The Weasel King ([info]theweaselking) wrote,
@ 2006-03-01 11:36:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
For those living in the US: A do-it-yourself how-to on abortion.

Speaking of which, Mississippi to ban all abortion.

(Post a new comment)


[info]takhisis
2006-03-01 05:02 pm UTC (link)
Wow.

See, I'm just looking at having my junk ripped out entirely, to avoid the possibility since I won't have any options soon. :/

(Reply to this)

[info]rimrunner
2006-03-01 05:13 pm UTC (link)
Hmm.

If Steven Levitt is right, we can look forward to an increased crime rate. Oh, yay!

I'm so glad I live in Washington.

(Reply to this)

[info]torrain
2006-03-01 05:21 pm UTC (link)
Bondurant proposed allowing exceptions for cases of rape and incest, but the committee didn't agree.

I think I'm going to vomit.

Can I vomit now?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]mzdemonique
2006-03-01 05:34 pm UTC (link)
How about a group-vomit? On the Mississippi's committee's lap.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]torrain
2006-03-01 06:36 pm UTC (link)
Can I mail that, or will the US postal service[1] not deliver it?
---
[1] Which has the coolest damn logo.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
I don't see anything against vomit
[info]mzdemonique
2006-03-01 06:48 pm UTC (link)
Keep the Mail Safe: Hazardous and Restricted Materials
Some things cannot be mailed or can be mailed only in small quantities for safety and legal reasons. Call 1·800·ASK·USPS or visit your Post Office if you have questions about the item you are mailing. Restricted materials include:
· Aerosol cans
· Alcoholic beverages
· Ammunition
· Drug paraphernalia
· Fireworks
· Flammable or explosive materials
· Illegal or infectious substances
· Lottery tickets
· Poisonous materials

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]vagabond27
2006-03-01 05:50 pm UTC (link)
Well, it is Mississippi, without rape and incest babies, they wouldn't really have many.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]vagabond27
2006-03-01 05:50 pm UTC (link)
Crap, I was thinking of Innsmouth, sorry.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]rimrunner
2006-03-01 05:58 pm UTC (link)
Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]torrain
2006-03-01 06:39 pm UTC (link)
...I need to go get coffee so I can do a spit-take now, thank you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]ryusen
2006-03-01 05:55 pm UTC (link)
What gets me that people seem to ignore is that this is another serious case of regligion vs law. As i understand it, sciencists and doctors consider life to start at birth, it is only religioous groups (and i have heard people citing the bible on this) that say life starts at conception.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]zenten
2006-03-01 06:06 pm UTC (link)
I have to disagree here. Religious groups can have several different answers on this (if you're going from the bible I think it's actualy several weeks in under some interpretations), and a good scientist would say "That's a stupid question".

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ryusen
2006-03-01 06:09 pm UTC (link)
my experience with pro-lifers is that they are almost exclusively supported by religious groups and beliefs. sure there are awalys exceptions, but that seems to be the general case.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jsbowden
2006-03-01 06:50 pm UTC (link)
There's a nice man New Mexico who has a doctorate in Nuclear Engineering and is a very staunch atheist who also happens to be against abortion, and he's got very nice chain of logic to back it up. It's an ethics question for him. I'm pretty sure he doesn't advocate laws against it despite his personal feelings on the subject. John, you were around on rasfwr-j for that, if memory serves. Unless I'm way off base here, I'm remembering Jim's stance and attitude on the subject correctly.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ryusen
2006-03-01 06:52 pm UTC (link)
Yeah there are always exceptions and maybe my assesment is off, because i have only been arguing with religious types? Or maybe it is only the religious fundies who are so vocal about making laws to ban it?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]theweaselking
2006-03-01 09:28 pm UTC (link)
I might have been around for it, but I don't remember it.

I can understand a well-though-out non-religious position against abortion. I just don't know of anyone who holds one agitating for banning abortion - they most often tend to go with Bill Clinton's position, which is that ideally abortion should be safe, legal, available, and vanishingly rare.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]silmaril
2006-03-01 09:59 pm UTC (link)
I vaguely remember that about Jim's position, but not completely.

And I so do not want to do a USENET search now, even though Google Groups would make it relatively painless. It would require reading more about things that currently raise my blood pressure way too high already.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]torrain
2006-03-01 06:39 pm UTC (link)
Hrm. I would like references for that; it strikes me that if that were a strict position, then someone would have used it as a foundation to argue that anyone born by C-section is not alive, as it was not "birth".

But seriously, I've never heard that given as a hard-and-fast rule, and I'm under the impression that at least some scientists will argue for the beginning of independant brain activity (in the third trimester) to mark the beginning of life.

(BTW, are you distinguishing between life and human life?)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ryusen
2006-03-01 06:42 pm UTC (link)
References on the religious views? that's stuff that's come up in forum debates and such i've participated in over the years. If i see it come up again, i'll try and save the link.

As for the science thing. yeah i can concede to the brain activity thing, but the main point is that most of the anti-abortion arguments i hear sooner or later fall back to the belief that life beging at or shortly after conception and that's more of a religious basis. man, i wish i saved some of those old posts now.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]torrain
2006-03-01 08:19 pm UTC (link)
No, silly. :) References on doctors and scientists believing life starts at birth. I mean, in addition to the C-section thing, if they all believed that, wouldn't you have run across doctors explaining that they don't give a damn about how much you drink or smoke during pregnancy since their job is to care for things that are alive and your fetus doesn't qualify by definition?

Most of the arguments I hear are more about human life than life--you can certainly get anti-abortionists who don't eat meat, don't wear leather, etcetera, but I find they're rarer. I don't think most doctors or scientists will dispute that a fetus is alive before birth, and they may well believe that said point is shortly after conception--I mean, it's taking nutrition, cells are growing, biological processes are enacting like crazy. It can't reproduce, but then neither can mules or women in menopause.

This is why I asked if you were distinguishing between life and human life. The arguments I hear don't revolve around life beginning at conception; they revolve around *human* life beginning at conception, which is a vast distinction that is all too often glossed over.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ryusen
2006-03-01 08:24 pm UTC (link)
No i don't. You are right though, if i looked more into it i coudl find many different opinions (as Josh already pointed out). I do think that even if life began at birth, doctors would still care about drinking and smoking, because it will have affects that will carry over to when the baby is older.

I never thought about distinguishing between human life nad life in general, but i guess for purposes of this kind of morality, we do distinguish. I have no idea if it's right or wrong.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…