|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2005 08:39:46 PM · #151 |
I'd ask him how long until it's available as an audio book?
*snicker* |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:42:49 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I am left to assume that you are too blinded by your beliefs to deal with this matter rationally or logically.
- Jason |
This made me laugh.... a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:47:22 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
For some reason 9 months of pregnancy and a day of labor seems so much less a nightmare, and no where near the damning sentence of taking one's life. Raising a teenager is a helluva lot more nightmare than pregnancy. |
You've experienced both pregnancy and raising a teenager? I had no idea.
Funny that you support vasectomies, which is in a sense murder, because you're killing all those innocent spermies who never had a chance to live. Why not force men to donate a gazillion sperm to the sperm banks before they have vasectomies, so that those "children" have the opportunity to be born.
I've worked with pregnant and parenting teenagers exclusively over the past several years...abstinence is a wonderful concept, but not a reality for many kids in school these days. I've had almost 200 students go through the program we offer and I can assure you that abstinence and contraception are both taught...but like it or not, kids are going to have sex. I have yet to encounter more than one teen who has even considered an abortion, and the one considered it because it was recommended to her by her physician because the baby was going to die at birth or soon after...but it was too late in the pregnancy so she had to carry the baby to term and go through labor and delivery. Most teen mothers keep their babies. Most teen mothers are on Medicaid and other forms of public assistance for five years or longer. Most teen mothers were born to teen mothers themselves. The cycle continues every day.
I think you must believe that abortions are as simple as going to see a doctor for a cold or a bladder infection...here's an Rx, see ya. They are complicated, risky at times, and not entered into lightly by either the girl/woman or the physician. There are forms to sign, counseling to go through, and waiting periods to be had for the opportunity to change one's mind. They also cost money, which most people don't have just running out their ears. Your attitude suggests that most women who have abortions do so regularly, 4, 5, 6 times...I would believe that is probably a rare occurance.
Your comments as a whole indicate an assumption that you believe millions of women use abortion as their birth control method of choice. I just wonder where your data about that is coming from, because that's a very risky and expensive option when the pill and condoms are available for free or for a very low cost.
Bottom line is that abortion is legal, and like it or not, it is the best option for some people. Your attitude towards it will not change the law. You are among a minority that feels this way, even based on very recent Gallup opinion polls you can view
here.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Well....how funny, as I AM NOT THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THE TALIBAN. And this is why these conversations are as they are. You guys can bring up the Taliban. And I can reverse it. And then you can come on and attack me for bringing it up. Look to your own side.... |
What side is that? I'm a Republican (yes, I said it, the R word). I just happen to be a pro-choice Republican. I wasn't addressing anyone else bringing up the Taliban, just your reference to it.
Originally posted by theSaj:
But I really am disinclined to see any reason to even wince at such a comment from one who can make an entire retort and accusation and judgment of me for bringing the Taliban up....when in deed it was not I. I am left to assume that you are too blinded by your beliefs to deal with this matter rationally or logically. |
Hey, none of us can comment on anything other than what you put in front of us to read, and since you put it out there, we respond... and in reading what you've written, I realize that I'm not the one with vision issues.
OMG...do y'all think this site is turning me into a Democrat!?!?!? 
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:48:21 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I'd ask him how long until it's available as an audio book?
*snicker* |
I'd ask him why he, being omnipotent, all knowing and all powerful, would create a race of people who were capable of such horrors, destruction and suffering, and then would intern want us to worship him for it and with no proof of his doing so. And if he uttered the "free will" line everyone likes to when gods intentions are questioned, I would ask if he is all knowing and all powerful, etc., how could free will truly exist? He would have to know what we would choose, as he is omnipotent.
So then I would say since he knew how horrible humans can be and what suffering would be felt by so many innocent people thought history, and he made us anyway, I would call him an arrogant asshole and say good day.
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 20:49:40. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:52:56 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by theSaj:
I am left to assume that you are too blinded by your beliefs to deal with this matter rationally or logically.
- Jason |
This made me laugh.... a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. |
Yeah. Boy you know the irony has hit a new level with a “believer” is telling someone they can’t deal with a matter rationally or logically because they are blinded by their beliefs... haha. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:58:53 PM · #156 |
lol laurielblack your on a roll!
(better move out of Texas before Tom Delay finds you!)
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 20:59:13. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 09:03:50 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I'd ask him how long until it's available as an audio book?
*snicker* |
Made me think of this article I just saw in a recent New Yorker. Note especially the interchange which ends Day Six.
 |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 09:11:39 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
OMG...do y'all think this site is turning me into a Democrat!?!?!? |
Maybe you're noticing that the GOP is no longer the party of true conservatism. You could do worse than to become a Jim Hightower populist ... like becoming a Democrat : ) |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 10:49:39 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by theSaj:
I am left to assume that you are too blinded by your beliefs to deal with this matter rationally or logically.
- Jason |
This made me laugh.... a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. |
Yeah....I thought I might toss it right back.
For some reason 9 months of pregnancy and a day of labor seems so much less a nightmare, and no where near the damning sentence of taking one's life. Raising a teenager is a helluva lot more nightmare than pregnancy.
Originally posted by laurielblack:
You've experienced both pregnancy and raising a teenager? I had no idea.
|
No, but I have enough testimony by people who have. By the way, the above point is a standard fallacy. ;)
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Funny that you support vasectomies, which is in a sense murder, because you're killing all those innocent spermies who never had a chance to live. Why not force men to donate a gazillion sperm to the sperm banks before they have vasectomies, so that those "children" have the opportunity to be born.
|
OMG I never realized I was so evil. I mean, I'm willing to kill or at the least not utilize a cell.
I don't have an issue with that. Lame argument to boot. My mouth kills millions of germs. And every time a man masterbates there goes numerous sperms cells. In fact, even in the fertilization process millions of sperm cells die. No, my issue does not have to do with the death of "half cells". Alone those never have potential to be a human being. The issue is when fertilization occurs and the cell division process begins and you have a human being developing.
Your argument is like trying to make me feel guilty for breaking an unfertilized chicken egg. No big deal. However, if I went around needlessly smashing eggs with chicks that were developing - that'd be pretty wrong. a) from a raw cruelty standpoint (and if you want to bring up 'well you eat meat - don't you') b) from the aspect of it being a wastefull needless death.
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I've worked with pregnant and parenting teenagers exclusively over the past several years...abstinence is a wonderful concept, but not a reality for many kids in school these days. I've had almost 200 students go through the program we offer and I can assure you that abstinence and contraception are both taught...but like it or not, kids are going to have sex. |
I'm aware of that. I also am aware of the fact that if you remove responsibility and consequences that you will get a greater increase as well. Little Johnny may play in the street. But if you never punish little Johnny, never spank his bottom, never make him sit in the corner...Little Johnny is a lot more likely to play in the street and get run over.
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I have yet to encounter more than one teen who has even considered an abortion |
That's good, but I've encountered enough who've considered and had them...
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Most teen mothers keep their babies. Most teen mothers are on Medicaid and other forms of public assistance for five years or longer. Most teen mothers were born to teen mothers themselves. The cycle continues every day. |
If that's the case...than were are the thousands upon thousands of abortions that occur every year coming from...by most accounts approx. 1 million?
Originally posted by laurielblack:
They are complicated, risky at times, and not entered into lightly by either the girl/woman or the physician. |
Actually, I am fully aware of it. Which is exactly why i think it is horrendously wrong for a girl to be able to be brought by a teacher to get an abortion with out her parents knowledge, consent or counsel. For such a risky procedure don't you think such should be a requirement. Tylenol is relatively benign. So are Luden's cough drops (mere gelatin, coloring and flavoring) but neither of these can be provided to a student - too risky. But a life-threatening operation...now that's fine.
And no, I'm not a !@#$% moron. I do understand some children live in homes with parents that are abusive and unsafe, etc. And in those cases, I believe the proper way would be to require a court-ordered allowance. The judge would have to hear the matter and then authorize to proceed without parental notification or to notify the parents.
Originally posted by laurielblack:
There are forms to sign, counseling to go through, and waiting periods to be had for the opportunity to change one's mind. They also cost money, which most people don't have just running out their ears. Your attitude suggests that most women who have abortions do so regularly, 4, 5, 6 times...I would believe that is probably a rare occurance. |
Yes, some states have waiting periods and the like....most of which put into place as consolations to the pro-life movement. Yes, they do cost money. It can even be quite a lucractive business. Doctor comes in gets a per-job rate and performs as many as he can and heads off. And, yes there are a lot organizations that provide them for free.
No, my attitude suggests nothing of the sort. It states that there are quite a few who do have 3 or more. Or even two within a very short period of time. And there is no addressing of such a matter.
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Your comments as a whole indicate an assumption that you believe millions of women use abortion as their birth control method of choice. |
No, millions have used it as a "birth control" method after a) failing to use any b) mis-use of other birth control methods c) failure of the birth control (which is not 100%).
Actually, I believe you're the one that states it as a "birth control method of [pro]choice"
1.31 million abortions in the US in 2000 [Wikipedia]
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; 1/2 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] 24% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions occurred.
[Alan Guttmacher Institute]
In 2000, the cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation ranged from $150 to $4,000, and the average amount paid was $372.
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Bottom line is that abortion is legal, and like it or not, it is the best option for some people. Your attitude towards it will not change the law. You are among a minority that feels this way, even based on very recent Gallup opinion polls you can view |
Actually, that's not quite accurate now is it. The problem is, if you force people to decide between pro-choice & pro-life you'll often get the 50%-60% pro-choice and 50%-40% pro-life. But a lot has to deal with the questions you ask. And let's see where the "new" voters lean....
When you break it down more you get much different answer:
21 percent - abortions should be legal and generally available
23 percent - regulation of abortion is necessary, although it should remain legal in many circumstances
41 percent - those who say "abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases, such as to save the life of the mother, incest, or rape"
13 percent - and those who think "all abortions should be made illegal"
That's 44% of new voters are pro-choice or somewhat pro-choice vs. 54% who would fall under pro-life.
ACCORDING TO A RECENT POLL, new voters are trending pro-life on abortion. The nonpartisan Pace University/Rock the Vote survey, conducted by the Pace Poll in mid July, is the first in a three-part nationwide study of first-time voters, defined as "voters who registered after the 2000 presidential election."
So although I doubt Roe vs Wade will be over-turned anytime soon. I do expect such procedures as the "partial birth abortion" to be made illegal. And other late-term abortions rather restricted. And a change in notification so that parent/guardians must be informed beforehand except by court order. And a better adoption system.
Originally posted by laurielblack:
What side is that? I'm a Republican (yes, I said it, the R word). I just happen to be a pro-choice Republican. I wasn't addressing anyone else bringing up the Taliban, just your reference to it.
|
The one you're on. Hey, I know a lot of pro-life Democrats. I never mentioned parties. I was referring to the pro-choice movement which I see as having double-standards.
"I wasn't addressing anyone else bringing up the Taliban, just your reference to it."
Exactly, which is why I don't give a damn about it nor whether I am blunt or insulting to you. Because to me, to accuse me and ignore the other who did the same just makes me lose a tremendous amount of respect for you. And for you to blatantly be aware of it makes me lose even more.
I am not denying my statement. Just calling you blind or pointless for attacking me for reversing an example. *shrug* Moot point...
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 11:10:32 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"I wasn't addressing anyone else bringing up the Taliban, just your reference to it."
Exactly, which is why I don't give a damn about it nor whether I am blunt or insulting to you. Because to me, to accuse me and ignore the other who did the same just makes me lose a tremendous amount of respect for you. And for you to blatantly be aware of it makes me lose even more.
I am not denying my statement. Just calling you blind or pointless for attacking me for reversing an example. *shrug* Moot point... |
I was unaware anyone else in the thread mentioned the Taliban, but that's beside the point, because I could care less if I lose your respect. All I know about you comes from the pages and pages of text that you post. More and more often it only seeks to inflame and incite, rather than educate or even allow for a two-sided civil discussion, which is sad. Everyone else will always be wrong, and you will always be right. I'll let you get back to your research. I think I'll go take a picture or two.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 11:37:47 PM · #161 |
I mentioned the Taliban first. :)
I thought it was an apt symbolic analogy for describing theSaj's attitude toward women, because the men in that culture (and others like it) pay a lot of lip service to respect for women, but that so-called "respect" is just an authoritarian cover for control and repression. Don't get me wrong, theSaj, I think it's admirable that you refrain from groping women, but your self-control doesn't rank as respect in my book. True respect would also require that you trust women to make the right decisions for their own lives, as fully autonomous human beings, who have a conscience just like you.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 11:52:38 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I mentioned the Taliban first. :)
I thought it was an apt symbolic analogy for describing theSaj's attitude toward women, because the men in that culture (and others like it) pay a lot of lip service to respect for women, but that so-called "respect" is just an authoritarian cover for control and repression. Don't get me wrong, theSaj, I think it's admirable that you refrain from groping women, but your self-control doesn't rank as respect in my book. True respect would also require that you trust women to make the right decisions for their own lives, as fully autonomous human beings, who have a conscience just like you. |
As I understand it, the "rationale" for requiring women to remain covered is that men can't be trusted to keep from immediately going into a lustful rage at the sight of female skin. And we're supposed to feel good that these guys are running the world? |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:07:59 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I mentioned the Taliban first. :)
I thought it was an apt symbolic analogy for describing theSaj's attitude toward women, because the men in that culture (and others like it) pay a lot of lip service to respect for women, but that so-called "respect" is just an authoritarian cover for control and repression. Don't get me wrong, theSaj, I think it's admirable that you refrain from groping women, but your self-control doesn't rank as respect in my book. True respect would also require that you trust women to make the right decisions for their own lives, as fully autonomous human beings, who have a conscience just like you. |
Not sure of this is current or not, but in Sri Lanka, it's current. Just saw an episode of the family Amazing Race yesterday. There was a dad who introduced himself as the boss of his family, and that it's his biblical right to be in charge of the family, and that his wife and kids "obey" him absolutely. I think the family was from Texas.
If that's not an authoritarian cover for control and repression, I don't know what is. I felt like going up to the kids and giving them a constructive cause for rebellion.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:38:11 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
were [sic] are the thousands upon thousands of abortions that occur every year coming from... |
Just an anecdote, and this may not be representative of the majority of women who have abortions, but I suspect it does reflect at least a large minority of women who find themselves in similar circumstances who decide to have an abortion.
My best friend was married before she finished college and immediately became pregnant with her first child. Over the next 10 years she had three more children, so four girls all together. Fast-forward through those 10 years and four children to the day her husband walks out of the marriage. So she finds herself with four girls, ages 10 to 2, no income, no husband, and no way to make a living. She has never worked a day in her adult life, except while she was a student. Needless to say, her life was in complete chaos. She was traumatized and depressed, barely able to get out of bed. Her husband wasn't sending her any money, and it would be almost a full year before she was able to collect any child support from him. She had a house with a $900/month mortgage and no way to pay it. (She would end up losing the house, and her credit ruined, 9 months later.) Even though psychologically she was hanging on by a thread, she did find a part-time minimum-wage job (part-time because she couldn't afford to pay for child care and work full time), which was barely enough to buy food for five people, so she had to start collecting food stamps and other subsidies, another humiliation in her eyes.
In the midst of all this, her daughters started to "act out," as it's called. The oldest would get on the bus to school but wouldn't appear in her classroom. So several times my friend, in a frantic state, had to call the police to help her find the girl, who it turns out was hiding in and roaming the wooded area behind the school. Her next oldest daughter started to have a lot of very violent and upsetting temper tantrums. The third daughter was crying all the time at home. The only one of her children who seemed relatively unaware and unaffected was the 2-year-old.
And then, about six weeks after her husband left, she discovered that she was pregnant, and you already know that she aborted that pregnancy.
Now, theSaj, I'd really like to know what right you think you have to sit in judgment of this woman's life, her circumstances, her trauma, her exhaustion, and her other responsibilities (like the four kids she had to take care of), and take away her right to exercise some small amount of control over her life at that point? The ONLY rational and responsible decision she could make, as far as I'm concerned. And if you're not aware that there are a LOT of women, every day, who find themselves in similar circumstances, then we probably can't discuss this issue anymore.
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 00:41:22. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 10:59:18 AM · #165 |
Judith & Laurie
Put these words into the correct order!
Banging are we against brick a wall heads our think I !!
Pauline
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:11:05 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I was unaware anyone else in the thread mentioned the Taliban, but that's beside the point |
No it's not, either you didn't read. Which puts in to question your responses. And I find hard to believe. It WAS in a quote. Or you merely seek to make personal attacks and judge actions based on individuals and their stances and not on their actions. Which is unfair...
Originally posted by laurielblack:
All I know about you comes from the pages and pages of text that you post. More and more often it only seeks to inflame and incite, rather than educate or even allow for a two-sided civil discussion, which is sad. Everyone else will always be wrong, and you will always be right.
|
Merely, because I am vocal. And do not sit by the wayside silent. Incite/Inflame merely cause I disagree. And don't stand down.
I give reasons, rationals, etc. for all my points of contention and show why I support said stance.
It's not that everyone else is wrong. It is the mere fact that we disagree.
Let's be honest, this post itself by Judith was an inciteful/inflammatory post. Poorly grounded at that. But you see, that gets passed over because it's more in line with how you feel.
I am merely inflammatory because I stand up and disagree. *shrug* And you're not cause your on the larger pool of the community on these threads. Were it a different arena and you were in the smaller pool - you'd be seen as the inflammatory
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I think I'll go take a picture or two. |
Always a good idea...
Originally posted by laurielblack:
True respect would also require that you trust women to make the right decisions for their own lives, as fully autonomous human beings, who have a conscience just like you. |
That's fine...but we're talking about making decisions (ones i view as quite wrong) regarding another human being, another conscience. That's where the issue lies.
Originally posted by rgo:
There was a dad who introduced himself as the boss of his family, and that it's his biblical right to be in charge of the family, and that his wife and kids "obey" him absolutely.
If that's not an authoritarian cover for control and repression, I don't know what is. |
As would I...and I do not hold such views. And actually, have gone heads up against them. (Yes, you think I have debates with you guys. Man, you should see the crud I go thru and how hard I debate against many christians. *lol* )
And I doubt it's likely that he is loving his wife as Christ loves the church. Such attitude is reprehensible
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Fast-forward through those 10 years and four children to the day her husband walks out of the marriage. So she finds herself with four girls, ages 10 to 2, no income, no husband, and no way to make a living.
Now, theSaj, I'd really like to know what right you think you have to sit in judgment of this woman's life, her circumstances, her trauma, her exhaustion, and her other responsibilities (like the four kids she had to take care of), and take away her right to exercise some small amount of control over her life at that point? |
Well, if we're going to allow for such. Why should we not simply allow your friend the ability to abort the 10-2 yr old children as well? Shouldn't such be a woman's right to choose as well?
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
And if you're not aware that there are a LOT of women, every day, who find themselves in similar circumstances, then we probably can't discuss this issue anymore. |
I do have sympathy for those cases. And I do believe that there needs to be provisioning. I don't believe in "welfare" because it tends to encourage poor ethics and requires no return to society.
I do believe in a job for everyone who needs it. And of corresponding level. For example: it is obvious that your friend would not be able to work many jobs with four children. There are a lot of moms, young moms who want to get an education but can't because they have children and no day care. I've long heard the need for more public daycare options. And long held to the idea of social contribution in the welfare system. I do not want to merely pay to support people but I am willing to pay to support people who contribute according to their means back to society.
In a case like your friends, it would be to provide her with financial assistance (enough to live and not just survive). But to have here work/contribute to society in some form. And a daycare system in which there were "trained/certified" professionals and people like your friend would work as assistants. They would be with their younger children and also helping to watch other children while their mother's attended college classes, worked, etc. She would receive a substanance check. It would be based on need. I'm willing to pay $$$ for that because she's willing to contribute to society.
The end result being a stacking societal benefit. Your friend would be supported. The mother wanting an education but unable to pay for daycare would be granted opportunity to pursue that goal. Thus educating herself improving her situation and allowing her to become a "$$$ pool adder" instead of a "receiver". And I'd have respect because there is contribution according to means.
I find it interesting that most disabled people sincerely desire to work. In fact, a lot crave it. And often they cannot be as productive. But I am willing to pay them according to their means. And there is so much they could do if we had such a philosophy. The quadrapalegic could review surveillance videos of the local area where a child was kidnapped to search for clues and mark any potential scenes for additional review. The end result might be the safe return of numerous kidnapped children. The quadrapalegic who hitherto felt near useless now beams with pride and fulfillment knowing that some young girl is safe - thanks to him. He feels an integral and needed part of society even though he is disabled and of reduced functionality.
That is the direction where my philosophy goes...
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:22:07 PM · #167 |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:25:27 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I mentioned the Taliban first. :)
I thought it was an apt symbolic analogy for describing theSaj's attitude toward women, because the men in that culture (and others like it) pay a lot of lip service to respect for women, but that so-called "respect" is just an authoritarian cover for control and repression. Don't get me wrong, theSaj, I think it's admirable that you refrain from groping women, but your self-control doesn't rank as respect in my book. True respect would also require that you trust women to make the right decisions for their own lives, as fully autonomous human beings, who have a conscience just like you. |
As I understand it, the "rationale" for requiring women to remain covered is that men can't be trusted to keep from immediately going into a lustful rage at the sight of female skin. And we're supposed to feel good that these guys are running the world? |
My bad...... Next Muslem nation invaded will require a strike force of naked woman..... |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:26:18 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Judith & Laurie
Put these words into the correct order!
Banging are we against brick a wall heads our think I !!
Pauline |
Pauline, you said it girl! But it's not just the three of us. Thank goodness there are some men (GeneralE and rgo), who understand what's at stake here. Thanks, guys! :) |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:31:02 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Judith & Laurie
Put these words into the correct order!
Banging are we against brick a wall heads our think I !!
Pauline |
Pauline, you said it girl! But it's not just the three of us. Thank goodness there are some men (GeneralE and rgo), who understand what's at stake here. Thanks, guys! :) |
Are we talking about abortion? I haven't read the whole thread...if so, I know plenty of women and men against abortion. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 12:48:24 PM · #171 |
Not sure what they are really talking about either... I thought it was originally has religious belief been unhealthy for society.
I guess I missed the part about God(dess, etc) saying: "Though shalt have perfect lives, and make decisions that are super cool."
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:01:49 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by mpemberton:
Not sure what they are really talking about either... I thought it was originally has religious belief been unhealthy for society.
I guess I missed the part about God(dess, etc) saying: "Though shalt have perfect lives, and make decisions that are super cool." |
There was a diversion through a discussion of one of the many "practical" examples of how religious extremism is unhealthy for a free and democratic society. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:09:46 PM · #173 |
I quite agree that there are many men who also think the same way as we do and I didn\'t mean to imply this is a feminist issue - it is something that each individual must make up their own minds about and follow their beliefs. That is why is cannot be illegal for women to have an abortion if they wish it. The number of women who misuse this right are far outnumbered by those who only use it as a final resort after much heart-searching.
Oh Saj if life was only as simple as you think it can be. If only every quadraplegic could have a job reviewing video footage and every single mother go to college or be a nursery assistant. Unfortunately the jobs and the people who want to do them just may not fit together geographically or numerically. Oh -and perhaps they don't want that type of work ? Never mind , don't give them a choice, after all they are relying on your help and that help is conditional isn't it?
could you also rely on sensible arguements? Suggesting that killing four childrencould be a choice because you can't look after them is reprehensible and not worthy of you. This is the sort of extreme you resort to quite often and it does not further the debate, just takes it off on tangents that go no where.
When you are a husband and father, I think your ideas will mellow somewhat because I also remember being idealistic and rather arrogant in my relative youth over such matters but with experience of parenthood, I have become less condemming of others and more understanding of the pressures that are exerted on families as they strive to survive at times. We all have to make decisions we would never have dreamt we would be faced with and sometimes the decisions we make are a complete volta-face of previous held beliefs. It's funny how feet come down to earth so quickly when it is you or your partner or your children who are involved in reality and not theory.
But then again perhaps you won't change and I hope you will be able to hold onto what you believe in and live by it - but at least you will have the choice!
P
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:15:51 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
...it is something that each individual must make up their own minds about and follow their beliefs. That is why is cannot be illegal for women to have an abortion if they wish it. |
Now that's nonsense (the second sentence). If you take the position that "life" has intrinsic value and that a fetus is a living human being then it's very easy to argue that a person's "freedom of choice" takes second place.
If only the debate were that easy!
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 13:17:12. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:19:12 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I do have sympathy for those cases. And I do believe that there needs to be provisioning. I don't believe in "welfare" because it tends to encourage poor ethics and requires no return to society. |
My friend is not a "case." As a matter of fact, she eventually found a job as a fundraiser with a Jewish philanthropic organization and did so well for them that they ended up paying her a six-digit salary. It took her about 10 years to get her life back on track, but she did it. She doesn't need your sympathy either. What she needed when her life fell apart was for the social services to be in place, like food stamps and etc., which she used the way the vast majority of people use them, for less than three years, not for the rest of her life. She also needed at that time for abortion to be safe and legal. By the way, she doesn't regret for a moment the decision to abort that pregnancy, even though she would have carried it to term had the circumstances been more normal.
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 13:22:19. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:01:35 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:01:35 AM EDT.
|
