AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-07-09, 01:56   Link #14681
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Mothers should not kill their babies.

Babies are babies, even before they are born.

Not sure why feeling that way makes me an evil moronic nutter, but I feel that way.

It is evil to kill innocent unborn children.
Maybe on a man's side, but at least 99% of all men have fapped at least once in their lives and felt good at it, and I'll seriously jump off a f***ing roof if it ever becomes an official crime for women to have menopause. That's a natural part of life for a woman that is inevitable. Granted, they feel a lot of pain during that time, but it's not like they have any way to stop it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Not sure why the position conservatives have on other issues does anything to change the truth of the above statement. (PS: Lately it's been Obama starting the wars, nor have wars historically been associated with conservatives over liberals- they tend to be equal opportunity offenders. Particularly odd is the way Vietnam cemented the view that conservative = warmonger and liberal = peace despite the fact Vietnam was started by the liberal LBJ, and ended by the semi-conservative Nixon.)
Obama started some wars, yes. It's not like I have any degree of respect for him either. Republicans or Democrats, it hardly makes a difference to me these days. It's like asking me what the difference is b/n a tiger and a lion. Both are fearsome creatures who hunt in similar fashions and will eat your guts if you get too close. That being said, MOST of the wars that are going on right now were not started by Obama, but rather he had to continue them following Bush's activities. A look back in history, the US leaders who got involved in wars around the world were largely Republican: Vietnam, Korea, what have you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
A choice to what I ask. We are not allowed to choose everything we want, lots of laws constrain our choices.
A lot of these laws constrain our choices where they really shouldn't. Choices should, and indeed were once constrained by scarcity of goods and what people can afford with their money/livelihood. But that's another story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Is abortion the only way that a woman can exercise her right to choose if and when to have children?
For the sake of argument, let's assume you're married and you were on a business trip. How would you like it if you found out your wife was raped while you were away and she was waiting a rapists' child. Would you want to keep it if she had every intention of getting an abortion? Forcing her to keep the child would also be a strain on your relationship with her. That's why I believe abortion should be legal. There are situations where it is neccessary for individuals to rely on that sort of thing. Granted, other situations may be different, but as you say, everyone ought to have a choice, and laws shouldn't restrict choices because some may be seen as immoral ones when others don't neccessarily agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
I just have to ask, is abortion really that necessary for it? Couldn't abstinence, birth control and an exception for abortion in the case of rape be sufficient to protect women's choice?
Abstinance doesn't always work, like in the case above. You also mentioned men forcing themselves on women to show their power or manliness (I LOL whenever I think of that as a way to express one's manliness but I digress), and abstinence would be thrown right out the window in such cases. Not everyone knows about protection either, and sometimes, protection downright fails, and if the family can't afford a child, particularly if they end up with one by accident, then abortion becomes rather appealing since it costs much less in the long run.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 05:42   Link #14682
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Mothers should not kill their babies.

Babies are babies, even before they are born.

Not sure why feeling that way makes me an evil moronic nutter, but I feel that way.

It is evil to kill innocent unborn children.

Not sure why the position conservatives have on other issues does anything to change the truth of the above statement. (PS: Lately it's been Obama starting the wars, nor have wars historically been associated with conservatives over liberals- they tend to be equal opportunity offenders. Particularly odd is the way Vietnam cemented the view that conservative = warmonger and liberal = peace despite the fact Vietnam was started by the liberal LBJ, and ended by the semi-conservative Nixon.)

Now... do I recognize that the pro-choice position has some moral arguments in favor? Sure. The argument is simple: Women should have a choice.

A choice to what I ask. We are not allowed to choose everything we want, lots of laws constrain our choices.

Again the answer is obvious: Women have the right to choose if and when they will have children.

I accept that as a god given right of all women. I even view it as an obvious right to be protected under the 10th Amendment, (a much better argument then the idiotic "penumbra of privacy" under the 14th).

But I ask you, is it the only way?

Is abortion the only way that a woman can exercise her right to choose if and when to have children?
Once the woman is pregnant? Yes, pretty much. Now, you can make all the arguments you want about how she shouldn't have let that happen if she wasn't ready and willing to have a kid, and that she got nothing more than she deserved, but I can't help but feel there is something messed up about making pregnancy a punishment.

Quote:
I do not support making birth control illegal, nor do I know of any legitimately powerful group among conservatives that support that. Oh there are a few nutters, but no more so then there are nutters on the left. The vast majority of conservatives use birth control, they aren't going to ban it.

Focusing on those few nutters is a way of ignoring the true moral challenge that abortion raises. Is abortion the only way a woman can exercise her right to choose if and when to have children?

If the answer is no, then isn't a desire to ban abortion a legitimate position? Isn't it instinctively natural to protect babies? Even if they haven't been born yet? Don't we protect pregnant women with a higher effort then we do non-pregnant women? Isn't that instinct a natural thing inside us to protect the pregnant woman first? Doesn't that say that an unborn child has a intrinsic value?

I understand the position of pro-choice people. They want to prevent men from controlling women through forcing them to have children. That's something that has happened historically in the past (although not in America- or at least not to the extent claimed by feminists). It's an understandable thing to be worried about.
Wrong. My position is much simpler: I don't acknowledge embryos or young fetus as "babies". So I don't care what happens to them. Pregnant women, OTOH, are unarguably human beings, with all the rights and responsibility that go with it.

Quote:
I just have to ask, is abortion really that necessary for it? Couldn't abstinence, birth control and an exception for abortion in the case of rape be sufficient to protect women's choice?
A ridiculous, if unfortunately common, position. If you truly think fetuses are babies, then they're babies even in the case of rape. Or would you support the killing of those babies even after they're born?

(And that's not even addressing how insufficient abstinence and birth control have proven themselves.)
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 07:03   Link #14683
Tom Bombadil
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Babies are babies, even before they are born.
Criminals are criminals, even before they commit any crime.

Dead people are dead, even before they die.

Food are poo, even before they are digested and become poo.
Tom Bombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 07:16   Link #14684
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
Mothers should not kill their babies.

Babies are babies, even before they are born.

Not sure why feeling that way makes me an evil moronic nutter, but I feel that way.

It is evil to kill innocent unborn children.
I think it's probably wrong to abort a baby after the first trimester or so (as it is now), but more then that, I think this issue is more complicated then you might think.

1. Extremely young fetuses are little more then a collection of cells, barely a person.
2. A lot of fetuses die in the womb without any human intervention anyway, this is seldom remarked upon.
3. When does a human get created? Is it at conception? When the brain is first formed?
4. Should we start accounting for fetuses in our death statistics, if fetuses are indeed human?

and most of all:

5. In countries where abortion is illegal, it still occurs (and often more frequently due to other birth control being illegal as well), however it is carried out in unsafe manners. Women will always seek out abortions due to a variety of circumstances.

Furthermore, shouldn't a woman have a right over her own body? To be pregnant as she pleases? I don't think the state should legislate this. Most of the women who seek out abortions aren't doing it out of convenience, they're doing it because their circumstances don't allow them to raise the child. This is not a matter where there is popular consensus, a significant (~50%) proportion of the population believes this should be allowed. In cases like that, the government should not legislate morality, and should mind it's own business. In other matters of morality (say theft, or murder) there is unanimous agreement on it, so it's right and proper that the government make it illegal.

The government's laws should be a reflection of the will of the people, and the people simply don't agree. I personally would like to avoid any woman I know having to get an abortion, and if a future wife of mine got pregnant accidentally, I would probably tell her not to do it. But I think it should ultimately be every woman's choice.
DonQuigleone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 08:07   Link #14685
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Heh, wow. Maybe the mods should reopen the abortion thread, if only so that the anti-abortionists can get their asses handed to them all over again.

Ascaloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 08:23   Link #14686
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Over 1,400 arrested, tear gas fired in Malaysia protest
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7680B720110709
Quote:
Malaysian police fired repeated rounds of tear gas and detained over 1,400 people in the capital on Saturday as thousands of activists evaded roadblocks and barbed wire to hold a street protest against Prime Minister Najib Razak's government.
Iran says fires missiles to Indian Ocean for first time
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7680ZZ20110709
A good way to show the other countries their capacity...
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 09:02   Link #14687
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
I just have to ask, is abortion really that necessary for it? Couldn't abstinence, birth control and an exception for abortion in the case of rape be sufficient to protect women's choice?
Abortion is not birth control. You'd be hard pressed to find a pro-choice person who thinks of it in the same light as a condom. Every abortion a woman has is an increased risk to her reproductive and overall health, and that includes mental. Most women don't shrug off a miscarriage, and that is often something beyond their control. Abortion is almost always voluntary, and the woman has to live with that and all the circumstances that led to it.

There are legitimate reasons for abortion, complicated, but legitimate. Simply banning the procedure will do nothing but create even more issues of unsafe and risky procedures and more stories about finding abandoned (and most likely dead) babies in toilets and dumpsters.

You can drastically reduce the need for abortion by working toward a society where rape, incest, teen pregnancy, etc., are diminished or nonexistent, and better medical procedures for mother and fetus health exist. However these topics are rarely on the table in discussions about abortion. People are too focused on if the child should be born or not, and not focused enough on trying to solve the reasons why abortions are needed/wanted and what happens to children after they are born.

In regards to the debt ceiling, people really need to understand what the real problem is. It isn't the debt. It's about power and money: who has it, and how to get more of it. It is every bit as much a wedge issue as abortion, designed to distract you with ethical squabbles, poorly cited statistics, and to keep you from paying attention to the increasing frequency of warnings that things are getting worse, not better.

Even if you go strictly by figures produced by the IMF and CIA, the US is hardly the only country with a high debt ratio. In fact according to the CIA factbook, nearly every nation on the planet not only is in debt, but in a LOT of debt. Debt itself has become a commodity, traded as if it held value, because people will actually invest in debt hoping for some kind of gain.

So what is the real story? Like the official figures about the US unemployment rate (9.2% at the moment), the real numbers are kept quiet for a reason. Despite attempts to regulate information otherwise, China is burning through money fueling a massive economic bubble. The current pace of economic growth they are going through is unsustainable, despite the crowing about now being the second largest economy in the world and how they'll surpass the US soon.

Japan, the former number 2, has an absolutely MASSIVE debt ratio. It remains a strong economy despite nearly two decades of relative stagnation after they crashed. The list gets worse from there. Simply put, world debt is due to create a severe crash in the global economy, and what you are witnessing right now is the final gasps of the capitalistic system as it currently exists trying to remain relevant. It isn't just about regulation or deregulation, but about how long it will take for economists and world leaders to understand that the infinite growth paradigm can't exist in a world with finite resources.

As for Obama possibly overreaching his political power, this isn't news. Presidents have been increasingly doing this for decades. It is troublesome, but no less troublesome than a two party system that increasingly acts as one party despite the public lip service claiming the contrary. By last count there are almost 250 millionaires in Congress. They all have a reason to protect and improve those fortunes.

The "concern" over the debt has nothing to do with preserving or improving the nation as a whole and everything to do with removing what few social safety nets still exist in the country. If you think any cuts from say....Social Security...will actually be used to pay down the debt instead of going right into the pockets of some private party, I want what you're smoking.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 10:07   Link #14688
Tom Bombadil
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post

In regards to the debt ceiling, people really need to understand what the real problem is. It isn't the debt. It's about power and money: who has it, and how to get more of it. It is every bit as much a wedge issue as abortion, designed to distract you with ethical squabbles, poorly cited statistics, and to keep you from paying attention to the increasing frequency of warnings that things are getting worse, not better.

Even if you go strictly by figures produced by the IMF and CIA, the US is hardly the only country with a high debt ratio. In fact according to the CIA factbook, nearly every nation on the planet not only is in debt, but in a LOT of debt. Debt itself has become a commodity, traded as if it held value, because people will actually invest in debt hoping for some kind of gain.
Must say that I don't understand any of this. If you are running a huge debt, and there is no clear indication that it will turn into profit soon hence the debt will keep on growing and growing, but you say there is no problem? So what happens if the debtors want to reclaim their money? Aren't Greece and Portugal
having a hard time because they have too much debt?

Well, sometime ago I read an article on New York Times, which argued that why being in the Euro Zone hurts Iceland, Greece etc. because they don't have the financial tool to reduce their debt: if they had their own currency, then they simply let their currency depreciate. This way, salary are lowered not in numbers by in reality, so are the governments' obligations and the debt, and there won't be any need to go through the austerity measures. It did give some precedence about this or that nation did it in what year etc. So there you go, what happens when a nation is too much in debt. By my limited understanding (correct me if I am wrong), it pretty much means that the nation robs taxes
every household a big chunk of money, the creditors settle for a partial payment, everything become more expensive, and the jobs pay less in quite a few years to come.

As for your example of Japan, one of major difference between Japan and US is that yes, Japan runs huge debt, but mostly to its own people, the US owe a lot to foreign nations, too. Again, I might be wrong on this. But my understanding is that a nation borrows money by issuing bonds, which big banks buy, so for Japan, they are spending the money that's in the system, or in other words, the deposits of their people, where the US are spending other people's money.

Last edited by Tom Bombadil; 2011-07-09 at 10:41.
Tom Bombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 11:41   Link #14689
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
I use the metaphor from agriculture a lot... a MONOculture crop may be more "efficient" in terms of usual yield but it is also prone to huge crashes in the ecosystem and more easily made "extinct". A "world-wide currency" or "Euro-wide" currency may be convenient but.... a disease in one part can potentially stress the rest of the system.

Centralization and trans-national corporate globalization really only makes sense if you're one of the very few who are leeching the profits off of it.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 11:51   Link #14690
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
I use the metaphor from agriculture a lot... a MONOculture crop may be more "efficient" in terms of usual yield but it is also prone to huge crashes in the ecosystem and more easily made "extinct". A "world-wide currency" or "Euro-wide" currency may be convenient but.... a disease in one part can potentially stress the rest of the system.
I'd say the problem lay in taking half-measures. Having only one currency, but no single vision of what that currency should be like, and differing economic policies working at cross purposes didn't really work out for us. But, for example, I don't remember a lot of people complaining about having one currency for all 50 states of the USA.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 11:51   Link #14691
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Indeed. In my line of work, I hear a lot of investors putting money into things like Emerging Market Debt. A lot of it has to do with future projections on what these investments will yield (or what they think will yield). What I think this means is they're basically spending money on debt investments in the hopes of gaining something out of it in the future. It's the same is if you would invest in Equities or Fixed Income, except they have a negative value rather than a positive one. I could be wrong, but I'm sure Saintess would be able to explain this better.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 12:50   Link #14692
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I'd say the problem lay in taking half-measures. Having only one currency, but no single vision of what that currency should be like, and differing economic policies working at cross purposes didn't really work out for us. But, for example, I don't remember a lot of people complaining about having one currency for all 50 states of the USA.
The US had a lot of time to get used to it and the US is one country unlike the EU which is a collation of separate countries.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 14:16   Link #14693
Lord of Fire
The Voice of Reason
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
The US had a lot of time to get used to it
Yeah, but the US has been around longer than the EU. And even the dollar wasn't the currency as we know it today from the get-go. From what I read, it took more than a century to truly set it as the one national currency. The Euro is still relatively new, so it's likely that its current issues are merely a stepping stone to creating a true single and stable currency throughout the EU, like the US dollar.

Quote:
and the US is one country unlike the EU which is a collation of separate countries.
I'd say the idea is the same, though. In the case of the US, you had several individual territories that eventually joined the Union as States. And it took almost 200 years since the American independence to get from 13 to 50 States, during which a Civil War nearly put an end to that. Maybe if the EU manages to hold out that long, things will look very different from now as well.
__________________
Lord of Fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 14:28   Link #14694
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of Fire View Post
I'd say the idea is the same, though. In the case of the US, you had several individual territories that eventually joined the Union as States. And it took almost 200 years since the American independence to get from 13 to 50 States, during which a Civil War nearly put an end to that. Maybe if the EU manages to hold out that long, things will look very different from now as well.
There's a difference between the US states and the EU countries. The states joined with the US not long after the territory won its independence from the British Empire. Even when the US expanded throughout the region, each state was still relatively new in and of itself. The EU countries, on the other hand, have existed for much longer than the colonies in the US region, each one already had its own set of laws, culture, economy and most importantly, its own government. The biggest difference between the EU and the US is that unlike the US, each country that belongs to the EU doesn't answer to a single government, but their own exclusive government. The states of the US do just that, on the other hand, so as hard as it was to establish a single currency in the US, it's that much harder in the EU, especially when some of its members aren't even using the Euro. While the theory behind the EU was for it to work like the US, it cannot unless it has a similar form of government that each of its member nations answers to, which is something I highly doubt any of the member nations would be keen on. Ergo, compared to the EU, the US had a lot of time to get used to it.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 14:33   Link #14695
Solace
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil View Post
But my understanding is that a nation borrows money by issuing bonds, which big banks buy, so for Japan, they are spending the money that's in the system, or in other words, the deposits of their people, where the US are spending other people's money.
Not exactly.

Here's how central banking and fractional reserve works in America. It isn't too different from how other nations produce money, as far as I'm aware:



The important thing to note here is that taxpayer dollars do not fund the government (not directly). They mainly go to two things. One, Social Security and other social safety net programs (chiefly created under FDR's administration). Two, to pay the interest on the national debt.

If you cut funding of taxpayer dollars to Social Security, more taxpayer dollars go to interest on the debt. Who holds the debt? Bankers and investors. Why make sure the rich and large corporations pay as low a tax rate as possible? Because it makes the claims of so called "entitlement" programs like Social Security going bankrupt easier to demonstrate through manipulated statistics, and thus make the case easier to remove them, and because the rich and large corporations would rather keep the money they already have, they benefit from double dipping in tax refunds/loopholes and the interest paid from holding Federal Reserve IOUs.

Cut taxes across the board to the lowest levels in American history, during the largest Recession ever and what could be a future Depression? You make the deficit problem look much worse than it actually is. Now you see one reason why economists say stimulus, massive stimulus, is more important than austerity during economic contraction. You also see how politicians have manipulated a discussion from stimulus to cuts.

Note here that very few people want to get rid of Social Security, they instead advocate making it private. Private means insurance companies, banks, and investors get to control most, if not all, of those programs.

Also note that both the IRS and Federal Reserve are about as "Federal" as Federal Express. They're private organizations, and not a branch of the government. The sole reason they exist is to benefit each other. The Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air, and the IRS collects taxpayer money to service the debt.

You can pretty much follow this logic to its conclusion.

Just a quick edit: In light of this discussion, some might find this article interesting: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42308613/Liby...n_Central_Bank

Yes, in the middle of a revolution, Libyan Rebels formed their own central bank. Now consider that Libya is the only "Arab Spring" country that European and American powers directly intervened in. Think real hard about this.
__________________
Solace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 14:52   Link #14696
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
... (rationalizations snipped)...
I just have to ask, is abortion really that necessary for it? Couldn't abstinence, birth control and an exception for abortion in the case of rape be sufficient to protect women's choice?
Here's the slippery slope of your thoughts .. as in *happening right now* - women being jailed for miscarriages in insane applications of "fetal homicide" feel-good laws passed to punish people who attack pregnant women:
http://rt.com/usa/news/women-shuai-pregnant-life/

Sure, abortion should the last choice... but it should never be off the table and cases like these kind of illuminate the underlying hatred of "uppity women" by factions of social conservatism. They aren't interested in a balanced solution... especially when it comes to ponying up the funds to support the "children of the community".
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 15:02   Link #14697
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Here's the slippery slope of your thoughts .. as in *happening right now* - women being jailed for miscarriages in insane applications of "fetal homicide" feel-good laws passed to punish people who attack pregnant women:
http://rt.com/usa/news/women-shuai-pregnant-life/

Sure, abortion should the last choice... but it should never be off the table and cases like these kind of illuminate the underlying hatred of "uppity women" by factions of social conservatism. They aren't interested in a balanced solution... especially when it comes to ponying up the funds to support the "children of the community".
now where is the Tea party when you need them to protest against a intrusive government.
__________________

Last edited by Xellos-_^; 2011-07-09 at 15:22.
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 15:34   Link #14698
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sackett View Post
I just have to ask, is abortion really that necessary for it? Couldn't abstinence, birth control and an exception for abortion in the case of rape be sufficient to protect women's choice?
Well one that thing that should be considered is that many of the same people who are against abortion are also again the same people who are against sex ed covering things like proper birth control use. So I honestly can say it's not that simple, and most parties involved don't represent my stance on this.


I think your statement needs to be rephrased from "Isn't it already adequate?" to "We need to MAKE this adequate so we don't have to do this other thing"
Roger Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 16:32   Link #14699
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
It will never be adequate. Even discounting medical abortions, you can tell from how well helmet laws are followed how well people take to government mandated prudence.

I suppose technology could make it possible, some day, to really and conveniently control fertility, but even then you'd need put some kind of implant inside every child before they become able to have children. Which is another kettle of fish. And doesn't cover cases like "the mother changed her mind partway".
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-09, 19:41   Link #14700
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Countries in Europe with good family planning initiatives, and legal abortion, have some of the lowest abortion rates on earth. I don't have the statistics for it, but I read it in a newspaper a while back. I'd love to get stats, but I know not where to find them.

@Vexx: I'm astounded that women are being prosecuted for that! It feels a bit ... extreme.

However it's an interesting issue, should a woman be prosecuted for recklessly endangering her foetus, particularly if it's close to birth? I don't think she should if it's unintentional (or as a result of mental illness in the case of Shuai). However this has never been much of a problem previously. Hopefully these trials will go to juries and they'll all throw it out.
DonQuigleone is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.