequently less open to the few acquiring power and profit at the multitude's expense.
How many times have slaves, workers, suffragettes, gay rights activists, modern feminists, etc., been forcefully told that God doesn't want this, that or another classification of the objectively powerless and dispossesed to win equality?
Equality with white, conservative, "Christian", straight, business-oriented males who've heretofore controlled all societal institutions to their own enormous benefit -- as discrimination and deeply depriving denial have befallen the consequently victimized.
God, we've been repeatedly told, considers such objectively empowering victories for the downtrodden..."sin" and an "abomination"!
Turn on your TV. Find an "inspirational" cable network. I guarantee it won't take but ten or fifteen minutes of watching before you'll hear the preacherman start railing against "liberal assaults on the bastions of our tried and true morality".
Sure...
The morality of one-sided multinational corporate profiteering, ala overseas sweatshops that displaced thousands of workers here at home.
The ethics of brutal wars against independent-minded states that are termed "rogue" because they want to retain their own riches via sovereign destinies, rather than have them disappear into western coffers.
The Godliness of forcing women to go through with pregnancies males created. Males who, if guys could get unwantedly knocked up, would make abortion a sacrament in no time flat. Men would be lining up at abortion kiosks at Wal-Mart!
I don't fear the future. Let it kick out the jambs and tear down the walls.
Tomorrow will bring advances, enlightenment, liberty and justice for all.
I'm looking forward to our first lesbian, Latina, socialist president who'll aggressively govern in behalf of the common American people (not privileged elites, like Bush) from her pink, motorized wheelchair.
God would like that.
I'm absolutely certain she would...
A society that is "growing ever more impersonal" is a society that is declining.
Yet isn't the "rugged individualist" a conservative ideal?
I think some of the changes that have occured have indeed hurt society. The thing that actually inspired me to make that post was when I was watching a movie set about 100 years ago and some people got into a carriage to go somewhere. Then I got to thinking about how back then, if you wanted to go somewhere, you wouldn't just jump in your car and drive there. You would get into a carriage of some sort possibly that would have a driver. Or maybe you'd walk or ride a horse, but you would still have a sort of contact with people as you went by them. And society had this sort of interdependence thing going on, even though some people did live all alone out on the frontiers. Even farmers had a sort of community going. And the people you associated with were the people around you, and to survive, you had to find a way to get along with those people.
These days a lot of us may not even know our neighbors. People become expendable because between the telephone, the internet, and our cars, it's easy enough to find others to replace them. I can get away with having no idea who my neighbors are, because I can while away the hours with all of you, and I don't even know the real names of most of you.
But on the flip side I actually have met some of my neighbors, and I really don't have much in common with them. If I had only them and/or coworkers to associate with, my life would be far less enriched than it is now. I don't have to worry if they think I'm crazy for treasure hunting, belonging to secret societies, or being kinky, because I find other people who do share those interests and can enjoy their company without having to change who I am. Bigotry becomes less of an issue with less power because it's easier to escape and ignore it. Society, in terms of the overall social fabric, is fraying, yet the individuals within that society are quite possibly better off than they ever have been before. So is society really getting worse, or is it just changing?
I do disagree about wanting to live in a society that keeps abortion legal.
Well I figured that. :-P
But you know what struck me as odd or should I say what puzzles me.... After reading all the things you listed and seeing in black and white how far we've come and how far we've also gone downhill, you still feel that we are better off with abortion legal.
Well, if you follow what I'm really getting at, it shouldn't be too surprising. Like I said in my previous post, it's kind of a matter of the overall fabric of society vs. the freedom of the individual. It's hard to increase one without decreasing the other. So what I'm saying is that while the overall fabric of society has started to pull apart a bit, the overall welfare of the individual has increased. People are more free to pursue the lifestyle that's best for them without as many constraints from society at large. In the case of minorities, gays, and such, you can see how that would be a benefit to them. Legal abortion would fall into that same category. It doesn't fit in the goal of having a common national ethic, but it does allow the individual the maiximum opportunity to make the most of their life that they can.
Now whether you value a strong societal bond or individual freedom more strongly is a personal choice. One can claim society is going downhill, because we are losing that bond, and point to abortion as an example of it. But I think at the same time we can claim that we, as members of this society, are actually not any worse off than before, perhaps even better off, because we have more freedom, and also point to legalized abortion as an example of that.
Celebrating life on mother's day
Yet isn't the "rugged individualist" a conservative ideal?
What does that have to do with being impersonal?
Allison, I noticed that you pointed out the much more intimate communication between us as a people, because of the Internet, and then you said that because of "Cars", we have moved apart as never before.
I cannot help but ask... "Which Is It"?
Well both really. It's a question of which people we're connecting to. We no longer need to connect to the people around us. We can connect to people halfway around the world. Yet the internet personal connection is almost inherently more impersonal, and we're shutting ourselves off from those immediately around us, so really, both are making people more impersonal.
Bill Fold,
Of course I would rather live here than anywhere else on earth. It doesn't mean their aren't aspects that I would like to see changed. Nothing is nor ever will be perfect but it doesn't mean that we all have things as citizens we want to change. But it's because of this nation and the meaning of the constitution and what a great nation it has made us. I believe right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of hapiness is just one of the things that makes it that I and many others want to live here. And I believe that the right to life, not only is it listed first but I believe tanamount since without life, the other two are pretty tough to accomplish.
As far as nations that don't have abortion I couldn't tell you. I have been to many other countries as well and I never really stopped to ask when I got off the plane. Generally there were enough other things I disliked about the country I was in. So even if they did have abortion outlawed there were so many other things that were unlikable about that society that it would have overridden it anyway I suppose.
I just think it's wrong that we still allow a living human to be killed as long as it's inside the mother when we do it, it's as simple as that in my opinion, and it comes down to right and wrong and I happen to see it as wrong and others don't.
what you ned to know
Abortion where legal and illegal
Thanks for the links Jethro.
An interesting list...
I was struck by the uniform illegality in Catholic Latin America, except Cuba.
And Africa, except South Africa.
And among the Islamic states.
Women have always obtained abortions, and they certainly always will.
Since males will continually knock them up
when OBJECTIVE circumstances don't rationally or safely allow for resulting pregnancies.
The obvious opposite of being asked if you support
safe and legal abortions is:
"Do you favor unsafe and illegal ones?"
Because abortions WILL not stop occurring.
In other words, being an advocate of female criminality, and injury and death, to girls and women.
Anyone who can honestly answer "yes" to that inescapable outcome of their "pro-life" outlook really needs to seriously entertain the possibility that -- maybe, just maybe -- their values are archaic, oppressive and simply all messed up.
And that they ought to find new ones, more humane,
and in tune with undeniable reality.
And that they ought to find new ones, more humane,
and in tune with undeniable reality.
Humane? Like dismembering an unborn child from the mother's womb?
Jethro, what he's saying is that it doesn't do you any good to demand that abortion be illegal. You don't get to choose if women will have them or not. Legal or illegal, they will have them.
Legal or illegal, they will have them.
Break the law or not break the law. A real choice and much more humane than dismembering an unborn child in the mother's womb.
Dennis Rahkonen 5/19/02 1:08pm
Abortion isn't "safe" for the mother, and it certainly isn't "safe" for the child!
Neither will stupidity.
Abortions just may be looked at as the sick act it is, just like our horrid reaction to Andrea Yates who drowned her five children one by one in a tub full of excrement and water.
Sick and horrid people who would mame their own bodies and hurt and kill their children definitely DO need help.
In other words, being an advocate of the life of each and every individual, all of whom are worthy of existence rather than violent extinction.
In other words, being an advocate of present and future physical, mental, and spiritual health to girls and women.
THX 1138 8/22/02 7:34pm
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
That is an understatement!
Hi Paula, haven't seen you in a while.
By the way...
Does anyone know where I can get an inexpensive Zamboni and a reasonably-priced street cleaning machine?
I want to breed riding lawnmowers for fun and profit.
Scribe might be able to help you with the Zamboni.
I'll post this without comment:
The Wall Street Journal today has a extensive article on the activists who stand outside of abortion clinics photographing the women going in and placing their pictures on various websites.
I won't list the websites. You can find them in the article.
But, in my opinion, given the kind of over the top rhetoric used by the antiabortionists, we will see dead women littering the street. Of course, the antiabortionists will not take responsibility for their part in this by inciting those amoung their numbers who are unstable. Sounds familiar? Soon these 'wonderful' and 'compassionate' people will also post the women's names and addresses along with their pictures and medical records. Gee, it must make them feel awfully good to spear these women in the side after they have basically crucified themselves due to the world these self righteous antiabortionists have constructed. And their major problem? Well, it is all about the money, now isn't it? They do not want to have to support an unwed mother and her kids but then again they do not want to allow abortion either. I am sitting here making book on when the shooting will start.
Kit,
How've you been ? We haven't seen you in a while. Hope all is well.
For what it's worth, as someone who thinks abortion is wrong I also think it's quite wrong to do what some of the pro-life people are doing in posting pictures adress etc. It's a poor poor tactic and one from the fringe element again that doesn't help a cause. Any extremist(s) do little to promote a cause because they are exactly that, extremist. Wether they be a Palestinain murder bomber or a dometic terrorist, neither will win much support with those tactics of those undecided and in many cases will push the undecided to the other cause.
Rob:
When you say it's a "poor, poor tactic" do you think it's merely counterproductive?
This is what Andrew Sullivan called "The Scarlet E-mail."
It's Shame. A concept that the right want's to bring back into fashion, don't they?
Hang your head America!!!!
If they are trying to eventually outlaw or ban abortion, yes, it's a bad or counterproductive tactic that will perhaps sway someone the other way who might otherwise be undecided on their posistion. I find it at the very least distasteful. I think there are ways to bring about change in a legal manner although I think it might be legal to post those pics, just distasteful. There are also ways to do it in a manner that would perhaps sway someone who is on the fence through education and facts.
For example. The Animal rights movement has some valid points. However they lose their message when they take those "extreme" or distasteful tactics to market. When they trash labs and burn McDonalds, set free 1,000 mink who die because they can't survive in the wild or pour paint on a woman wearing fur. The message is lost on how it's delivered and instantly has most people tuned off to whatever they might be trying to say.
Rick, they would no more be a representative of the mainstream right than A.L.F would be would be of the left. Generally speaking we are talking about extreme elements of a movement.
Sad that people resorted to that no doubt, even sadder is that some get more outraged over that than they do killing a human baby inside of a woman at will. We should hang our heads to allow such a horrid practice to continue.
Interesting that you would draw a correlation to the animal rights movement. Because trashing laboratories and extreme tactics are almost always, tacitly or outrightly supported by mainstream (or as close to mainstream as they get) animal rights groups, like PETA. They may not do it themselves, but you'll hear hardly any, or no condemnation. And the efforts of the ALF are often praised. The leaders of PETA have expressed hope cattle plagues like BSE make it to the United States and wipe out the beef industry.
So you're saying the posting the pictures on the Internet are "at the very least distasetful" or "distasteful" (one of the two). More or less distasteful to you than an abortion?
If the answser is "less" which I suspect , can you reach a point where, barring legal progress or change on the issue of abortion, that photographing young women walking into abortion clinics is an acceptable tactic, despite it's distastefulness?
And barring progress after that, what's the next step required?
We see a wide array of operations performed on tv.
Why not abortions??
Lets have some reality tv.
Abortion with intrauterine cameras and slow motion replay.
Kit Zupan 5/29/02 9:38am
What do you think about that Kit? Everything that sticks in my mind that I have read from you seems like it is written to inflame people.
Shouldn't there be complete access to information?
Could you stomach it? ... than how can you be SO supportive of abortion.
For too long there has been a media blackout on abortion matters. For example, when do you ever see a "Right to Life" center make the news because they have been vandalized? They do get vandalized you know.
Rick 5/29/02 5:46pm
The tv ad where the super models wearing fur walking down the runway and blood starts dripping, running, splattering really got my attention. And baby seals being clubbed to death also got my attention. I do not belong to PETA because they have the rap of being extremists, but I do not wish innocent animals any harm.