Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 9:39 AM
30 online now:
caffeine, candle2, JonF, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,004 Year: 9,040/19,786 Month: 1,462/2,119 Week: 222/576 Day: 25/98 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   "...except in the case of rape or incest."
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 226 of 301 (296573)
03-19-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by nator
03-19-2006 9:27 AM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
All person to person, hands-on violence is incredibly intimate.

I think an equivocation is going on with that. Its incredibly personal, but not intimate. A candle lit dinner for two can be intimate. Which I take to mean personal in the sense of getting to know about another person. A rape is not.

A person that rapes me does not get to know who I am as a sexual or loving being, though they get to know personal facts about my body.

In any case, crash was arguing a difference between violence with sex and violence without sex based on a concept he called intimacy. It would seem you are more or less agreeing with what I was trying to say. Violence against a person regardless of sexual nature is not differentiable based on a concept such as "intimacy".


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by nator, posted 03-19-2006 9:27 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by nator, posted 03-19-2006 10:37 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 334 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 227 of 301 (296574)
03-19-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Silent H
03-19-2006 10:35 AM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
quote:
Violence against a person regardless of sexual nature is not differentiable based on a concept such as "intimacy".

I agree with that.

"Personal" is maybe a better term to use.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 10:35 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 301 (296583)
03-19-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Silent H
03-19-2006 8:48 AM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
actually - pretty much entirely off-topic. I'd like to return to the original topic, not spiral out of control with Holmes.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-19-2006 11:45 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 8:48 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 12:57 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 230 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 1:00 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 229 of 301 (296599)
03-19-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
03-19-2006 11:27 AM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
NOTE: Crash had a long post and deleted it while I was writing a long reply. After I posted my reply I noticed his deletion. He requested I delete out at least his portions. I've decided to keep in one quote of his and my answer to that quote so we can end on a happier note (and make us look good).

I'm not trying to make rape out to be the worst crime possible. It's not as bad as murder, for instance. But it's a lot worse than, say, an embarassing or unpleasurable sexual experience. It's worse than being robbed. But again, that's just my opinion. And it's possible that a specific sexual assault could be objectively less severe than a specific robbery. Can we accept that it's case-by-case?

I am in absolute agreement with what you stated in the quote above. It certainly did look like you were saying rape was the worse crime possible, and I apologize for any error on my part for the miscommunication, if that was not your intent.

But then this does go back to the issue of what Ringo was doing and said you had said. Why call all instances of where a person's will has been overcome as rape?

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-19-2006 11:57 PM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 11:27 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 1:59 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 9:58 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 230 of 301 (296600)
03-19-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
03-19-2006 11:27 AM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
I'd like to return to the original topic, not spiral out of control with Holmes.

Damn... I was writing and posting before I saw you erased your post. I agree it is generally OT, so you can read it or ignore it. Despite some disagreements it seems to end in a general agreement rather than a spiral.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 03-19-2006 11:27 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 301 (296613)
03-19-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Silent H
03-19-2006 12:57 PM


Please Edit
I was hoping that this wouldn't happen, but I rethought my post after I posted it and decided that I would prefer not to take us any farther off-topic. To that end I would prefer that you edit your post and remove the words of mine that you have quoted. Please? You're of course free to leave your own words as you see fit but I'd just as soon my post was eliminated.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 12:57 PM Silent H has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 16626
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 232 of 301 (296622)
03-19-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Silent H
03-19-2006 7:31 AM


Ringo Reloaded
holmes writes:

Raising the kid or giving it to foster care is not the same as having to do something which will certainly adversely effect you in a physical way.

It isn't? Have you forgotten about he risks of pregnancy before the child is even born?

(And you really need to learn to trim the fat on your analogies - the waitress' eye colour is not relevant. :D )

Yes, she has a choice, though bounded by restrictions set by others. That happens all the time.

And, as I have been trying to point out, some of those restrictions are not deemed "reasonable" by society.

When there are two individuals, there is a competition of rights....

But there are not two individuals involved - only one with a medical condition.

The only time she could make such a claim is if the fetus does not have rights.

Bingo.

Which is what I keep pointing to is the crux of the whole argument.

And the argument has been settled - the fetus does not have "rights" which trump those of the woman. All you have done is speculate that those "rights" might some day be recognized.

... the concept that a restriction on abortion is a death sentence for the mother is absurd.

Nothing absurd about it. It certainly has been a death sentence for women in the past. Facts ain't absurd.

... ironically abortion is most certainly a death sentence for the fetus (which you don't seem to mind).

Well, I do mind, as I have said.

But the simple fact of the matter is that the constitution/courts do not view it as a "death sentence" for the fetus.

... unless the fetus is not considered a child.

Why do I have to keep repeating this? It isn't.

... would euthanasia of an ailing relative or an irritatingly spongy relative be considered "care"? Wouldn't infanticide be considered "care"?

By some people, yes. By society, no. It's all relative.

It can be a responsible decision to abort for many other reasons, but that is not the same thing as "taking responsibility for" the fetus.

What's the difference between making a "responsible decision" and "taking responsibility"?

(I'm going to leave out discussing the Internet, since it's off-topic - and your argument against yourself is better than anything I could come up with. :D )

There were many societies, especially pre tech civilizations, which could not afford care for the weakest.

The weakest are invariably the newborn. If any society did not take care of them, that society would be extinct.

You put your care for those that were strongest and most likely to benefit the group as a whole.

No. The strong can take care of themselves. That's the antithesis of society.

... slave wages....

Oxymoron.

Do you honestly believe that the above mentioned documents set out actual "rights" that we really possess, and cannot be change by consensus?

That's kinda exactly my point: They do (or at least the interpretations of them do) represent a consensus. The consensus being that a fetus is not a person and is therefore not entitled to the "rights" defined therein.

The fact is that there are more rights than those enumerated, and yet not recognized by either the US or the UN, based on popular social consensus of what is NOT a right.

So, how do you define what "rights" are? I thought we agreed that the popular flavour-of-the-month is no way to determine rights. If we don't go with a long-term consensus, enshrined in constitutions and declarations, how do we define rights?

You must fight against the society around you for every right you demand. Your success determines what rights you will enjoy.

I don't "demand" any rights. I form a consensus with the rest of society about what rights we agree should be extended to whom. One of the things we have agreed on is that women should have the right to abortion. That agreement is a consensus whether or not I personally agree with it.

Hitler DID rise to power from within a democratic nation.

No. Weimar Germany was never democratic except in name only. (But that's another topic.)

... free people have often taken steps backward and gladly put the yoke on their own necks.

Life is about choices. Security versus freedom. Security against being blown up versus freedom to drive around with a bomb in your car.

That's not the same as "gladly putting the yoke on their own necks".

There's a new rule if you hadn't heard: the first person to mention that the first person to mention hitler loses, when mentioning Hitler actually applies to the argument at hand, loses. Heheheh.

Sorry, I don't read sentences over one line long. :D


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 7:31 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 6:48 PM ringo has responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 233 of 301 (296650)
03-19-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by ringo
03-19-2006 2:25 PM


Re: Ringo Reloaded
Have you forgotten about he risks of pregnancy before the child is even born?

No, I thought I had mentioned them in my post. A woman risks injury and death via abortion or pregnancy. It is true that abortion poses a statistically lower risk in the first two trimesters, but that does not change the fact that either way is risk. She is already in a bad position, and carrying to term is not something that will CERTAINLY adversely effect her in a physical way.

some of those restrictions are not deemed "reasonable" by society.

Once again I am forced to point out that "reasonable" was not the issue, not all western nations think this even now. I will add to that the fact that restrictions were considered okay right up till Roe v Wade in the US, then it changed by will of fewer people than actually agreed with that decision (it was position of the court which gave that power), a majority still want some restrictions if not full restriction, and they are presently working to get it back in place.

If history ends up with a long segment of abortion being illegal followed by a relatively short segment of abortion being legal followed by abortion being illegal again, what does that say?

And the argument has been settled - the fetus does not have "rights" which trump those of the woman. All you have done is speculate that those "rights" might some day be recognized.

Ugh, please don't say speculate. Faith has been killing that term for me. I don't know how you can argue that the argument has been settled. Maybe in Canada it has for now, but it sure isn't anywhere else and I think I've proven that point already. I am not speculating, I am telling you factually that it has once been illegal, still is illegal in some parts of the western world, and there are forces trying to make it illegal again.

It certainly has been a death sentence for women in the past. Facts ain't absurd.

What are you talking about? You mean women that choose to have a back alley abortion? That does not make laws against abortion a death sentence.

What's the difference between making a "responsible decision" and "taking responsibility"?

A responsible decision is one where a person uses reason to work through all the elements that go into a decision. Not simply doing what one feels at the moment. Taking responsibility for something means one gains duties beyond consideration for just the self and may have to sacrifice ones own desires to aid or preserve that something.

I'm going to leave out discussing the Internet, since it's off-topic - and your argument against yourself is better than anything I could come up with.

Actually the internet thing was sort of on topic. You suggest that society moves forward and don't change back. The internet was your example of freedom of communication increasing as a challenge to my comment that freedom of communication is actually decreasing. Not sure what you thought was my arguing against myself. We really can't communicate as much content (as broad of topics) now as we had in the past, despite being able to talk to more people. More people to talk to on less topics than you had before does not mean an advance in freedom of communication, it is an advance in technology. Its like saying that I have a machine which can increase the pitch of people's voices has somehow increased the freedom of their communication.

The weakest are invariably the newborn. If any society did not take care of them, that society would be extinct.

The sick and dying are as weak as if not weaker than newborns. They generally need more attention too. I admit that children need more attention than adults. That does not mean care was equal among children.

The consensus being that a fetus is not a person and is therefore not entitled to the "rights" defined therein.

You know as much as I was and am for Roe v Wade, it was in no way shape or form a consensus decision of the population. The only consensus was not to topple the gov't over this decision which was made by a small group, which may have already been replaced such that it can be overturned. And again, in some European nations it is still wholly illegal.

I don't "demand" any rights. I form a consensus with the rest of society about what rights we agree should be extended to whom.

Oh my, you have not read the writings of the authors of the constitution have you?

Weimar Germany was never democratic except in name only.

I don't believe that was the case, but for sake of argument I'll let it slide.

Life is about choices. Security versus freedom. Security against being blown up versus freedom to drive around with a bomb in your car.

Oh man, you REALLY have never read writings by the authors of the Constitution. One of the more popular quotes from Franklin is against that very sentiment.

I can't speak for the UN HR authors, but the sentiment of the US constitution authors is that you had to fight for your rights, and not make the mistake of sacrificing freedom for the sake (lure) of security. Eventually and naturally all gov'ts will erode rights under that flag and the populace will have to fight it.

And history is the story of populations going back and forth on topics. I just don't see how you can feel confident suggesting that abortion laws can't come back into popularity at all. I mean I hope they don't, but I see no bar to it.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ringo, posted 03-19-2006 2:25 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by ringo, posted 03-19-2006 7:29 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 239 by ramoss, posted 03-20-2006 11:24 AM Silent H has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16626
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 234 of 301 (296656)
03-19-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Silent H
03-19-2006 6:48 PM


Re: Ringo Reloaded
holmes writes:

A woman risks injury and death via abortion or pregnancy.

All the more reason for the choice to be hers.

If history ends up with a long segment of abortion being illegal followed by a relatively short segment of abortion being legal followed by abortion being illegal again, what does that say?

If we go back to geocentrism or witch-burning, what does that say? It's all idle speculation.

... there are forces trying to make it illegal again.

And there are forces trying to bring in white supremacy. You can't draw conclusions based on what "might" happen.

You mean women that choose to have a back alley abortion? That does not make laws against abortion a death sentence.

Women have also died from the pregnancy itself when they were denied abortions. It is certainly a potential death sentence.

A responsible decision is one where a person uses reason to work through all the elements that go into a decision.

So now you're dictating how "responsible" decisions must be made?

Taking responsibility for something means one gains duties beyond consideration for just the self and may have to sacrifice ones own desires to aid or preserve that something.

Which is what I'm saying about society's responsibility for the "unwanted" child.

We really can't communicate as much content (as broad of topics) now as we had in the past, despite being able to talk to more people.

The "broader range of topics" in the ancient history of the Internet was a blip, not a trend. (And I really don't see what that has to do with abortion in the case of rape or incest.)

The only consensus was not to topple the gov't over this decision which was made by a small group....

A consensus is a consensus. I've tried to tell you it isn't just about counting noses.

... in some European nations it is still wholly illegal.

And in some nations, slavery is legal and witches are burned. So what?

... you have not read the writings of the authors of the constitution have you?

Nope. Don't even know who they were. Are you under the impression that anybody outside the US cares about the US constitution?

One of the more popular quotes from Franklin is against that very sentiment.

I hear Franklin made a pretty good stove.

... the sentiment of the US constitution authors is that you had to fight for your rights, and not make the mistake of sacrificing freedom for the sake (lure) of security.

Remember the Canadian Revolution? Oh, wait....

Eventually and naturally all gov'ts will erode rights under that flag and the populace will have to fight it.

And yet we Canadians have the abortion rights, we have the same-sex marriage rights, we have the more lenient drug laws....

And i don't remember fighting for them. Is my memory going?

I just don't see how you can feel confident suggesting that abortion laws can't come back into popularity at all.

I didn't say the "can't" come back. I think it's unlikely - just like I think it's unlikely I'll ever be able to go down to Wal-Mart and buy a black guy to pick my cotton.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 6:48 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 8:08 AM ringo has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 301 (296671)
03-19-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Silent H
03-19-2006 12:57 PM


Re: labelling everything rape is not healthy
Why call all instances of where a person's will has been overcome as rape?

Well, I certainly think that's a mistake. While the term "rape" itself comes from a latin word meaning "to steal", in the modern vernacular it properly applies only to sexual assault.

Like I said this seems pretty off-topic, and I hadn't really been following your discussion with Ringo until you said something off-hand that I didn't agree with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 12:57 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 236 of 301 (296745)
03-20-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by ringo
03-19-2006 7:29 PM


Re: Ringo Reloaded
Heheheh... very cool subthread title.

All the more reason for the choice to be hers.

You are preaching to the choir, because I hold the same belief regarding the status of the fetus. But you can't use that (such an assumption to be true) in an argument against someone who is AA. It becomes a circular argument.

If we go back to geocentrism or witch-burning, what does that say? It's all idle speculation.

Again I am not certain how you can claim speculation when nations have such laws today, and we have seen reversal of freedoms in the past. You are the one speculating that society has actually made a consensus agreement and it will somehow never change, or should be thought that (even if it does change) that this was the real and true consensus, and others are mistakes.

It is certainly a potential death sentence.

Wayyyy too watered down. That makes everything a court decides a death sentence. Heck getting a traffic ticket could be a death sentence.

So now you're dictating how "responsible" decisions must be made?

I thought you asked me for the definitions I was using for two different items. I gave you my definitions. No one has to accept them, but if you want to understand what I am saying they sure would help. I don't think they were way outside popular conceptions/usage.

Which is what I'm saying about society's responsibility for the "unwanted" child.

That wasn't the topic. I think this line by line thing is creating a fog of war. The responsibility for issue was from your (or was it my?) analogy to the kid and the pet hamster. I already agree with you that if society ensures that babies are born it must become responsible for those children. The point here was that a child euthanizing a hamster to avoid raising a hamster would not be considered "taking responsibility for".

A consensus is a consensus. I've tried to tell you it isn't just about counting noses.

My suggestion is that the consensus was not regarding abortion. A temporary truce so that sides can buy time to defeat an enemy is not consensus on the issues which divided them.

Are you under the impression that anybody outside the US cares about the US constitution?

Yes, I thought you did. You mentioned what it said and what it was meant to be. That gave me an impression you knew what you were talking about, which made me believe you had an interest. I certainly DON'T expect nonUS citizens to know about our constitution, unless they start discussing it.

And yet we Canadians have the abortion rights, we have the same-sex marriage rights, we have the more lenient drug laws....

Actually what do you guys have in the way of a constitution? Do you have one and does it have a Bill of Rights of some kind? That there aren't major fights going on only says that there is less division right now. Individuals wanting such rights more than likely did have to fight for them. If I remember right gay marriage was very recent, right? That means someone was fighting for something that had not existed yet. And from what I understand it is still controversial and may be limited or nixed in some way.

I think it's unlikely I'll ever be able to go down to Wal-Mart and buy a black guy to pick my cotton.

No but if you do go to WalMart you might very well be served by a brown person who they shipped in and lock overnight to keep their store's running.

I should say I'm not trying to claim the sky is falling and we are on the brink of all of this happening. All I am saying is you seem a bit overconfident that progress is a real part of society. I'm saying history shows otherwise and certain trends (though maybe not Canada) are heading backward toward less freedom.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by ringo, posted 03-19-2006 7:29 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by ringo, posted 03-20-2006 9:59 AM Silent H has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16626
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 237 of 301 (296762)
03-20-2006 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Silent H
03-20-2006 8:08 AM


Re: Ringo Reloaded
holmes writes:

But you can't use that (such an assumption to be true) in an argument against someone who is AA. It becomes a circular argument.

Ah, but that's where the OP comes in. The anti-abortionists claim that the fetus is human and therefore has rights - yet it is somehow "okay" to abort it in the case of rape (or incest).

Their position is inherently inconsistent (maybe even "hypocritical", as somebody hyperbolically suggested :) ).

Clearly, there is a consensus - even among anti-abortionists - that a fetus is not (fully) human, that a fetus does not have (full) human rights.

My suggestion is that the consensus was not regarding abortion. A temporary truce so that sides can buy time to defeat an enemy is not consensus on the issues which divided them.

And my suggestion is that you can't call a truce "temporary" until it's over.

I certainly DON'T expect nonUS citizens to know about our constitution, unless they start discussing it.

I used the buzzword "inalienable" rights - and indicated that I didn't know if it was from the Constitution or the Declaration. I also used the buzzword "Universal" Declaration of Human Rights.

I used both buzzwords as a suggestion that there is a (more-or-less) universal consensus on the subject of inalienable human rights. I did not present it as a treatise on constitutional law. (Who would have thought the Mighty holmes would have reading comprehension difficulties? :D )


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 8:08 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 10:48 AM ringo has responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 238 of 301 (296781)
03-20-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by ringo
03-20-2006 9:59 AM


Re: Ringo Reloaded
The anti-abortionists claim that the fetus is human and therefore has rights - yet it is somehow "okay" to abort it in the case of rape (or incest)... Clearly, there is a consensus - even among anti-abortionists - that a fetus is not (fully) human, that a fetus does not have (full) human rights.

Hey, we've gone in a circle. Remember I already addressed this. I agree that any AAs who do hold this duality are facing a problem (indeed a possible hypocrisy).

Unfortunately there is no such consensus, and indeed the latest "consensus" from AAs to hit the lawbooks is exactly the opposite. The AAs specifically said there is NO exception for rape or incest. And for some reason prochoice people criticized them for NOT holding such an exception.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

And my suggestion is that you can't call a truce "temporary" until it's over.

Uh... it's over. The AAs have finally placed two members on the court they feel will reverse public policy, and immediately got an AA law on the lawbooks. See they decided not to have a revolution to overthrow the gov't based on a decision they thought was bad, and instead bided their time and grew in power until they felt they had a good shot.

The consensus was NOT that abortion was okay.

I used both buzzwords as a suggestion that there is a (more-or-less) universal consensus on the subject of inalienable human rights. I did not present it as a treatise on constitutional law.

I'm not sure why those buzzwords would indicate you did not know anything about the specific documents you were discussing. I took it to mean you did not know exact language.

There is no universal consensus on the subject of inalienable rights. Your own commentary conflicts with some of the founding theories on it. Indeed the concept of such rights was relatively recent in history and are still not held as acceptable across the world today.

Who would have thought the Mighty holmes would have reading comprehension difficulties?

Oh please, I've made some doozies. I still get the shakes thinking of one I made with Jar. Brrrr.

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-20-2006 04:49 PM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by ringo, posted 03-20-2006 9:59 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ringo, posted 03-20-2006 1:47 PM Silent H has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3110
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 239 of 301 (296789)
03-20-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Silent H
03-19-2006 6:48 PM


Re: Ringo Reloaded

No, I thought I had mentioned them in my post. A woman risks injury and death via abortion or pregnancy. It is true that abortion poses a statistically lower risk in the first two trimesters, but that does not change the fact that either way is risk. She is already in a bad position, and carrying to term is not something that will CERTAINLY adversely effect her in a physical way.

Death, and serious health compliations from childbirth still exist though. One of my friends sisters died in childbirth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Silent H, posted 03-19-2006 6:48 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Silent H, posted 03-20-2006 12:01 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 240 of 301 (296791)
03-20-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by ramoss
03-20-2006 11:24 AM


Re: Ringo Reloaded
Death, and serious health compliations from childbirth still exist though. One of my friends sisters died in childbirth.

Absolutely. My point was that risk exists in either direction, but there is no certainty of death in either direction either. Preventing a woman from having an abortion cannot be said to be giving her a death sentence unless there is a known health risk (which is not what we are talking about).


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by ramoss, posted 03-20-2006 11:24 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019