The W
Views: 99935626
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.10.07 2247
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Partial Birth Abortions Banned
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next(1234 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (95 total)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 2480/5403
EXP: 27157711
For next: 695029

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#21 Posted on 24.10.03 1706.29
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1709.05
    Originally posted by kgriffey79
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      I am pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion. Making things illegal doesn't stop them. My wife and I decide long ago that abortion is unaceptable for us unless her life/health were in danger.


    How can you be pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion? I mean, I could understand if somebody said that they were anti-drugs but were for drug legalization. But abortions don't just affect one life. The baby doesn't have any say in any of this. It can't.
    I guess I've just never understood how people can consider a growing, living baby, inside the womb, part of the "woman". I guess I don't have the mental capacity for it.

When I order breakfast, I don't order baby chickens, I order eggs. If they brought me a small chicken, I would send it back, as they are 2 different things. I don't consider a parasitic organism, which at its core is what a fetus is, to be a human being. Therefore I believe the host organism deserves the primary protection under our system of law.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 3133/16298
EXP: 142645731
For next: 721176

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#22 Posted on 24.10.03 1714.33
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1715.01
    Originally posted by spf2119
    When I order breakfast, I don't order baby chickens, I order eggs. If they brought me a small chicken, I would send it back, as they are 2 different things. I don't consider a parasitic organism, which at its core is what a fetus is, to be a human being. Therefore I believe the host organism deserves the primary protection under our system of law.
While I appreciate this argument, I REALLY which you'd found a different set of words. (the collective) You've done pretty well keeping emotion out of this argument, but now I'm getting anxious.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1093/1180
EXP: 2770000
For next: 99758

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3475 days
Last activity: 3469 days
#23 Posted on 24.10.03 1805.50
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1807.12
"They are never capable of survival in that case, but are very difficult to deliver normally. Either the mother undergoes major abdominal surgery under anesthetic, or she undergoes a "partial-birth abortion", far less traumatic to her reproductive organs."

Madam Manga, I would like to tackle your position on this issue. Are we really placing the *life* of the mother in that much jeopardy by having her undergo an abdominal surgery in order to avoid taking the life of the child here? The scenario you describe doesn't seem to be very equivalent to, say, a tubal pregnancy, where if an "abortion" (destruction of the very small fetus stuck inside a woman's fallopian tube) isn't performed, the mother AND the child will most surely die. I think you may see this distinction without knowing it, for later on you said:

"If I had an unborn baby that was diagnosed as having a fatal defect, I would probably allow the pregnancy to continue anyway, all other things being equal. There is value in all life, even such brief sparks as a child that will inevitably be stillborn. Even only being able to hold him or her in my arms for a few minutes would be infinitely better than the alternative--for ME.

Letting me die too just to avoid intervention wouldn't be a positive good, in my opinion. However, I have heard about women who continued pregnancies that were almost sure to kill them. I applaud that kind of courage...but I also question it. Martyrdom can never be a *requirement* for anyone."

Who would be "letting you die" if the baby (or babies) were surgically removed through your stomach? Can't we just say that is one of the dangers involved with such a pregnancy, but that we are doing everything we can to save both lives in this instance? Hopefully you don't agree with creating a "health" of the mother exception, which as others have noted can be drawn very broadly to include not wanting to have a surgery scar to upset your bikini line.

You made the best case I've seen for allowing PBAs in some circumstances, but I still don't think it adds up. The fact is that it is a barbaric practice which is done soly for selective reasons. Good riddens to them. Our country will be better off.

DMC
Madame Manga
Kolbasz
Level: 47

Posts: 256/482
EXP: 722592
For next: 43617

Since: 16.1.02
From: Silicon Valley

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 16 days
#24 Posted on 25.10.03 1902.59
Reposted on: 25.10.10 1903.21
    Originally posted by DMC
    Madam Manga, I would like to tackle your position on this issue. Are we really placing the *life* of the mother in that much jeopardy by having her undergo an abdominal surgery in order to avoid taking the life of the child here? The scenario you describe doesn't seem to be very equivalent to, say, a tubal pregnancy, where if an "abortion" (destruction of the very small fetus stuck inside a woman's fallopian tube) isn't performed, the mother AND the child will most surely die.


I am not a medical professional, BTW. This is from my own research, since I am particularly interested in pregnancy and childbirth, including birth defects.

Yes, a caesarean is a major and risky operation, especially when done under emergency circumstances and not planned ahead of time. It is not routine, even if some aspects of American medical practice have made it seem so. In addition, a caesarean cannot be performed after a baby has moved down into the birth canal and become irretriveably stuck. At that point, the delivery WILL kill the mother unless the baby's body is dismembered and removed. You can watch them both die in agony, or you can save the mother. The baby is doomed in a case like that; there is nothing else to be done.

I wouldn't want to have to do something like that, God knows. I didn't go to med school, so I don't have to. Those who did, and who have been trained to save lives, sometimes have to do things that most people would shrink from in horror. I understand why people are horrified by this procedure--it wouldn't be human not to be. But the alternatives to it, if it is actually made illegal to do everything possible to save the mother, could be worse.

You might not realize that childbirth and everything associated with it still kills many young women in the USA, especially non-whites, the poor and the uninsured. Medical advances have done a lot to improve female life expectancy, but pregnancy is the biggest physical risk that most women will ever take. I'm lucky--I had relatively uncomplicated and short labors and healthy children. I have several friends who have undergone childbirths that would have killed them if they had lived a hundred years ago.


    Who would be "letting you die" if the baby (or babies) were surgically removed through your stomach? Can't we just say that is one of the dangers involved with such a pregnancy, but that we are doing everything we can to save both lives in this instance?


I was speaking *only* of cases in which a child is too deformed to live or when the pregnancy or childbirth severely threatens the mother. There is no point, in my opinion, in trying to "save" a baby that has developed without a brain, or has merged with his twin to such an extent that neither can survive. Yes, even with the best surgical skills, there is nothing that can be done for conjoined twins who share a heart.


    Hopefully you don't agree with creating a "health" of the mother exception, which as others have noted can be drawn very broadly to include not wanting to have a surgery scar to upset your bikini line.


There are far worse consequences possible short of death, such as destroying a woman's ability to have any more children. Or leaving her mutilated and incontinent, or paralyzed, or in an irreversible coma. I'm not making this up. It still happens. But no matter what the risks are, whose decision is it? The mother's and her doctor's, or someone else's utterly unconnected to them?


    You made the best case I've seen for allowing PBAs in some circumstances, but I still don't think it adds up. The fact is that it is a barbaric practice which is done soly for selective reasons. Good riddens to them. Our country will be better off.


Here is an excerpt from this week's Economist, page 28. The Economist, for those who don't know it, is a venerable and respected British news and business magazine. Warning: more disturbing medical facts. My emphasis added.

"Partial-birth abortion: Back to the courts"

[....]

[A]s a legal matter, it raises significant questions about what is actually being banned. "Partial-birth abortion" is a political, not a medical, term. The medical procedure is "dilatation and extraction" (D&X), a rare operation performed in the second trimester. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group, there were 2,200 D&X abortions in 2000, out of 1.3 million overall. The law appears to ban only one unusual form of abortion.

Its opponents deny that. They make two criticisms. First, they say, the law is imprecise. Had Congress wished to ban D&X alone, it should have defined the procedure medically. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled on a similar law in Nebraska. On that occasion, the high court spelled out what it considered D&X to be. The new law could have used the court's definition. It did not. Rather, it defines the crime broadly as "performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."

This, critics allege, could be stretched to cover other procedures. D&X is a variant of a much commoner form of abortion called "dilatation and evacuation" (D&E). With D&X, the fetus is partially delivered, then destroyed. With D&E, the fetus is destroyed in the womb and pulled out in pieces. D&E accounts for over 90% of second-trimester abortions, so, critics claim, the new law could be much broader in scope than appears at first sight. They point out Nebraska's law was struck down on partly grounds of imprecision. The new law should be too.

Second, they claim, even if the law were precise, it would still be questionable. In some circumstances, perhaps unforeseen, D&X would be the safest course for the mother. The framers of the law deal with this by asserting that D&X can never be justified on safety grounds. That has legal ramifications. Under Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that any abortion law must allow exceptions for the life and health of the mother. This one does not.

[....]

In other words, this law is nothing but a political football. I am not interested in the propaganda on either side; I am interested in saving unborn babies AND their mothers. This law will not accomplish what it sets out to do; it is a way for politicians to look sincere by voting for a measure that will almost inevitably not survive court review. If they truly want to do something about the undoubted abortion problem in this country (1.3 million a year!) they will find another way.

MM
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 42/2703
EXP: 8923986
For next: 64833

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#25 Posted on 25.10.03 2239.44
Reposted on: 25.10.10 2240.23
Madame Manga, the last paragraph of your previous post says it perfectly. If the politicians wanted to reduce the number of abortions in this country they would get it done. This is simply too great a hot button issue to ever really solve until the citizens of this country make it clear we want to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Life and the creation of life (including the mother's health during pregnancy and childbirth) are too special to be treated as a political issue by either side. My wife had to have a cesarian section and even though it was not a dire emergency and it went well, it is a serious procedure.

What has amazed me in this thread is that this has been a civil discourse on the issue. It's too bad we as a country can't be this civil. Maybe if we were, we could start to solve this problem.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 623/6335
EXP: 33454698
For next: 665400

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 2 days
#26 Posted on 26.10.03 0442.22
Reposted on: 26.10.10 0443.19
Being a guy, I will never face the horror of having to make a decision like that. However, I feel that a woman should have access to an abortion if she feels she needs one.

Partial birth abortions are gruesome. But, if they are needed, I dont see why they should not be available.

The only way to end abortion is for all the people who protest so vehemently(is that spelled right?) against them, to take pregant women who want abortions, pay thier medical bills, and adopt thier babies. (in other words, put thier MONEY where their MOUTHS are)
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1095/1180
EXP: 2770000
For next: 99758

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3475 days
Last activity: 3469 days
#27 Posted on 27.10.03 1649.10
Reposted on: 27.10.10 1649.16
"In addition, a caesarean cannot be performed after a baby has moved down into the birth canal and become irretriveably stuck. At that point, the delivery WILL kill the mother unless the baby's body is dismembered and removed."

I would need to see some hard evidence on this. Is it true that, in this instance, there is nothing that be reasonably done to save both the mother and the baby's life? The mother will *absolutely* die, or, say, has more than a 50% chance of dying? There is no type of delicate but non-lethal surgical procedure that can be performed that will allow us to try and save both lives equally?

Look, I understand to some extent that carrying a baby and giving birth to one is a complex and very difficult process, although as a man I will obviously never have to go through that. But my position is that this is not an excuse to take another person's life unless it really is absolutely clear that *death* of the mother *is* the alternative. We're never going to be able to guarantee a pain free, problem free birth of children. Coming in and going out of life are often very hard experiences for all involved. I don't believe it is right to face these experiences by resorting to murder, either of yourself or another.

If there is no reasonably safe alternative to abortion in the above situation you describe, then I would be for allowing the taking of the child's life. But I don't see how this partial birth abortion ban really applies. It seems to be talking about partially delivering babies and then killing them with only the head or upper body inside the mother. (Presumably, from what I can make of this, this is probably done most often because the mother personally does not want to have the baby killed and torn apart while inside of her, or because there are other complications to doing such a late term abortion for selective reasons.)

When is it ever detrimental to the mother's life to have a head inside of her? If there is some type of deformity or enlarged head that wasn't caught in time, or if delivery of such a baby began without proper medical supervision, then I assume the baby would eventually die in the same position unless some type of critical but necessary surgery were performed to remove the child completely. Once the baby dies unfortunately but naturally, *then* you could do whatever was necessary to remove it from the birth canal. Obviously though, I would like to know if there are any physicians who agree with this type of scenario, or if it has ever happened.

DMC

(edited by DMC on 27.10.03 1558)
Madame Manga
Kolbasz
Level: 47

Posts: 260/482
EXP: 722592
For next: 43617

Since: 16.1.02
From: Silicon Valley

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 16 days
#28 Posted on 27.10.03 2019.20
Reposted on: 27.10.10 2020.44
As I said, I'm not a doctor. I cannot refer you to medical texts. But I would tend to give a surgeon the benefit of the doubt to know what is possible and what is not, given the current state of the art. That is what he is trained for.

I do not know why some legislators feel it incumbent upon themselves to try to practice medicine on the floor of Congress. It is not their proper sphere of business. Congress would be within its rights to criminalize all abortions not necessary to save the mother's life within narrow bounds and define the act otherwise as murder. That is a matter of law (even if laws may be reviewed by courts and are not always uniformly enforceable).

The specific *method* of abortion is a matter of medicine. Every method leads to the same result in the end. If you are appalled by the idea of killing a half-delivered child that might otherwise have survived, then apply a consistent and logical test; killing a viable fetus for non-vital reasons, no matter what its location, must also be appalling. Half-measures vaguely enacted will only confuse the issue.

But there you go; it is also the business of politicians to obfuscate.

MM
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1097/1180
EXP: 2770000
For next: 99758

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3475 days
Last activity: 3469 days
#29 Posted on 27.10.03 2043.38
Reposted on: 27.10.10 2044.24
The problem is that the *method* is not necessary. I can paste a number of quotes from medical professionals who have testified to this throughout the years. But I think your insight on the logical and moral implications of this ban are correct. It basically only makes sense if it is seen as a step toward banning all such abortions, which it no doubt is. Whether the life movement will ever be able to accomplish that is questionable, but you can't fault them for at least (hopefully) succeeding in getting rid of this inhuman practice.

Apparently the majority of pregnancies that are (were)terminiated by this method were Down's syndrome babies. I think we owe more to these precious children than to consider their lives so worthless that we wish to kill them on the operating table.

DMC
wordlife
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 107/324
EXP: 378834
For next: 25941

Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3361 days
Last activity: 2645 days
#30 Posted on 28.10.03 1614.47
Reposted on: 28.10.10 1615.35
The overall problem to me with this, is that these pro-life Christian wackos are now pushing for abortions bans on people that have been raped or had incest on them (this is prolly the first time in my life that I believe this could happen). Personally, I hope one of these bible-thumping assholes ends up with their 16 year old daughter raped then has to deal with the kid and basically her life ruined forever.

As for DMC's comment regarding down-syndrome children, do you realize how hard one of these children are to deal with? I have worked with these kids in the past, and it takes a really REALLY special parent to deal with one of them, some, actually most in my opinion, people just cannot deal with the time and energy that these parents put in. I honestly would rather see the child get aborted than have a parent that will neglect it and/or regret it for the rest of their lives.

Furthermore, if abortion is banned, do you realize the burden that our financially strapped county will have to bear? I mean jesus, there are already enough children out there that no one wants (and not letting same-sex couples adopt children in the country is arguably one of the stupidest thing our Christian abortion groups are doing) and then to add to all this we have to clothe, feed, give medical coverage, house, educate the mothers of all of these kids? If anyone didn't notice, our country is hemorraging money up the wazoo and these republicans jackasses are approving things like this?

I am going to pose this question, for the people who are opposed to abortion, please explain to me why you are opposed to it and how you would finance all of these new children that would now need public support (and RAISING TAXES IS NOT AN OPTION b/c Joe US taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for "other people's fun")?
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 58/2703
EXP: 8923986
For next: 64833

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#31 Posted on 28.10.03 1631.40
Reposted on: 28.10.10 1634.29
    Originally posted by wordlife
    The overall problem to me with this, is that these pro-life Christian wackos are now pushing for abortions bans on people that have been raped or had incest on them (this is prolly the first time in my life that I believe this could happen). Personally, I hope one of these bible-thumping assholes ends up with their 16 year old daughter raped then has to deal with the kid and basically her life ruined forever.

    As for DMC's comment regarding down-syndrome children, do you realize how hard one of these children are to deal with? I have worked with these kids in the past, and it takes a really REALLY special parent to deal with one of them, some, actually most in my opinion, people just cannot deal with the time and energy that these parents put in. I honestly would rather see the child get aborted than have a parent that will neglect it and/or regret it for the rest of their lives.

    Furthermore, if abortion is banned, do you realize the burden that our financially strapped county will have to bear? I mean jesus, there are already enough children out there that no one wants (and not letting same-sex couples adopt children in the country is arguably one of the stupidest thing our Christian abortion groups are doing) and then to add to all this we have to clothe, feed, give medical coverage, house, educate the mothers of all of these kids? If anyone didn't notice, our country is hemorraging money up the wazoo and these republicans jackasses are approving things like this?

    I am going to pose this question, for the people who are opposed to abortion, please explain to me why you are opposed to it and how you would finance all of these new children that would now need public support (and RAISING TAXES IS NOT AN OPTION b/c Joe US taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for "other people's fun")?


In order, I hope you don't really wish ill on anyone but spoke in frustration. The sad thing is these people's children often end up in just that situation.

I agree some aren't able to handle challenged children, however, I hope that we never make these decisions based upon what we can afford but what is right. I agree that banning gay couple's adopting is not wise and adoption should simply be based on whether or not a good home can be provided. However, I disagree about no one wanting them in the sense that healthy babies are eagerly adotped. Look at how many are willing to adopt babies from overseas just to have a baby

They are not necessarily jackasses but people who have blinders on due to deeply held beliefs (or a political agenda). They are no different than the pro-choice jackasses out there.

Finally, you pose the wrong question as the real qustion is figuring out how to eliminate unwanted pregnancies so these "people" you mention can have their "fun" without making the unwanted babies that result and suffer.

I am pro-choice and against abortion except under certain circumstances. I just want to eliminate the need.
wordlife
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 108/324
EXP: 378834
For next: 25941

Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3361 days
Last activity: 2645 days
#32 Posted on 29.10.03 1521.12
Reposted on: 29.10.10 1527.43
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I am pro-choice and against abortion except under certain circumstances. I just want to eliminate the need.




Dr Dirt, so which are you?

The sad thing is that one of those people will go and get the abortion b/c they have a "friend", something that Jane Average doesn't have the advantage of doing.

Dr Dirt, do you know the amount of older unadopted children there are, thousands. You really think its fair to these kids that they have to live their lives in foster homes? I don't.

Dr Dirt, as a male, why do you feel that you have the right to decide what a woman is doing with her body?



(edited by CRZ on 29.10.03 1639)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 65/2703
EXP: 8923986
For next: 64833

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#33 Posted on 29.10.03 1622.57
Reposted on: 29.10.10 1625.10
    Originally posted by wordlife
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      I am pro-choice and against abortion except under certain circumstances. I just want to eliminate the need.




    Dr Dirt, so which are you?

    The sad thing is that one of those people will go and get the abortion b/c they have a "friend", something that Jane Average doesn't have the advantage of doing.

    Dr Dirt, do you know the amount of older unadopted children there are, thousands. You really think its fair to these kids that they have to live their lives in foster homes? I don't.

    Dr Dirt, as a male, why do you feel that you have the right to decide what a woman is doing with her body?




Wordlife, please read my previous posts and hopefully you will understand where I stand. Your example is why I don't wont to go back to the "good old days." I agree that older children seeking adoption are often screwed but babies for adoption are at a premium. The fact is that I am a man (I think) and do not feel that I or society have the right to make that choice for a woman, only with my wife. My goal is to minimize the need for that choice not impose my morality on other people.

(edited by CRZ on 29.10.03 1640)
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1100/1180
EXP: 2770000
For next: 99758

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3475 days
Last activity: 3469 days
#34 Posted on 30.10.03 1127.38
Reposted on: 30.10.10 1128.21
"My goal is to minimize the need for that choice not impose my morality on other people."

Ouch...how do you do that?

DMC
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 68/2703
EXP: 8923986
For next: 64833

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#35 Posted on 30.10.03 1321.15
Reposted on: 30.10.10 1326.58
    Originally posted by DMC
    "My goal is to minimize the need for that choice not impose my morality on other people."

    Ouch...how do you do that?

    DMC



DMC, here are some ideas and not necessarily new. Also not necessarily easy but if we could agree and work together they would help.

1. Real sex education, including abstinence
2. More research on new and improved birth control methods.
3. Availabilty of birth control regardless of age.
4. Programs after school to insure kids have less time to get into trouble while their parents are at work.
5. Parents stepping up and taking more repsonsibilty for their children and being more active in their lives and with sex ed.
6. Changing perceptions about pregnancy and unwed motherhood. For example, no more high school teachers throwing baby showers, etc. I am not saying they should be treated like pariahs and shunned but take the apparent glamor out of it.
7. Real balanced counseling for adults reagarding birth sontrol and abortion. With emphasis for healthy women that adoption while not easy may be the right choice.
8. Legislation that fathers are at the least heavily responsible monetarily. And they forfeit their freedom if they are not. Perhaps they have to work government jobs if they have none with the money going to the kid. Also mothers have no say in this process, the money will be collected.
9. Find a way to take away the cred for knocking up women.
10. As a society maybe we could start protraying sexual responsibilty from the home and community up through the entertainment industry. I am not talking censorship. The market place can affect this change.
11. Find a way to break the cycle of unwed motherhood/fatherhood. The cahnces of a boy or girl ending up in this situation grow exponentially if their parents were unwed mothers/fathers. Not easy but it can be done.

Are they free no, but the overall human and monetary cost would be less. There are more but this is a start.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1101/1180
EXP: 2770000
For next: 99758

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3475 days
Last activity: 3469 days
#36 Posted on 30.10.03 1412.19
Reposted on: 30.10.10 1419.53
Dr., I think you missed my point. Any of those measures you proposed could be seen as "imposing morality on others." The fact is that we do such things all the time on society. Pro-choice folks and others constantly use this rhetoric about "imposing morality," and its a false ploy. What you really mean is that a *particular* morality you don't like should not be imposed. But you can't fault the pro-life camp for doing so in general.

DMC
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 907/1528
EXP: 4084428
For next: 106720

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2829 days
Last activity: 2672 days
AIM:  
#37 Posted on 30.10.03 1612.56
Reposted on: 30.10.10 1615.37
You know, Dirt, I like that last post but I can't see for the life of me how you do that. Perhaps rap artist Dr. Dirt can release an LP. You could include inspirational tracks about always wearing condoms to avoid that baby momma drama. Hell, Snoop Dogg was pioneer here, with his "pocketfull of rubbers," and STILL illegitimacy rises.

On a serious note, though, uh... when was the last time the government solved any kind of social ill? Was it prohibition? The war on drugs? Did the New Deal or the Great Society eradicate poverty?
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 71/2703
EXP: 8923986
For next: 64833

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#38 Posted on 30.10.03 2310.56
Reposted on: 30.10.10 2315.26
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    You know, Dirt, I like that last post but I can't see for the life of me how you do that. Perhaps rap artist Dr. Dirt can release an LP. You could include inspirational tracks about always wearing condoms to avoid that baby momma drama. Hell, Snoop Dogg was pioneer here, with his "pocketfull of rubbers," and STILL illegitimacy rises.

    On a serious note, though, uh... when was the last time the government solved any kind of social ill? Was it prohibition? The war on drugs? Did the New Deal or the Great Society eradicate poverty?


First to DMC. You are right in that some will view this as imposing morality on others. By imposing "my" moralityI mean that I wish no laws passed mandating my views on others. Two reasons. One it works for me but likely not for others and two, imposing standards of behavior over issues such as drinking, drugs, and abortion just doesn't work. In reality, a society must have a group morality of certain basic tenets we can all agree on are right and wrong (robbery, murder, etc.) or it is in danger of disintegrating. I don't fault sincere pro-life or pro-choice people for their views or wanting them understood and tolerated. Some will want to crucify me but abortion is not a black and white issue but full of shades of gray. My main goal is education and parental involvement but you make a very good point.

Palp, I want as little government involvement as possible except for making deadbeat parents pay up. The New Deal while not eliminating poverty did serve a useful purpose. If LBJ had not gotten sidetracked into the quagmire of Vietnam who knows about the Great Society as it was never really developed into what the original plans were and was distorted over time far away from its original thrust. Examples of government programs that worked pretty well (IMO) include the Cooperative Extension Service, rural electrification program, and the Land-Grant University system. They did much to improve our way of life, help us progress forward technologically, and make us a nation capable of moving from an agrarian through an industrial to a technological society.

Does government screw things up. Sure. But it also does things right. The neo-conservative myth that government is incapable of doing anything right is destructive as is the Liberal myth that government can cure any ill. Rmember that by condeming the government we condem ourselves as we are the government.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1102/1180
EXP: 2770000
For next: 99758

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3475 days
Last activity: 3469 days
#39 Posted on 31.10.03 1654.07
Reposted on: 31.10.10 1655.41
Those who supported slavery and segregationist ideas saw a lot of "shades of gray" on those issues as well. That never stopped our country from imposing a correct moral code into the situation and ending particular social ills. Partial birth abortion is a social ill, or at the very least a social disgrace. It is gone, and this is a GOOD thing, bottom line (and not because Stone Cold said so).

DMC
Madame Manga
Kolbasz
Level: 47

Posts: 263/482
EXP: 722592
For next: 43617

Since: 16.1.02
From: Silicon Valley

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 16 days
#40 Posted on 1.11.03 2015.09
Reposted on: 1.11.10 2017.16
Lawsuits against implementation of the ban have already been filed, and the bill hasn't even been signed yet. The ultimate result of this law will be a long time coming, whatever it turns out to be.

MM
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 NextThread ahead: Jessica Lynch Laments Military Portrayal
Next thread: CNN Planted Questions for "Rock the Vote" Debate
Previous thread: New Political Parties?
(1234 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Partial Birth Abortions BannedRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.21 seconds.