Is this it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For everyone against abortion. Imagine that you have a daughter. She's 18. She decides it's time to have sex like everybody does. She ends up pregnant. To ashamed to tell mom and dad she talks to her best friend how knows somebody else's best friend who knows somebody who performs illegal abortions.

Your daughter decides to go get the abortion.Better then dissapoint mom and dad and everyone who knows her.After two days she bleeds to death.

While you ar buying the cuffin wouldn't you wish abortions were legal?

Extreme case, we're talking abortions in a hospital or specialised clinic, not a backstreet or Do It Yourself jobbie.

Like most medical procedures abortions are carried out by trained professionals who know what they are doing. That's not to say there aren't risks (like any medical procedure), but your example is the exception not the rule.

[ChristinaM 0]

I think the point was that the backstreets are what we'll be going back to if everyone follows South Dakota's example.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For everyone against abortion. Imagine that you have a daughter. She's 18. She decides it's time to have sex like everybody does. She ends up pregnant. To ashamed to tell mom and dad she talks to her best friend how knows somebody else's best friend who knows somebody who performs illegal abortions.

Your daughter decides to go get the abortion.Better then dissapoint mom and dad and everyone who knows her.After two days she bleeds to death.

While you ar buying the cuffin wouldn't you wish abortions were legal?

Extreme case, we're talking abortions in a hospital or specialised clinic, not a backstreet or Do It Yourself jobbie.

Like most medical procedures abortions are carried out by trained professionals who know what they are doing. That's not to say there aren't risks (like any medical procedure), but your example is the exception not the rule.

Edited to add:

I understand the point you are making, but it seems to me people get so emotionally invested in other people's children that approaching the issue in terms that inspire an emotive response is counter-productive.

The simple fact is that most abortions performed at dedicated "Legal" medical facilities are perfectly safe, though there are risks as with any medical procedure. I don't want to see people overplay those risks to push their own agenda, when that it is not the reality.

What people don't want to deal with it seems is precisely why a kid would want to get an abortion without their parents consent or knowledge.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Fishdude

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the point was that the backstreets are what we'll be going back to if everyone follows South Dakota's example.

Well that is possible, it is also possible that women would simply go out of state for the procedure.

I suspect a lot of pro-life advocates think that banning abortion will simply make people think twice before having sex outside of marriage (or at least convince more people to use protection). That's a possibility I suppose, but IMO simply outlawing abortion won't fix the underlying social problems that result in unwanted pregnancies.

Taking the choice away won't change society in any significant way that will stop women seeking abortions. As with most other issues its easier to attack the end result than it is to deal with the cause. Ace demonstrated it quite well earlier on when she said that people don't live 'decent lives', that allowing abortion is somehow enabling immorality. I can see the reasoning there - i just don't think banning abortion will change society in the significant way she claims.

[mikeize 0]

For the pro-life/anti-welfare people out there who say stuff like "if you're on welfare, put the baby up for adoption, because it isn't fair for a kid to grow up on welfare (with a single parent!)"... you must think that being a ward of the state/foster homes is a picnic. Much better than at home with welfare mom, right? So get your hypocritical @ss down to the orpanage and adopt a bunch of kids. Do your best to get the ones with expensive mental and physical illnesses. Do your part to prove that adoption is such wonderful alternative to a single (biological) parent on welfare. I will be the first to applaud you for it. Otherwise you just give credence to the idea that "pro-life" is just an ideal that claims that the unborn are more important than the born. If this wasn't true then SD would have passed laws effectively ending child poverty, funding sex education programs, and social programs (yes including welfare) that allow parents (single or otherwise) to properly take care of/raise their children. THAT is pro-life, the other thing is religious posturing.

-mike

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Unfortunately the administration relies on people not knowing the facts about issues in the news.

What I don't understand is why they spend so much time attacking people who raise contrary opinions, rather than the opinions themselves.

I suspect there's some patriotic "How dare you criticise MY president" indignation going on there. They need to realise that Bush et al is EVERYONE's president, and not everyone thinks he's marvellous.

I don't understand that either unless as a result of the current polarization that is going on and of the fact that the right-wing media does not offer a very good example (neither does the so-called liberal media). If we listen to Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter tearing apart people who raise very valid points concerning the current state of affairs based on completely unrelated issues then maybe we can begin to understand that the reluctance/inability to admit faults of the current president is a result of the discourse people see on their TVs. I tend not to take these people (on either side) very seriously but I have to admit they offer a very easy way out; rather than taking the pain to admit that arguments concerning the a variety of issues contain a kernel of truth, they lash out and come up with statements like: "at least Bush doesn't do it with interns," "just realize we won," or - to cite the other side of the fence -"Bush is stupid, ergo whatever happens is because he is stupid." There is no way to argue with these statements and they nullify any point a rational person is trying to make.

I wish the culture of argument were better or people would realize that having an argument does not consist of screaming at and accusing the opposing side. An argument is all about presenting facts that are relevant to the discussion at hand. If this condition is not given or if we don't understand arguments as an exchange of ideas that aims to convince other people and not silence other people, then what is at danger is the very foundation of democracy.

Seeing that, however, requires taking a step back and thinking about what the other side actually said. If necessary, it would even help if people who bash Bush would think if they had reacted in the same way if a democrat had done/said the same thing and vice versa. Hurting people through verbal attacks is always the wrong way to go (and yes, I am aware that I do that at times, too) because it doesn't help resolve the argument. I wonder - in the light of this and other threads on VJ - whether it would be possible to have a thread in which discussion does not end in a shouting match or in an onslaught of personal attacks. Can we - as a community - somehow control our discourse to a degree that would allow an honest and fair exchange of ideas or are we also stuck in the polarization?

[I'm Gone 60]

Well the way I look at it the elected officals passed and the govenor signed the law and if people don't like it vote in people that the will over turn it and a governor that will sign it. For all the people that are running around saying the sky is failing and break out the coat hangers, this is only one state out of 50. If either NY, MA, MD, DC, CA pass a law like this in my lifetime I'll eat a coat hanger.

[meddykomp 0]

So who pays for housewives? Their husbands.

The problems would all be solved if people started living decent lives.

Decent lives? Excuse me? I have had to use the public assistance programs in the past. At the same time I was working, going to school, and raising my daughter by myself. Just because someone needs that for medical care does not mean they do not live "decent" lives. It isn't like they hand you a really good job with great benefits when you graduate high school. Right now, those jobs are not even easy to get after obtaining a college degree.

Now I have a good paying job with excellent benefits, but I had to work really hard to get to this point AND I needed a little help along the way. Needing assistance does not equate to not living a decent life.

[Welshcookie 17]

So who pays for housewives? Their husbands.

The problems would all be solved if people started living decent lives.

[/b]Decent lives? Excuse me? I have had to use the public assistance programs in the past.[/b] At the same time I was working, going to school, and raising my daughter by myself. Just because someone needs that for medical care does not mean they do not live "decent" lives. It isn't like they hand you a really good job with great benefits when you graduate high school. Right now, those jobs are not even easy to get after obtaining a college degree.

Now I have a good paying job with excellent benefits, but I had to work really hard to get to this point AND I needed a little help along the way. Needing assistance does not equate to not living a decent life.

Me too....when I decided against aborting my baby, became a single mum and on welfare in one swoop.....

Edited February 26, 2006 by welshcookie

[Carol&Marc 0]

Well the way I look at it the elected officals passed and the govenor signed the law and if people don't like it vote in people that the will over turn it and a governor that will sign it. For all the people that are running around saying the sky is failing and break out the coat hangers, this is only one state out of 50. If either NY, MA, MD, DC, CA pass a law like this in my lifetime I'll eat a coat hanger.

Bizarrely enough not everyone who takes welfare is a lazy parasite who wants other people to pay their way instead of getting a job.

Life is not a stereotype... Describe the typical welfare recipient for me please?

How does someone on welfare get a raise????????

Have another kid!!!!

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

Well the way I look at it the elected officals passed and the govenor signed the law and if people don't like it vote in people that the will over turn it and a governor that will sign it. For all the people that are running around saying the sky is failing and break out the coat hangers, this is only one state out of 50. If either NY, MA, MD, DC, CA pass a law like this in my lifetime I'll eat a coat hanger.

Right. We shouldn't be concerned about 2% of anything. Heck, establishing precedent doesn't amount to a hill of beans, right? Interesting that you're not willing to become involved until it passes in states that may well be described as strongly liberal, ones that would be final holdouts until the 'majority' have spoken and the Federal government steps in saying "well, y'all seem to want this ban, so we'll just make it our business." Everything starts somewhere. Would you not be concerned when only 2% of your house was on fire? I'm guessing you'll wait until the really important rooms are burning....then it'd be worth bothering over. Take the blinders off. This isn't about daughters being stupid, it isn't about people living decently, it's about legislation by faith. It's about people having the freedom of choice (Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ring a bell?), including the choice to have medical procedures done, even if for vain reasons, at their discretion and in safe, clinical manners. I'm against liposuction, shall we ban cosmetic surgery, except for reconstructive purposes, right? Heck....if people were living decently there'd be no need for ANY elective surgery. Got a child with an ear infection? Forget about having drain tubes installed....just raise the child 'decently' and it'll be fine. Need that hernia repaired? Should have thought of living a decent life BEFORE you got in trouble. Ingrown toenail? Suffer, you vile disgusting waste of humanity! We, the good people of the United States, will not tolerate this any more.

I'm sure that's sounding too far-fetched for most of you. Alas, it's sounding all to familiar and probable to some of us.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unfortunately the administration relies on people not knowing the facts about issues in the news.

What I don't understand is why they spend so much time attacking people who raise contrary opinions, rather than the opinions themselves.

I suspect there's some patriotic "How dare you criticise MY president" indignation going on there. They need to realise that Bush et al is EVERYONE's president, and not everyone thinks he's marvellous.

I don't understand that either unless as a result of the current polarization that is going on and of the fact that the right-wing media does not offer a very good example (neither does the so-called liberal media). If we listen to Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter tearing apart people who raise very valid points concerning the current state of affairs based on completely unrelated issues then maybe we can begin to understand that the reluctance/inability to admit faults of the current president is a result of the discourse people see on their TVs. I tend not to take these people (on either side) very seriously but I have to admit they offer a very easy way out; rather than taking the pain to admit that arguments concerning the a variety of issues contain a kernel of truth, they lash out and come up with statements like: "at least Bush doesn't do it with interns," "just realize we won," or - to cite the other side of the fence -"Bush is stupid, ergo whatever happens is because he is stupid." There is no way to argue with these statements and they nullify any point a rational person is trying to make.

I wish the culture of argument were better or people would realize that having an argument does not consist of screaming at and accusing the opposing side. An argument is all about presenting facts that are relevant to the discussion at hand. If this condition is not given or if we don't understand arguments as an exchange of ideas that aims to convince other people and not silence other people, then what is at danger is the very foundation of democracy.

Seeing that, however, requires taking a step back and thinking about what the other side actually said. If necessary, it would even help if people who bash Bush would think if they had reacted in the same way if a democrat had done/said the same thing and vice versa. Hurting people through verbal attacks is always the wrong way to go (and yes, I am aware that I do that at times, too) because it doesn't help resolve the argument. I wonder - in the light of this and other threads on VJ - whether it would be possible to have a thread in which discussion does not end in a shouting match or in an onslaught of personal attacks. Can we - as a community - somehow control our discourse to a degree that would allow an honest and fair exchange of ideas or are we also stuck in the polarization?

I maintain that the root of the problem is in poor standards of education. When I first came here, I was pretty shocked at how totally ignorant even middle class people are, compared with similar people in Europe. I've had to bite my tongue at a lot of dinners with family and family friends when politics has come up (we rarely discuss it, which is fine with me) - you end up coming across as incredibly pompous. For me anyway (coming from a country and culture where it is expected to scrutinise our elected officials), its totally alien to hear people swallow politicians speeches verbatim, or merely repeat talking points that have been bandied about on TV for the past couple weeks.

Back when Bush did his SOTU address, I asked someone if they thought that based on his past performance as an orator, if Bush really understood the issues he was discussing, as opposed to merely reading the autocue or spouting off what others are telling. In answer I was told pretty much "Of course, he's the president". Go figure...

Many people it seems can only understand world affairs through how they affect US. It never ceases to amaze me each time I read the letters page of the LA Times (itself a pretty liberal paper) and see people praising the troops in Iraq for 'protecting our freedom' and 'fighting terrorists over there, so we don't have fight them here'. Noble sentiments perhaps, but they totally ignore the broad discourse on the morality of the iraq war. It was as if those arguments had never been put into the public domain at all.

My view is that in the absence of decent education, people turn to the media (and religion) to fill the gap. That in itself is squashing independent thought and rational public discourse - there's something very Orwellian about that - nothing new there. In fact, I would go so far as to say that US network media is a reflection of the general of education in the US. Why else are the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Al Franken so popular?

If the electorate as a whole were better educated, and had a greater interest in current affairs outside of the US, the likes of GWB would likely never have been elected. Add to that most of the folks in the senate would probably be out on their ear too... We'd be demanding a 'better class of liar' I guess But that would be no bad thing IMO.

How does someone on welfare get a raise????????

Have another kid!!!!

Perhaps they choose to get a job. Or perhaps... perhaps they choose to have an abortion so that they aren't saddled with a child they don't want and can't afford without government assistance.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I maintain that the root of the problem is in poor standards of education. When I first came here, I was pretty shocked at how totally ignorant even middle class people are, compared with similar people in Europe. I've had to bite my tongue at a lot of dinners with family and family friends when politics has come up (we rarely discuss it, which is fine with me) - you end up coming across as incredibly pompous. For me anyway (coming from a country and culture where it is expected to scrutinise our elected officials), its totally alien to hear people swallow politicians speeches verbatim, or merely repeat talking points that have been bandied about on TV for the past couple weeks.

Back when Bush did his SOTU address, I asked someone if they thought that based on his past performance as an orator, if Bush really understood the issues he was discussing, as opposed to merely reading the autocue or spouting off what others are telling. In answer I was told pretty much "Of course, he's the president". Go figure...

Many people it seems can only understand world affairs through how they affect US. It never ceases to amaze me each time I read the letters page of the LA Times (itself a pretty liberal paper) and see people praising the troops in Iraq for 'protecting our freedom' and 'fighting terrorists over there, so we don't have fight them here'. Noble sentiments perhaps, but they totally ignore the broad discourse on the morality of the iraq war. It was as if those arguments had never been put into the public domain at all.

My view is that in the absence of decent education, people turn to the media (and religion) to fill the gap. That in itself is squashing independent thought and rational public discourse - there's something very Orwellian about that - nothing new there. In fact, I would go so far as to say that US network media is a reflection of the general of education in the US. Why else are the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Al Franken so popular?

If the electorate as a whole were better educated, and had a greater interest in current affairs outside of the US, the likes of GWB would likely never have been elected. Add to that most of the folks in the senate would probably be out on their ear too... We'd be demanding a 'better class of liar' I guess But that would be no bad thing IMO.

You're right on target, Fishdude, and we basically agree on this. I have had very similar experiences in the US with family and friends and I'm basically resigned to not say too much when some hot button issue is raised. That, however, is not how I was raised and it is not very comforting or satisfying at all, nor do I think it is the right thing to do (but explain that to my Southern relatives). Education is the BIG problem in this whole US politics mess. But the question I was trying to raise is how can we contribute to a better educated public? People on VJ are for the most part pretty well educated, but we still end up with the basic equations of polarized culture.

It sure would be great if there were major changes to the educational system, but from my experience in education it's not going to happen because the same uneducated bigmouths who run the country (of all major political parties) sit on the school boards and the university boards. Rather than increasing the number of hours that students at an American university spend in classrooms where they actually learn critical thinking (such as in introductory writing classes), most universities do the opposite despite the fact that even employers have caught on to the fact that US-graduates lack critical-thinking skills. And the current right-wing attack on university education hidden behind the pleasing moniker "student bill of rights" is already making things worse because most professors have no wish to make the black list. So, there needs to be another way to compensate for the lack of education that is more short term and immediate.

I have no idea how to achieve that but I think that it would help to use VJ - as much as that is possible on an internet forum - as an example for fact-based political discourse. It has to start somewhere and there is no reason why it couldn't start here. So, would that be desirable or is it just this silly idea I have? And if it is desirable, how could we go about establishing a different culture of argument?

[dalegg 143]

As to the religious rights' uncompromising attitude in terms of being pro-life I do have a question: how is it possible that large parts of the religious right support the death penalty and war both of which not only violate the fifth commendment but also many of Jesus' teachings. Why does being pro-life stop for the religious right when the baby is delivered? Isn't that a compromise?

I know you retracted this statement because the Bible supports capital punishment. However, the way I see it, a Christians beliefs are supposed to follow primarily the laws set out by Christ and not those set out in the old testament except for the ten commandments. Christ teaches forgiveness and reliance on God's justice instead of attempting to mete out justice in God's name. I'm not saying you are wrong because I don't know nor is it my job to question you religious beliefs.

There are also verses in the New Testament that support Capitol Punishment. What I'm saying is that this is how the religious right justifies supporting Capitol Punishment and condemning abortion at the same time. Abortion is clearly a sin. I don't think anyone debates that, and the bible-both old and new has versus that support capitol punishment. Sure it has verses that seem to promote forgiveness also, but if it was really black and white one way or the other I think Christians would be more united on the issue. What you can do for me is explain why there are groups on the left that support abortion rights at any trimester without any reason other than it is the mother's choice, but at the same time condemn Capitol Punishment in every single case-even those where there is no debating the guilt of the criminal.

I separate Catholics because there are fundamental differences between mainstreem Christianity and Catholicism- Like the debate on the Holy Trinity. You are also more likely to find higher ranking Catholics opposing the death penalty than other Christians. Don't ask me why that is.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

That's probably because the pope is as unequivocally opposed to the death penalty as he is abortion.

The media never ask pro-choice/pro-death penalty catholic candidates how they reconcile their death penalty stance with their catholicism, however.

I separate Catholics because there are fundamental differences between mainstreem Christianity and Catholicism- Like the debate on the Holy Trinity. You are also more likely to find higher ranking Catholics opposing the death penalty than other Christians. Don't ask me why that is.