Abortion; Political or personal

User avatar
Tombstone
Posts: 3686
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by Tombstone »

Hi gnr2,

I found a political cartoon that hit a note with me when I first saw it. I think it sums up pretty well the "conservative" vs. "liberal" feeling that many of us in this country feel.

Attached files
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by anastrophe »

gnr2 wrote: It was my naive assumption that on occassions people were inclined to have personal beliefs which do not correspond exactly with those of a certain party- clearly i was mistaken. It was also my asumption that democratic governments were not totalitarian and bent on moulding society along moral or partisan lines- again i was mistaken, DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT BOTH THESE THINGS??



Apparently Bush won because he mobilised the right who were concerned with moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage- Social conservatives in America, or to some; Fascists. However, as an outside observer i do not understand why GENERALLY those who are anti-abortion support the dominance of big business, non-regualted markets and general abuse of the poorer sectors of society (Republicans)and similarly why these issues are the top priority for voters- Bush has little powewr to do anything about these issues. If the American people were actually suited to living under a western democracy (as Europeans used to suppose they did) then they would accept that government has nothing to do with these deeply personal issues of morality and faith, they would accept that they have no place to force their moral value set, based on a faith which many do not share, onto any other citizens of a Republic. In short- men and women are private as well as public individuals and im sure that the distinction between the two is drawn well before the issue of abotrtion.
for one thing, the US is not a democracy, thank goodness.



your post is full of prejudice and bias. your line about what republicans "GENERALLY" believe is based upon a dozen presuppositions. kind of along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife".



hardly worthy of a response, really.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Paula
Posts: 1852
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by Paula »

leave the babble crap, it is personal, okay, its no-one's business, how the hell-old are you? don't get me in an uproar, you have not lived enough to comment, who gives a big crap who needs to abort, who cares, intelligent people don;t tell any-one, i didn;t do it you loser,,,get a grip, explain...too many educated idiots who (do not know) what the (REAL) world is doing...Make a few million, then you won't care...or say it politically, abortion is a right, just like Q77534 who want to marry...i don't need a college degree to understand...sex and business go hand in hand, Bush is not Clinton or Kennedy...there is always that feature...innocent until proven guilty.
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by koan »

whoa. got a little lost there...IthinkIknow,but...wow, I've got an idea.

Personally, I'm against the legislation of bodies. I own mine outright now. Just paid off the mortgage and it's still running pretty good. Trade in value isn't great but I don't plan on selling. They didn't give me a manual but I think I've worked it out on my own. Trial and error, you know?

Who cares about the religious aspects? Legislation over a person's body is outrageous, invasive and a waste of time that may have been better spent on bigger problems.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by koan »

I'm a Canadian, eh?

I'm not completely familiar with all the details of US political issues even though Canada is greatly affected by them. I can not name specific issues in his policies and must speak only in generalities.

I have one, main view on how Bush is messing things up: I think his role as the president and the many blunders he is likely to make are the keys to changing the entire political system as it exists. Change for the better. He can make all the silly rules he wants, it will just speed up the process. That is my view.
A Karenina
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by A Karenina »

anastrophe wrote: your line about what republicans "GENERALLY" believe is based upon a dozen presuppositions. kind of along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife".
Agreed.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

Aristotle
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by koan »

Lennonmommy wrote: So you believe Bush is doing the right thing?


I must admit to having a spiritual approach to my politics. A mix that may not be appropriate but, since I am a spiritual person in all that I do, unavoidable.

I don't believe in "right thing" as you've used it. I think he is doing what is meant to happen. I have seen 911. I wish Moore could have left out some of the editing bits that take away from the facts ie)pretending to be Bush's inner voice. I believe in the conspiracy of the political ties between the States and their "enemies".

To the Bush fans: Have you ever had a good friend who, after believing you knew him/her very well, you found out they had been fooling you and pretending to be someone they were not? I see it a lot. Most often they are trying to fool themselves as well. You must constantly define your allegiances by what they are doing right now. To give blind allegiance or support to everything someone does because, overall, you like them is a little naive.

Bush may be one of these "friends". But you can't go around suspicious of everyone and still lead a happy life. Bush still won the election after that film so I, perhaps wrongly, assume that he his meant to lead the country to where it is going next. If it is going "to hell in a hand basket" then we should put on our suntan lotion and try to make the best of it.

I am pro-choice. If the government interferes with a person's body and their right to choose I think it is sad. But the oppression in North America is quite minimal compared to other countries in the world. I just hope that, if they force women to have their babies, they increase the funding to child support programs. If the State is bringing these children into existence they had better be prepared to provide for them as a parent would.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by anastrophe »

Lennonmommy wrote: So are you saying that the conservative Americans are wrong or do you believe that all Americans are wrong? I'm from America and I too do not understand how a facist, like Bush, can claim to have the power to take away a woman's right to choose. Where are you from?
bush is a fascist? when did he take over the presses? i haven't seen children dressed in military uniforms being taught how to field strip M16's lately.



bush is a fascist?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by anastrophe »

koan wrote: I'm a Canadian, eh?

I'm not completely familiar with all the details of US political issues even though Canada is greatly affected by them. I can not name specific issues in his policies and must speak only in generalities.



I have one, main view on how Bush is messing things up: I think his role as the president and the many blunders he is likely to make are the keys to changing the entire political system as it exists. Change for the better. He can make all the silly rules he wants, it will just speed up the process. That is my view.
the president doesn't make the rules. we have three major bodies in american government, the congress, the president and the supreme court. congress is further bifurcated into the house and senate - the house has hundreds of members, each representing the people of small districts from each state. the senate is comprised of 100 senators, two from each state.



it's a great system. it virtually precludes any one ideology from taking over. the congress has 'one vote', and the president has 'one veto', and when issues of law come up that aren't clear, the supreme court adjudicates them.



bush doesn't run the country. congress doesn't run the country. the supreme court doesn't run the country. the people run the country, through their representatives. each branch is a brake on the power of the others.



the US will be a federal republic long after we're all in our graves. i'll bet any takers a box of krispy kremes on that one. not sure how the winner will collect though....
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by anastrophe »

Lennonmommy wrote: So you believe Bush is doing the right thing? How is invading Iraq the right thing to do? Have you seen Farenheit 9/11? If not I would highly reccommend that you see it! I would say that you are lucky to be living in Canada right now, my fiance and I even considered moving up there. Unfortunately he wouldn't make as much money as an RN up there as he would down here. We have just decided to stay in the blue states to avoid all the closed minded conservatives in the midwest and the south!
farenheit 9/11 is a work of fiction, not a documentary. that so many people believe it's a documentary is really, really sad. it is, from what little i've seen of it, a brilliant piece of propoganda. leni riefenstahl would have been very, very proud.



myself, i have no plans on seeing it until it's either on broadcast TV, or i can find an, uh, ahem, other source for it. i will not give michael moore one thin dime of my money.



it's funny - he's become a massively obese, obscenely rich, white man.



'we have met the enemy and he is us' sez pogo.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by gmc »

posted by anastrophe

farenheit 9/11 is a work of fiction, not a documentary. that so many people believe it's a documentary is really, really sad. it is, from what little i've seen of it, a brilliant piece of propoganda. leni riefenstahl would have been very, very proud.


I haven't seen it either but why don't you go and see it with an open mind, factual content or otherwise you can check for your self. Just because you have read it is a lod of rubbish doesn't mean it is. Obviously MM has his own spin on affairs but then he never claimed to be unbiased did he (or did he?) so you can keep a sceptical mind as well

How did this creep in to a thread about abortion?

Personally I'm glad I live in a secular society, would not want it otherwise. In the US this debate has a whole different dimension.

In the UK those anti abortion tend also to be anti sex education as well ignoring all the evidence that good sex education and availability of contrceptives does more to curb teenage pregnancy than hours of moral lectures. Give kids the information and most will avoid pregnancy because they know how to the mystery is gone. Knowledge is power, it also gives the girls the self confidence to say no.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by anastrophe »

gmc wrote: I haven't seen it either but why don't you go and see it with an open mind, factual content or otherwise you can check for your self. Just because you have read it is a lod of rubbish doesn't mean it is.
it has nothing to do with what i've read. i've seen excerpts. those excerpts are adequate to determine that it is propoganda, not fact.



and as i said, michael moore will not earn one thin dime from me, so i'm not going to pay to see it. if necessary, i'll find a pirated copy, frankly, even though i'm generally against that.





Obviously MM has his own spin on affairs but then he never claimed to be unbiased did he (or did he?) so you can keep a sceptical mind as well
he may not claim to be unbiased, but he does claim his work is a 'documentary', which is false. and many people believe it's a documentary, which is wrong. interestingly, he made a point of doing various things that prevent the movie from being considered in the documentary category come academy awards time. hmm....







Personally I'm glad I live in a secular society, would not want it otherwise. In the US this debate has a whole different dimension.
the united states is by and large secular as well. or are you saying that because some people are religious/have faith in the US, that precludes it from being secular otherwise? are you saying that there are no people who are religious/have faith in the UK?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by gmc »

posted by anastrophe

the united states is by and large secular as well. or are you saying that because some people are religious/have faith in the US, that precludes it from being secular otherwise? are you saying that there are no people who are religious/have faith in the UK?


I don't whether you are or not. It just seems that debates such as abortion take on a religious dimension in next to no time. In the UK the debate seems to be more objective and while there are religious groups that put their point of view quite vociferously the general attitude is more of a keep your faith don't shove it down my throat. It is regarded as being more up to the individual to decide.

We have religious education in our schools, in fact it is the only subject that must be taught, we also have seperate catholic schools, we now have calls for seperate muslim schools which is bringing the whole issue up again and again.

But sectarianism is a major problen here (in Scotland I mean) and there is serious debate about whether seperate faith schools should be banned as being divisive and creating more trouble than they are worth. In reality our churches are too busy squabbling between themselves to have any real credibility. They do have influence however.

We expect our politicians to keep their faith a private matter and out of politics. We are in a curious situation as the church of england is the official church of state in england but they fall out amongst themselves about whether female priests should be ordained never mind homosexual ones so no one takes them too seriously either, for most people church is an irrelevance.

What we don't have is the kind of violence that the debate seems to provoke in the states.
A Karenina
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by A Karenina »

gmc wrote: Give kids the information and most will avoid pregnancy because they know how to the mystery is gone. Knowledge is power, it also gives the girls the self confidence to say no.I'd like to hear more about education giving the girls the confidence to say no. It's a fascinating concept. :)



Are there studies on this, and if there are, can you please link me to them? Thanks!



Anastrophe, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11. It was much more middle-road than his prior works. There is a lot of fact in it. There is also a lot of his unusual brand of trying to get people to think like he does ~



For instance, he shows the clip of when Bush was told about the WTC. His expression was complete shock, and he sat there for a minute, then he continued to read to the children. Moore makes a big deal out of this delay, and he has a voice-over questioning what Bush could be thinking.



I'm not certain what I think of that delay. I know my own expression when I heard the news must've been identical...that blank look of shock and pain. I know I went about my daily routine (I was commuting to work at the time) mostly because I didn't know what else to do.



But Moore clearly thinks that Bush should've known about the attack in advance and he should've jumped up and put a counter-plan into action within 45 seconds of hearing the news.



In the opening scenes, Moore implies that the bin Laden family was somehow allowed to fly home when all other planes were grounded. From what I've read, this is simply not true. Moore never states that it IS true, but he surely tries to give you that message.



However, there are some powerful scenes that are not contrived in any way...the most stunning to me was the clip of Bush saying he doesn't care about bin Laden, doesn't think about him, has no idea what he's up to...he doesn't care. THAT is hard to argue with, and is probably the biggest reason I have issues with Bush's approach to the war on terrorism.



I saw the clip when he originally said it and I was completely outraged. But it was very revealing to hear the gasps in the audience when it was re-played on the movie screen. I was pretty disgusted that people weren't already aware of it. To me, it's big news. But (shrug) that's me, and I'm a demanding witch at times.



Anyway, I can understand the boycott of his movie. I boycott, too: Wal-Mart, Nike, etc. But do see it if you get a free chance at it. :)
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

Aristotle
A Karenina
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by A Karenina »

My two cents on the religion in America thing...



You're both right... (grin)



There IS a large religion-based movement in the US trying to get their moral views passed as laws. Bush does at least cater to that group, if not outright belong to it.



There IS a division in power that makes passing laws a long, arduous process. People have been trying to overturn Roe vs Wade since it first passed 30 years ago.



There are danger areas in the country. Virginia now has prayers in school by state mandate. Kansas refuses to teach evolution in schools. Other states are joining in, and the danger of losing the wall of separation is real...but it's not massively threatening. Does that make sense?



The religious right is doing what they feel to be correct. They've been smart enough to band together and use their numbers as a power base. Grass roots movements are all over the place - and that is good! If people want to oppose the religious right, then I guess they'd better start banding together into their own groups to offset, to restore balance. Whining about it is not helpful. Join the ACLU or something. (Please don't get me wrong - I am utterly opposed to the religious right for trying to put their lifestyle onto me. But I respect them for standing up.)



My own little tangent here ~~~> A lot of liberals got very angry when Bush cut off federal funding for abortions to the poor. I strongly believe that each woman is entitled to choice, but I also support the idea of directing where our individual tax dollars go. If something is repulsive to you, should you be required by law to fund it? Doesn't that invade your rights?



And, because I am a little opportunist at heart (wicked grin), would that someday provide a platform for every American to choose where at least a portion of their tax dollars go? A checkbox on our annual tax returns would be awesome - even if we only get to direct half of our contribution...We would be able to determine specifically and with increased regularity what we choose to fund...education, health care, the military, medical research, roads and other public works, etc...



The point is simply that the battle continues - as it should! That doesn't mean we can all shrug and ignore what's happening. But it also means we needn't panic just yet. The system is in place, and it's working.



Ok, what'dya think? Was two cents too much for this post? :D
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

Aristotle
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by gmc »

a karenina: have a look at this might be of interest to you



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/s ... 79,00.html

from the article

Sextistics

Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, and one of the highest of any developed country. Every year, 90,000 teenagers in England become pregnant; 8,000 of these are under 16; 2,200 are aged 14 or younger. Three-fifths of conceptions - about 56,000 - result in live births

The UK has teenage birth rates twice as high as Germany's, three times as high as France's, more than six times as high as in the Netherlands. A significant proportion of young women conceive more than once in their teens: one in six teenagers who had an abortion in 1997 had already had an abortion or a live birth.

One in eight young women who had their first baby in their teens went on to have a second child before they reached the age of 20.

Conception rates are high compared to European countries, even in the more affluent areas, but are far worse in the poorest areas. Poverty and academic failure are good indicators of teenagers at sexual risk.

Teenagers are having sex earlier in Britain than other European countries, although the average age for first sex is 17, and two-thirds of teenagers do not have sex before they are 16. In Holland, the average age for the first sexual encounter is six months later than in the UK.

Between a third and a half of sexually active teenagers do not use contraceptives during first sexual intercourse.

There is less syphilis in Sweden than in a single STD clinic in London.

In Holland, 40 per cent of boys discuss contraception with their girlfriends before sex; in UK, it's 15 per cent.

More than 50 per cent of 14- to 15-year-olds are not taught anatomy fully, despite many of them being sexually active already.

A recent survey showed teenagers think there is too much emphasis in sex education on the 'mechanics' and not enough on emotions

In Britain, there seems to be a strange disconnection between sex and pleasure: in most first sexual experiences, either the girl (two or three in every four), or both the girl and boy regret the encounter. So young people are having sex earlier, getting pregnant more - and not even enjoying it, even regarding it with a sense of dread.


The lower rates tend to be in countries that have a freer attitude to sex education, a fact which those who oppose it choose to ignore. Most of our "religious right" have a rather prurient attitide to sex.

also

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/lifestyle/heal ... 225_2.html

Teenagers and sex It is time we accept that about half of under 16-year-olds are having sex. Some do not use any contraception when they first start having sex or they use condoms inconsistently. With a high teenage pregnancy rate, you would also expect a high chlamydia rate.

The drive to have sex is considerable and sex is usually pleasurable. It is unrealistic to expect adolescents to always make sensible, rational decisions, but many will if they are provided with the right information in a way they identify with.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by gmc »

a karenina: have a look at this might be of interest to you



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/s ... 79,00.html

from the article

Sextistics

Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, and one of the highest of any developed country. Every year, 90,000 teenagers in England become pregnant; 8,000 of these are under 16; 2,200 are aged 14 or younger. Three-fifths of conceptions - about 56,000 - result in live births

The UK has teenage birth rates twice as high as Germany's, three times as high as France's, more than six times as high as in the Netherlands. A significant proportion of young women conceive more than once in their teens: one in six teenagers who had an abortion in 1997 had already had an abortion or a live birth.

One in eight young women who had their first baby in their teens went on to have a second child before they reached the age of 20.

Conception rates are high compared to European countries, even in the more affluent areas, but are far worse in the poorest areas. Poverty and academic failure are good indicators of teenagers at sexual risk.

Teenagers are having sex earlier in Britain than other European countries, although the average age for first sex is 17, and two-thirds of teenagers do not have sex before they are 16. In Holland, the average age for the first sexual encounter is six months later than in the UK.

Between a third and a half of sexually active teenagers do not use contraceptives during first sexual intercourse.

There is less syphilis in Sweden than in a single STD clinic in London.

In Holland, 40 per cent of boys discuss contraception with their girlfriends before sex; in UK, it's 15 per cent.

More than 50 per cent of 14- to 15-year-olds are not taught anatomy fully, despite many of them being sexually active already.

A recent survey showed teenagers think there is too much emphasis in sex education on the 'mechanics' and not enough on emotions

In Britain, there seems to be a strange disconnection between sex and pleasure: in most first sexual experiences, either the girl (two or three in every four), or both the girl and boy regret the encounter. So young people are having sex earlier, getting pregnant more - and not even enjoying it, even regarding it with a sense of dread.


The lower rates tend to be in countries that have a freer attitude to sex education, a fact which those who oppose it choose to ignore. Most of our "religious right" have a rather prurient attitide to sex.

also

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/lifestyle/heal ... 225_2.html



The drive to have sex is considerable and sex is usually pleasurable. It is unrealistic to expect adolescents to always make sensible, rational decisions, but many will if they are provided with the right information in a way they identify with.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by anastrophe »

gmc wrote: I don't whether you are or not. It just seems that debates such as abortion take on a religious dimension in next to no time. In the UK the debate seems to be more objective and while there are religious groups that put their point of view quite vociferously the general attitude is more of a keep your faith don't shove it down my throat. It is regarded as being more up to the individual to decide.and that's precisely how it is here in the US. precisely.





We have religious education in our schools, in fact it is the only subject that must be taught, we also have seperate catholic schools, we now have calls for seperate muslim schools which is bringing the whole issue up again and again.interestingly, while you say you have a secular society, here in the US, religious instruction is forbidden in our public schools. so which society is more secular - the one that requires religious education, or the one that forbids it? i think the answer should be mighty clear.







But sectarianism is a major problen here (in Scotland I mean) and there is serious debate about whether seperate faith schools should be banned as being divisive and creating more trouble than they are worth. In reality our churches are too busy squabbling between themselves to have any real credibility. They do have influence however.interestingly, here in the US, parents have the choice to take their children out of public schools and put them in 'faith schools'. they've been around forever - back when i was a little kid in the 1960's, there were those kids who wore the white shirt, green jacket, and for girls green and black plaid skirt - the uniform of the catholic schoolkid. no stigma, no shock, no nothing really. they went to a different school, that's all.



the notion of banning 'faith schools' would be abhorent to most everyone here in this country - from the left, right, and middle. if one wants to practice and learn their faith, and send their kids to a faith based school, that's their Right, with a capital R.



it need not be said - but maybe it does - that children who go to 'faith schools' by and large have better test scores, have lower truancy, lower teen pregnancy, and have higher college admissions than their public school counterparts. whether it's the religous training itself, or simply the more rigorous discipline and expectations, i don't know.





We expect our politicians to keep their faith a private matter and out of politics. for the most part, so do we.

We are in a curious situation as the church of england is the official church of state in england but they fall out amongst themselves about whether female priests should be ordained never mind homosexual ones so no one takes them too seriously either, for most people church is an irrelevance.i wonder if you have anything to back up that statement, or if you're just projecting from your own experience. what is the rate of churchgoing in the UK?





What we don't have is the kind of violence that the debate seems to provoke in the states.
what violence, specifically, are you referring to?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by gmc »

Try this site, weird colour but the stats are about right I think

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rib.html

Haven't a clue about the site I was looking for one with stats. I think you can assume those who wrote "Jedi Knight" were taking the piss.



http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools ... 69,00.html

From the Guardian article

While 19 per cent of Britons attended a weekly religious service in 1980, by 1999 that had fallen to 7 per cent - prompting some to argue that RE should be scrapped as a compulsory subject. Secularists say there is little point trying to drum religion into sceptical children at school.

'We're not trying to suggest that nobody should learn anything about religion: it is part of our culture and informs our art and our literature,' said Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society, which has written to Education Secretary Charles Clarke calling for atheism to be included on the syllabus.

'But if you try to teach morality through "the Bible says" or the Ten Commandments, most children won't accept it as they don't believe the religious message. It would be much better if people learned morality by looking at current examples. It's philosophy that we really want to be teaching.'


posted by anastrophe

interestingly, while you say you have a secular society, here in the US, religious instruction is forbidden in our public schools. so which society is more secular - the one that requires religious education, or the one that forbids it? i think the answer should be mighty clear.


Nope, I was referring to general attitudes.

posted by anastrophe

what violence, specifically, are you referring to?


I had seem somewhere reports about abortion clinics being bombed and doctors targeted by fundamentalists. how prevalent it is I don't know certainly the debate seems a lot more passioned than it is here.



posted by anastrophe

it need not be said - but maybe it does - that children who go to 'faith schools' by and large have better test scores, have lower truancy, lower teen pregnancy, and have higher college admissions than their public school counterparts. whether it's the religous training itself, or simply the more rigorous discipline and expectations, i don't know.


same here the catholic schools tend to do better but it's because they are selective about who gets in, the thickos get fobbed off amongst the proddies.
A Karenina
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by A Karenina »

gmc wrote: Teenagers and sex. It is time we accept that about half of under 16-year-olds are having sex.
Ha! Not my little angel. :p



Obviously, I'm kidding. I know my son was having sex at age 16 because I supplied him with condoms. I used to tell him that I wished he'd wait until he fell in love, but he insisted on experimenting anyway. So, one day he fell in love...and then started gushing to me about the incredible difference in sex with her...and then promptly swore me to silence (I was not allowed to tell his friends, which of course I never would).



I'm so glad he felt comfortable enough with me to talk openly...but then I did drag his puberty-ized rear over to the art museum to stare at nude women when I caught him with Hustler magazine (at age 12). I despise pornography, but supported his right to a healthy sex life. That was my solution...the kid is probably scarred for life from having me for a mom! LOL



Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the article links. I especially enjoyed the first one you posted. I'm not sure that schools are the appropriate place for sex education anymore than religious education, but to have readily available eductional options for kids is a tremendous idea. :)
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

Aristotle
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by koan »

Whoa. I go to work for a day and miss two pages!

Like the comment on having confidence to say "no". Not just teenagers, at 30 yrs old I told a bunch of friends that we should have a female group where we practice saying no. Hit on each other and turn each other down. They all thought it was a great idea but we never ended up doing it.

OKAY. Drop the politics. OKAY. Drop the religion. This is a question of WHAT RIGHT DOES ANYONE HAVE to tell me I can not use a medical service that exists? GOD does not currently have a human body that can speak to us and say that is what he wishes or not. BUSH and all the other political figures can be replaced by others at the next election and there still won't be a law passed by then. What I care about here is: If abortions can not be had...what are we going to do with all the unwanted children????????

Let's hear some ideas on that. Oh, yeah, abstinence is not the solution. People are not going to stop having sex. Oh, yeah, a friend of mine had sex out of her high fertility phase, with a condom that broke and took the morning after pill because of the condom. She still got pregnant. So what do those anti abortionists suggest we do about all the babies?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by koan »

Lennonmommy wrote: You're damn right, Bush is a facist. Perhaps the reason you haven't seen "children dressed in military uniforms being taught how to field strip M16's" is because you live in California and not Iraq. A facist is a person who is dictatorial or has extreme RIGHT-WING views.


Way to go! I want to see the response, too. Well said!

:-6
A Karenina
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by A Karenina »

Mussolini's description of fascism is here.



The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that


exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,

uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,

engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and

espouses nationalism and sometimes racism or ethnic nationalism.

Totalitarianism is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all aspects of day-to-day life. It goes well beyond dictatorship or typical police state measures, and even beyond those measures required to sustain total war between states. It involves constant indoctrination achieved by propaganda to erase any potential for dissent, by anyone, including most especially the agents of government.



The term authoritarianism is used to describe an organization or a state which enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population. It is distinguished from totalitarianism both by degree and scope, authoritarian administration or governance being less intrusive and in the case of groups not necessarily backed by the use of force. For example, the Roman Catholic Church can be accurately described as authoritarian; however, in modern times it lacks the means to use force to enforce its edicts and is not a totalitarian establishment.



The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism was a crucial part of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which asserted that the United States could work with authoritarian nations with bad human rights records because they were more capable of fundamental reform and less dangerous than totalitarian nations.



In an authoritarian state citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many that other political philosophies would see as matters of personal choice. Authoritarianism generally presumes to know Truth, with a capital "T", and has almost no tolerance of disagreement. It is characterised by moral and philosophical certainty coupled with a taste for the use of force by the State. These systems suppress "heretical" ideas. Totalitarian governments feel that the interests of the State are more important than anything else -- it is the "totality" of all that is worthwhile.



Typically, the leadership (government) of an authoritarian regime is ruled by an elite group that uses repressive means to stay in power. However, unlike totalitarian regimes, there is no desire or ideological justification for the state to control all aspects of a person's life, and the state will generally ignore the actions of an individual unless it is perceived to be directly challenging the state. Totalitarian governments tend to be revolutionary, intent on changing the basic structure of society, while authoritarian ones tend to be conservative.



~~~


Now that we have working definitions of each term, I would think it's clear that Bush has a ways to go before we can call him fascist.



Let's be careful with slinging those names around. They are all backed by complete ideologies, as you can see. Consequently, using labels outside of that ideological context completely distracts the conversation...and the boy who cried wolf was eventually ignored.



In addition, I'm quite sure it wasn't Bush who started the political war on abortion. He merely continues what he's already inherited.



Why am I feeling like a schoolteacher? :)

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

Aristotle
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by anastrophe »

Lennonmommy wrote: You're damn right, Bush is a facist. Perhaps the reason you haven't seen "children dressed in military uniforms being taught how to field strip M16's" is because you live in California and not Iraq. A facist is a person who is dictatorial or has extreme RIGHT-WING views.
interestingly enough, children aren't being taught how to field strip M16's in iraq, either.



bush isn't a dictator, nor is he extreme right-wing. he's right-of-center. the only people who think he's extreme right wing are those who are on the far left, who of course believe that they are dead-center.



the delusions of the left are palpable. try a little historical perspective. google Franco. Mussolini. one cannot suggest that Bush is a fascist without demeaning the cost of fascism for those who have lived under it.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by koan »

Why am I feeling like a schoolteacher?


Is that not part of what we do here, teach each other? Does it really annoy you? I find great pleasure in increasing the knowledge of others when I can.

Lennonmommy's definition is correct. Your definition is also correct. One is a more general use of the word the other is quite a bit more specific. One definition does not cancel out the other just because it is more detailed.

bush isn't a dictator, nor is he extreme right-wing. he's right-of-center. the only people who think he's extreme right wing are those who are on the far left, who of course believe that they are dead-center.


What is extreme to one is not extreme to another. I am right wing. I still think that a policy that enforces one's religious conviction as a matter of politics is more "extreme" than I. I believe, but may be wrong, that the further one moves to the right, the less one believes in government intervention in anything. That puts me at the furthest right of the political scale if I am correct. Assuming so, I am an extreme right winger yet it is the furthest from being a dictator as a non-intervention, "laisse faire" kind af attitude. Perhaps the definition is faulty? Maybe it is my understanding that is flawed? I wonder now.

I am not an expert on politics, never claimed to be and probably never will be no matter how hard you all try to explain it to me. But, in the use of language, lets not overlook the point being made for the specific use of the words involved. Reading between the lines is often appropriate.

"The only people who think..." So admittedly SOME people think he is extreme right wing and Lennonmommy appears to be one of them. Her opinion can not be wrong for it is her opinion, not yours. You may find her extreme left wing when in fact she may not consider herself to be such. You may find her opinion to be uninformed in which case you should try to expand her knowledge as you have done. Perhaps her facts are inaccurate, but upon hearing the more accurate facts, she may continue to hold that opinion as is her right. Again, her opinion can not be "wrong", as such, any more than yours may be "wrong".
Paula
Posts: 1852
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by Paula »

I hope you are practicing what you preach? Remember we live in the good old USA, so anything goes?
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by anastrophe »

gnr2 wrote: It has caused me the greatest distress to read what some members of the forum have written, and i can only suggest that perhaps if egos were dropped or individuals bothered to actually read and uncover the world around them rather than burying their heads in their own little existence, then the world would be a better place, full of more intelligent individuals- even though every single person is allowed an opinion, could some of the members please allow for the fact they have clearly received little education in the areas which they are discussing and so should not just plough ahead with their uncompromising and frankly crude arguments??
there is no 'litmus test' for participation in forumgarden, at least none that is formal. i believe the pragmatic litmus test is quite simply, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". some people sign up at forumgarden, read a few threads, post a few comments, get some heat, and never come back. others, such as myself, thrive on controversy and debate. some debate is more sophisticated than others, quite assuredly, but if one wishes to engage passionately in an active discussion of any issue here, they'll find reward either in enlightening others, being enlightened themselves, or, at worst, sitting back and enjoying the warmth of the flames. :yh_bigsmi
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Paula
Posts: 1852
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by Paula »

Thats Right, I'm not on-line Gambling, Not TRYING to humiliate anyone, just posting what i feel is (in my mind) an opinion. I know very well - I am beyond a good person, I have STRONG opinions at times. It comes from my hard-working background, old fashioned ideas, and NOT AFRAID to release my thoughts. Don't get Over-Whelmed?

This is why forum garden is so unique, you get everything from the weeds, to the adorning flowers, the fruits of life, veggies never heard of, slugs, earthworms, morning glorys to name a few, even European Herbs. Variety!

So that means - all is individual in itself. Thank You, very much.
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by capt_buzzard »

Lennonmommy wrote: So you believe Bush is doing the right thing? How is invading Iraq the right thing to do? Have you seen Farenheit 9/11? If not I would highly reccommend that you see it! I would say that you are lucky to be living in Canada right now, my fiance and I even considered moving up there. Unfortunately he wouldn't make as much money as an RN up there as he would down here. We have just decided to stay in the blue states to avoid all the closed minded conservatives in the midwest and the south! GullyHo

Attached files
jahamaa
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:24 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by jahamaa »

koan wrote: whoa. got a little lost there...IthinkIknow,but...wow, I've got an idea.

Personally, I'm against the legislation of bodies. I own mine outright now. Just paid off the mortgage and it's still running pretty good. Trade in value isn't great but I don't plan on selling. They didn't give me a manual but I think I've worked it out on my own. Trial and error, you know?

Who cares about the religious aspects? Legislation over a person's body is outrageous, invasive and a waste of time that may have been better spent on bigger problems.


Koan I know it is very easy to dismiss right to lifers like myself as close minded and control freaks but Most of my friends do not in any way wish to harm anyone or control anyone to us it is a question of, are you controling your body or killing someone elses. If you have that matter firmly settled in your mind I consider you very lucky.

wether you call a fetus a child or just a mass of tissue it is still alive, taking in nutirion, growing and killing a living thing bothers me wether it is a fetus, an abandoned dog or someone on death row.

In this day and age there should be a better way to handle any problem
GOD CREATED MAN AND SAM COLT MADE THEM EQUAL
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by koan »

jahamaa wrote: Koan I know it is very easy to dismiss right to lifers like myself as close minded and control freaks but Most of my friends do not in any way wish to harm anyone or control anyone to us it is a question of, are you controling your body or killing someone elses. If you have that matter firmly settled in your mind I consider you very lucky.

wether you call a fetus a child or just a mass of tissue it is still alive, taking in nutirion, growing and killing a living thing bothers me wether it is a fetus, an abandoned dog or someone on death row.

In this day and age there should be a better way to handle any problem


That is a legitimate point of view. Doesn't change my mind about the wrongfulness of making this a political issue. It is a matter of morals. There are many reasons why women get abortions...some are good some are bad.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by Lon »

gnr2 wrote: It was my naive assumption that on occassions people were inclined to have personal beliefs which do not correspond exactly with those of a certain party- clearly i was mistaken. It was also my asumption that democratic governments were not totalitarian and bent on moulding society along moral or partisan lines- again i was mistaken, DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT BOTH THESE THINGS??



Apparently Bush won because he mobilised the right who were concerned with moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage- Social conservatives in America, or to some; Fascists. However, as an outside observer i do not understand why GENERALLY those who are anti-abortion support the dominance of big business, non-regualted markets and general abuse of the poorer sectors of society (Republicans)and similarly why these issues are the top priority for voters- Bush has little powewr to do anything about these issues. If the American people were actually suited to living under a western democracy (as Europeans used to suppose they did) then they would accept that government has nothing to do with these deeply personal issues of morality and faith, they would accept that they have no place to force their moral value set, based on a faith which many do not share, onto any other citizens of a Republic. In short- men and women are private as well as public individuals and im sure that the distinction between the two is drawn well before the issue of abotrtion.


You are making a mistake in lumping people, it's more complex than that. For example---------I am for a woman's right re: abortion, I love big business & hate big government, believe in private gun ownership, ban the death penalty, the U.N is worthless, Privatize part of Social Security, have no problem with Gay Marriages or Gays in particular. So, what's my party affiliation? Am I a red or blue voter?
User avatar
BabyRider
Posts: 10163
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 1:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by BabyRider »

gmc wrote: Just because you have read it is a lod of rubbish doesn't mean it is. Obviously MM has his own spin on affairs but then he never claimed to be unbiased did he (or did he?) so you can keep a sceptical mind as well



Which also dosen't mean it ISN'T a load of rubbish. The man is a communist, plain and simple. His agenda is simply to become the obese rich pig that he has become. Yet ANOTHER sad commentary on the crap that some people will allow themselves to be brainwashed with. And your own words: "his OWN spin..." very telling....
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]










Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????


We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.




gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by gmc »

posted by babyrider

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmc

Just because you have read it is a lod of rubbish doesn't mean it is. Obviously MM has his own spin on affairs but then he never claimed to be unbiased did he (or did he?) so you can keep a sceptical mind as well

Which also dosen't mean it ISN'T a load of rubbish. The man is a communist, plain and simple. His agenda is simply to become the obese rich pig that he has become. Yet ANOTHER sad commentary on the crap that some people will allow themselves to be brainwashed with. And your own words: "his OWN spin..." very telling....


As I mentioned before I don't quite know how this got in to a debate on abortion, seems rather off topic. So he's a communist who's aim is to become a rich fat pig? Kind of conflicting aims don't you think?

communism // n.

1 a political theory advocating a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person is paid and works according to his or her needs and abilities.

communist // n. & adj.

n.

1 a person advocating or practising communism.


If paid according to their abilities how much is a politician worth?:D

I haven't seen 911 and will probably wait until it's on terrestial TV but I can check factual content for myself if I want to. I presume you would do the same since you haven't been brainwashed in to dismissing all criticism of your governments policy out of hand and have the necessary open mindedness to make up your own mind. Clearly he puts his own viewpoint and you can disagree with the conclusions, is that not rather the point of free speech? I would never have bothered with his web site until the publicity surrounding Cannes and distribution problems tweaked my curiosity.

Everybody can say what they think, you can agree or disagree. To me the whole point of a forum like this is to talk to people with different opinions it would be kind of boring otherwise. If you disagree with someone state your opinion but if all you can do is accuse someone of being brainwashed stick around I'm sure you will pick up better insults than that.

Don't know if this is applicable on this particular forum topic But I am curious as to an american perspective.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections20 ... 81,00.html
Paula
Posts: 1852
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by Paula »

I will not be needing one anytime soon. It is a private decision and there are many doctors who perform daily abortions. This subject should never be discussed as it is personal-let the woman decide.
Everyone has these on their face? TULIPS.
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by capt_buzzard »

anastrophe wrote: bush is a fascist? when did he take over the presses? i haven't seen children dressed in military uniforms being taught how to field strip M16's lately.



bush is a fascist? GW might have to just do that to. :-5
jahamaa
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:24 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by jahamaa »

koan wrote: That is a legitimate point of view. Doesn't change my mind about the wrongfulness of making this a political issue. It is a matter of morals. There are many reasons why women get abortions...some are good some are bad.


there is a line of thought that says all laws are the enforcement of morality. I tend to beleive this to be true. Don't know where that leaves us on making decisions on a lot of issues. Maybe in order to have a society where people live side by side in peace we will simply have to go back to a society more based on majority rules. You make your case and then live with the outcome. Kind of makes it hard to protect minority rights but the growing tension between factions in many free democratic countries has to, in my opinion, be relieved or none of us may like the results.
GOD CREATED MAN AND SAM COLT MADE THEM EQUAL
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by gmc »

In the UK, well Scotland at least religious discussion tens to trake on a sectarian character. Religious groups that would ban abortion are also against proper sex education which tends to be viewed as a bit hypocritical since condemning teenage pregnancy and then preventing teenagers being taight sex education are a bit contradictory.

http://www.sundayherald.com/47150

Check out the poll results.
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by capt_buzzard »

Today's nations should learn a grim lesson from the way children were treated in ancient Carthage, and from the fate that befell the city. In 300bc, Carthage was the centre of a rich trading empire, and was a rival of Rome. Its citizens were waalthy, cultured and educated, yet remarkably callous about taking human life. Unwanted orphans and widows were killed,to reduce the amount of poverty in the cities.Carthaginians burned thousands of their own children to appease their patron goddess Tenet.

The Phoenicians killed many thousands of children also.

The media lavished much attention on the famous Catholic nun, Mother Teresa, but only infrequently reported her stinging rebukes of contemporary society. Mother Teresa likened abortion to 'a war against the child', a direct killing of the innocent child.

Jives
Posts: 3741
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:00 pm

Abortion; Political or personal

Post by Jives »

willow wrote: There is only one solution: sex education more informative and earlier. tell the kids the things that they really wnat and need to know, not just showing em some video from the sixties with misinformation


I just wish it was that easy, willow! if you try to teach more than the publicly-approved curriculum (which is to say nothing but abstinence which is a joke and a bad one) you will be crucified as "leading the young to rampant sex".
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare

Return to “Abortion”